/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 10 Oct 2025. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-4, 10, 15, 17 are amended.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 limitation “AC heaters” is interpreted in light of the specification para. [0047] and Fig. 2B as comprising AC power supplies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 (and depending claims 2-14) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, limitation “wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and directly below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate” does not have sufficient support in the original disclosure. Examiner notes that “directly below the bond layer” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as the outer diameter cooling channel is in immediate physical contact with the bond layer from below the bond layer. However, Fig. 2B clearly shows that a portion of the base plate 110 is in contact with the bond layer 108. Furthermore, if the outer diameter cooling channel is “directly below the bond layer”, claim 4 would be unclear and confusing since claim 4 requires the outer diameter cooling channel to form an interface wall adjacent to said bond layer and below said annular heater setback region which would be impossible of the outer diameter cooling channel were directly below the bond layer. Furthermore, the above discussed claim limitation is unclear and confusing as further discussed below in U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-14) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, limitation “wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and directly below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate” is unclear and confusing how the outer diameter cooling channel which has cooling fluid can be directly below the bond layer. Specifically, it is unclear how the cooling channel can be immediately physically in contact or without any intervening parts and below the bond layer while also flowing a fluid. Additionally, Fig. 2B clearly shows that a portion of the base plate 110 is in contact with the bond layer 108.
For the purpose of examination, above discussed limitation shall be interpreted as “wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (US 2014/0008880 A1 hereinafter “Miura”) in view of Oohashi (US 2015/0132863 A1) and Arai et al. (US 2003/0160568 A1 hereinafter “Arai”).
Regarding independent claim 1, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejection section above, Miura teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck device 1, Fig. 1, para. [0034]), comprising:
a base plate (comprising disk shaped cooling plate section 3, Fig. 1);
a bond layer (comprising acrylic adhesive layer 9, Fig. 1) disposed over the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1);
a ceramic plate (comprising disk-shaped electrostatic chuck section 2 including plate 11 and 12, Fig. 2, para. [0036]) having a bottom surface disposed over the bond layer (comprising 9, Fig. 1), the ceramic plate (comprising 11 and 12, Fig. 1) having a raised top surface (comprising projection portion 16, Fig. 1) for supporting a substrate (comprising sample W, Fig. 1) (para. [0035]), the raised top surface (comprising 16, Fig. 1) having an outer diameter (para. [0035]); and
a heater (comprising heater elements 5, Fig. 1) disposed between the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 12, Fig. 1) and the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1),
wherein an outer diameter of the heating element (comprising 5, Fig. 1) is inset from a heater setback region of the ceramic plate (comprising 11 and 12, Fig. 1){see annotated Fig. 1 of Miura below}, the heater setback region is between the outer diameter of the raised top surface (comprising 16, Fig. 1) and the outer diameter of the heating element (comprising 5, Fig. 1);
wherein the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1) includes a cooling channel (comprising flow path 18, Fig. 1, para. [0046]), said cooling channel (comprising 18, Fig. 1) are disposed below the heating element (comprising 5, Fig. 1), and below the annular heater setback region (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and the cooling channel (comprising 18, Fig. 1) is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the ceramic plate and in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (comprising 11 and 12, Fig. 1) (para. [0046] discloses that the cooling channel 18 is configured to cool plate 11 which includes the heater set back region).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miura does not clearly and explicitly teach the setback region of the ceramic plate is annular in shape; the heater includes an inner heating element and an outer heating element, said inner heating element is arranged in a central circular area adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate and said outer heating element is arranged in an annular area that surrounds the central circular area and is adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate; the coolant channel comprises a plurality of cooling channels are disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region, and each of said plurality of cooling channels is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate, wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate.
However, Miura teaches that the substrate is a semiconductor wafer and that the ceramic plate is circular (i.e. disc shaped and has a diameter para. [0091]) and the heater setback region is between the outer diameter of the raised top surface (comprising 16, Fig. 1) and the outer diameter of the heating element (comprising 5, Fig. 1). Examiner notes that the raised top surface (comprising 16, Fig. 1) is configured to hold the substrate.
Further, Oohashi teaches an electrostatic chuck having a substrate that is a semiconductor wafer that is circular (i.e. has a diameter, para. [0030], [0044]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shape of the heater setback region of the ceramic plate to have an annular/circular/ring shape because Oohashi teaches that a semiconductor wafer has a circular shape wherein selecting an annular shape for the heater setback region would enable matching the shape of the substrate for suitable substrate support and processing. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the selection of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. (In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Miura in view of Oohashi as applied above does explicitly teach the heater includes an inner heating element and an outer heating element, said inner heating element is arranged in a central circular area adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate and said outer heating element is arranged in an annular area that surrounds the central circular area and is adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate; the coolant channel comprises a plurality of cooling channels are disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region, and each of said plurality of cooling channels is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate; wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate.
