DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-9 and 12 in the reply filed on October 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112582330 A (‘330).
‘330 teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a substrate support comprising: a conductive base 111 having a flow path 109 through which a fluid for temperature control flows; an electrostatic chuck 110 disposed above the base 111 and having a support surface (top of 106) of the substrate 101 on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck 110; and a metal bonding portion (brazed joint between base and electrostatic chuck) configured to mutually bond the base 111 and the electrostatic chuck 110, wherein the base 111 includes: a main body member 108 having at least one recess 109 configured to define at least a part of a side surface of the flow path and a bottom surface of the flow path (Figure 1); and a heat transfer member 107 configured to define a ceiling surface of the flow path and perform heat transfer between the fluid for temperature control and the electrostatic chuck (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, the heat transfer member 107 is made of a member whose linear expansion coefficient difference with the electrostatic chuck is greater than or equal to 0, and less than or equal to half of the thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer which includes the range of 3e-6 or less.
Regarding claim 3, the heat transfer member 107 is made of a composite material of Al and SiC.
Regarding claim 4, the main body member 108 is made of the same member as the heat transfer member 107.
Regarding claim 5, the main body member 108 is made of AlSiC which is an Al alloy.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the metal bonding portion is a brazing metal SnAg having a bonding temperature of 260°C which is 700°C or lower.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112582330 A (‘330) in view of Hausmann et al, TW 452916 B.
‘330 was discussed above.
‘330 differs from the present invention in that ‘330 does not teach a contact band configured to electrically connect the main body member and the heat transfer member.
Hausmann et al teaches the use of a contact band 155 configured to electrically connect an RF cables 415a, 415b and contact housing 502.
The motivation for connecting the main body member and the heat transfer member of ‘330 with a contact band is to provide better electrical connection between the body member and heat transfer member as taught by Hausmann et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to connect the main body member and the heat transfer member of ‘330 with a contact band as taught by Hausmann et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112582330 A (‘330), in view of JP 2017-126641A (‘641).
‘330 was discussed above.
‘330 differs from the present invention in that ‘330 does not teach a resin adhesive portion configured to mutually bond the main body member and the heat transfer member.
‘641 teaches a resin adhesive portion 30 configured to mutually bond the main body member 20 and the heat transfer member 60.
The motivation for connecting the main body member and the heat transfer member of ‘330 with a resin adhesive portion is to provide an alternate way to attach the main body member and heat transfer member as taught by ‘641. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to connect the main body member and the heat transfer member of ‘330 with a resin adhesive portion as taught by ‘641.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112582330 A (‘330), in view of Haga, US 20150027637 A1.
‘330 was discussed above.
‘330 differs from the present invention in that ‘330 does not teach that the substrate support of ‘330 is placed in a processing chamber with a gas supply and a plasma generator.
Haga teaches a processing chamber 77 configured to define a processing space PS of the substrate W; a substrate support 12 which is disposed in the processing space PS; a gas supply 74 configured to supply a processing gas into the processing space PS; and a plasma generator 12, 52 configured to generate plasma in the processing space PS from the processing gas.
The motivation for placing the substrate support of ‘330 in the processing chamber of Haga is to provide the processing chamber in which the substrate support can be used as required by ‘330 to function but not disclosed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to place the substrate support of ‘330 in the processing chamber of Haga.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g)) JP 2005210039 A, WO2014151975, JP 2017-126641A, JP 2017-126640 A, and JP 2013-172013A could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716