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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 2 including claims 1 and 3-26 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has not provided any particular arguments against the restriction requirement and as such the election is being treated as an election without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 fails to further limit claim 3 because it merely states that the first second and third layers are arranged in “any order.” If the layers exist as claimed in claim 3 they must have an order – if an order exists it must be part of the set of any orders – therefore there is no order which would be part of the set of permissible permutations in claim 3 that is excluded or further limited from the . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-13, 15 and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 20170229327).
Singh teaches:
Regarding claim 1
A substrate support assembly for supporting a substrate (exemplary cross-section shown in Fig. 5d), the substrate support assembly comprising: a baseplate (105); a ceramic plate (comprising all layers lying on plate 105) arranged on the baseplate (as defined), the ceramic plate including: Y conductors (201) arranged in a first layer of the ceramic plate (see distinct layer in which 201 lies in Fig. 5d); and X conductors (202) arranged in a second layer of the ceramic plate (Fig. 5d); and N resistive heaters (101) arranged in X rows and Y columns and coupled to the ceramic plate, where X, Y, and N are integers greater than 1 (they are distinct countable physical structures), and N is less than or equal to X*Y (Fig. 5d for example has 8 X and Y conductors for 4 heating elements), each of the N resistive heaters having a first terminal and a second terminal (connections to x and y respectively as shown in Fig. 5d); wherein first terminals of each resistive heater in one of the X rows are directly connected to the Y conductors, respectively, by first vias (Fig. 5d, see downward conductive connection, this is sufficient to establish a “via” as is known in the art); and wherein second terminals of each resistive heater in the one of the X rows are directly connected to one of the X conductors by second vias (see downward connection in Fig. 5D a vertical connection is what defines a “via” as is known in the art).
Regarding claim 3
wherein the N resistive heaters are arranged in a third layer of the ceramic plate (the N resistive conductors appear to be in layer 104a separate from 201 and 202 as shown in Fig. 5D).
Regarding claim 4
connect one of the Y conductors to a power supply; and connect one of the X conductors to a reference potential (¶ [0055] “floating reference”).
Regarding claim 5
a controller (¶ [0055]-[0057] “high side MCU”) configured to connect the Y conductors to a power supply and the X conductors to a reference potential in a sequence by connecting one of the Y conductors to the power supply and connecting one of the X conductors to the reference potential at a time (¶ [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 6
wherein the sequence is based on a temperature profile for processing the substrate (¶ [0055]-[0057] “control loop may be implemented using feedback data from one or more temperature sensors”).
Regarding claim 10
wherein the second layer is adjacent to the baseplate, and the first layer is arranged on the second layer (Fig. 5D, broadly all layers are on the baseplate and the first and second layer are adjacent and bonded to each other and thus “on” each other).
Regarding claim 11
wherein the second layer is adjacent to the baseplate, the first layer is arranged on the second layer, and the third layer is arranged on the first layer (Fig. 5D, all layers are “on” the baseplate which seems sufficient to be adjacent; similarly all layers are bonded so they are all “on” each other).
Regarding claim 12
Wherein the first, second, and third layers are arranged in any order (Fig. 5D, the layers are in an “order” which presumably must be a subset of “any order”; the examiner is unsure how this limitation could possibly further limit claim 3 – see 35 USC §112D rejection above).
Regarding claim 13
further comprising one or more additional heaters arranged in a third layer of the ceramic plate, wherein the third layer is arranged above or below the first and second layers. (as presently worded it is a trivial matter to call the layer of the heaters 101 in Fig. 5D the third layer, this layer must be above or below the first and second layer as there is no other possible arrangement; as to the “additional heaters” it is similarly trivial to redefine the plurality of heaters 101 into sets comprising the heater of claim 1 and then assigning the remainder to the set of “additional heaters”).
Regarding claim 15
further comprising a clamping electrode (102) and one or more additional heaters arranged in a third layer of the ceramic plate (as stated above it is arbitrary to assign the set of heaters 102 as “heaters” and “additional heaters” and arbitrary to assign the layer these heaters resign in as the “third layer”) , wherein the third layer is arranged above the first and second layers (fig. 5D).
Regarding claim 19
Further comprising an adhesive layer (107) between the baseplate and the ceramic plate (Fig. 5D).
Regarding claim 20
Wherein the baseplate includes channels (106) for flowing a coolant through the baseplate (“106 for coolant flow”).
Regarding claim 21
a power supply configured to supply a first DC voltage (¶ [0055]-[0057] not shown, but these paragraphs discuss supplied power and as such this power must be coming from some source which can be considered a “power supply”) ; and a controller (high side MCU) configured to sequentially apply the first DC voltage across the X and Y conductors by connecting one pair of the X and Y conductors at a time to the power supply and a reference potential (¶ [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 22
wherein a sequence for sequentially applying the first DC voltage across the X and Y conductors is based on a temperature profile for processing the substrate (¶ [0055]-[0057] “control loop may be implemented using feedback data from one or more temperature sensors”).
Regarding claim 23
the substrate support assembly further comprises one or more additional heaters (as stated previously it is arbitrary to call a set of the plurality of “heaters” “additional heaters”) arranged in a third layer of the ceramic plate (Fig. 5D), wherein the third layer is arranged above or below the first and second layers (Fig. 5D); the power supply is configured to supply a second DC voltage; and the controller is configured to supply the second DC voltage to the one or more additional heaters (the power supply supplies DC voltage to all heaters and “additional heaters”; this claim as presently constructed does not require that the first and second voltages be from a different source or on a different circuit, as such the voltage supplied to the subset of heaters considered the additional heaters can reasonably be considered the “second DC voltage”).
Regarding claim 24
wherein a sequence for sequentially applying the first DC voltage across the X and Y conductors is based on a temperature profile for processing the substrate (¶ [0055]-[0057] “control loop may be implemented using feedback data from one or more temperature sensors”).
Regarding claim 25
wherein the sequence is based on a temperature profile for processing the substrate (¶ [0055]-[0057] “control loop may be implemented using feedback data from one or more temperature sensors”).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 14, 16-18 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh.
Regarding claims 7-9
Singh teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, and further teaches the y conductors connected to a power supply and the x conductors connected with a reference potential (¶ [0055]-[0057]). In addition Singh teaches cycling the power to these conductors in accordance with heating needs (excerpt below).
with a 10-by-10 grid of heater zones, heater zones in row number N are connected to a power supply line number N; heater zones in column number M are connected to a power return line number M. The high side MCU may control heating such that each of the power supply lines is connected to the power supply for 100 ms, sequentially. For example, during the 100 ms of time when power supply line number 3 is connected to the power supply, the MCU is operable to connect power return lines number 7, 8, and 9 to the floating reference for 10, 50 and 100 ms, respectively, as directed by the particular heating requirement during this 100 ms. Thus, the heater zone in row number 3 and column number 7 has a duty cycle of 1%; the heater zone in row number 3 and column number 8 has a duty cycle of 5%; the heater zone in row number 3 and column number 9 has a duty cycle of 10%. In this particular example, the maximum peak power for each heater zone would be set to ten times the average maximum power desired.
Singh does not specifically teach any explicit disconnection time periods for x and y conductors or sequences of disconnections as required by claims 7-9.
However, as is shown in the excerpt from Singh above it is well known that cycling times (connection/disconnection) periods for different conductors are known. And that these specific arrangements are result effective variables which control the power and thus the heat supplied to different regions of the substrate as desired by the designer. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the disconnection times and connections for the x and y conductors as claimed in claims 7-9 as this is nothing more than an optimization of the power delivery to the resistive heaters in order to arrive at the desired heating power required by the designer.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18
Singh teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach that the additional heaters are located on a fourth layer the fourth layer lying above or below the first/second/third layers.
As to providing another layer with additional heaters. As discussed above, Singh teaches heaters (102) on an individual layer (Fig. 5D). It would be nothing more than a duplication of the layer with the resistive heaters to provide another heating layer comprising what can now be called “additional heaters” and the layer in which they are embedded called the “fourth layer”. These heaters would function in exactly the same manner as those heaters already disclosed. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that there is any synergistic or unexpected result from such a duplication. As such, it would be nothing more than an obvious duplication of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Singh to include a duplicate layer comprising “additional heaters” and a “fourth layer”. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the duplication of a structure without changing the structure’s function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
As to the fourth layer in the variety of claimed configurations above or below the first/second/third layers it is noted that Applicant has not stated that these configurations are for any particular purpose or solve any particular problem beyond providing a location for the heaters. Further, Applicant has not disclosed any particular advantage between any of the disclosed locations for the fourth layer. Therefore, it would have been nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at fourth layer in any of the disclosed locations. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the rearrangement of a structure without changing the structure’s function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 26
Singh teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach that the additional heaters are located on a fourth layer the fourth layer lying above or below the first/second/third layers; the power supply is configured to supply a second DC voltage and the controller is configured to supply the second DC voltage to the one or more heaters.
As to providing another layer with additional heaters that have an additional supplied voltage which is additionally controlled by the heater controller. As discussed above, Singh teaches heaters (102) on an individual layer (Fig. 5D) provided with a DC voltage which is controlled (¶ [0055]-[0057]). It would be nothing more than a duplication of the layer with the resistive heaters to provide another heating layer comprising what can now be called “additional heaters” and the layer in which they are embedded called the “fourth layer”. These heaters would function in exactly the same manner as those heaters already disclosed. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that there is any synergistic or unexpected result from such a duplication. As such, it would be nothing more than an obvious duplication of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Singh to include a duplicate layer comprising “additional heaters” and a “fourth layer”. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the duplication of a structure without changing the structure’s function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
As to the fourth layer in the variety of claimed configurations above or below the first/second/third layers it is noted that Applicant has not stated that these configurations are for any particular purpose or solve any particular problem beyond providing a location for the heaters. Further, Applicant has not disclosed any particular advantage between any of the disclosed locations for the fourth layer. Therefore, it would have been nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at fourth layer in any of the disclosed locations. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the rearrangement of a structure without changing the structure’s function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761