However, Oohashi teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising mounting table 12 including electrostatic chuck 40, Fig. 1, para. [0030]) comprising a heater (comprising 75, Fig. 2) having an inner heating element (comprising A, Fig. 2 and 11) and an outer heating element (comprising middle zone B, Fig. 2 and 11), said inner heating element (comprising A, Fig. 2 and 11) is arranged in a central circular area adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 40, Fig. 10, para. [0047], [0092]) and said outer heating element (comprising B, Fig. 2 and 11) is arranged in an annular area that surrounds the central circular area and is adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 40, Fig. 10). Oohashi teaches that such a configuration enables separate/independent temperature control for the inner and outer regions of the electrostatic chuck for improved substrate temperature uniformity (para. [0044], [0066]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the heater (Miura: comprising 5, Fig. 1) to include an inner heating element and an outer heating element, said inner heating element is arranged in a central circular area adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate and said outer heating element is arranged in an annular area that surrounds the central circular area and is adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (Miura: comprising 12, Fig. 1) {i.e. divide the heater 5 of Miura to include inner and outer heating elements} because Oohashi teaches that such a configuration can enable separate temperature control of inner and outer regions of the electrostatic chuck for improved substrate temperature uniformity (Oohashi: para. [0066]). Examiner further explains and notes that when dividing the heater of Miura to include the outer heating element in view of teachings of Oohashi the annular heater setback region would obviously be defined between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element.
Miura in view of Oohashi as applied above does not explicitly teach the coolant channel comprises a plurality of cooling channels are disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region, and each of said plurality of cooling channels is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate; wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate.
However, Miura already teaches at least one cooling channel (comprising 18, Fig. 1) disposed below the heater and below the annular heater set back region, wherein the cooling channel 18 is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling (para. [0046]) in the heater setback region of the ceramic plate (comprising 12, Fig. 1) but Miura is silent regarding a plurality of channels.
Additionally, Arai teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck S, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) comprising a plurality of cooling channels (comprising flow-path slits 11 and 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10; para. [0042], [0046]) disposed below an inner heating element (comprising inner portion of 15, Fig. 10) and below an outer heating element (comprising outer portion of 15, Fig. 10) and further teaches an outer diameter cooling channel (comprising 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10). Arai teaches that such a configuration enables independent temperature control of different regions of the electrostatic chuck (para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the coolant channel (Miura: 18, Fig. 1) to comprise a plurality of cooling channels that are disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region, and each of said plurality of cooling channels is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate because Miura already teaches a cooling channel below the heater and the setback region of the ceramic plate in an outer region of the electrostatic chuck and because Arai teaches a plurality of cooling channels enables providing independent temperature control of different regions, including an outer diameter region, of the electrostatic chuck (Arai: para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]). Examiner notes that providing a plurality of coolant channels would be a mere duplication of parts of the coolant channel 18 of Miura. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
See annotated Fig. 1 of Miura below showing the combination/modifications of the resulting apparatus of Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai.
PNG
media_image2.png
638
1117
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein the plurality of cooling channels (comprising channel 18, Fig. 1 of Miura modified to comprise a plurality of channels) are arranged to circulate said cooling fluid in said base plate (Miura: 3, Fig. 1, para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein said outer diameter cooling channel (Miura: 18, Fig. 1) has a rectangular shape formed within the base plate (Miura: 3, Fig. 1), a top portion of the rectangular shape is aligned horizontally below said annular heater setback region. See annotated Fig. 1 of Miura below.
PNG
media_image3.png
638
1035
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above wherein said outer diameter cooling channel (Miura: comprising 18, Fig. 1) forms an interface wall adjacent to said bond layer (comprising 9, Fig. 1) and below said annular heater setback region. See annotated Fig. 1 of Miura below.
PNG
media_image4.png
638
1035
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and Miura further teaches wherein said heater (comprising 5, Fig. 1) is bonded to said bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 12 of electrostatic chuck section 2, Fig. 1) (para. [0034],[0062],[0087]).
Regarding claim 7, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and Miura further teaches wherein said has a thickness of between 0.1 mm and less than about 2 mm (para. [0063] discloses a thickness of 250 microns which is 0.25 mm).
Regarding claim 9, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach said annular heater setback region is between 2 mm and about 10 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the annular heater setback region is a temperature control region defined in the ceramic plate between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element.
Additionally, Arai teaches forming a plurality of temperature control regions defined by the inner and outer cooling channels (comprising 11 and 2, Fig. 3) to separately/individually/independently control the different regions (para. [0046]).
Further, Oohashi teaches sizing different temperature control regions (comprising center A, inner middle B, outer middle, C, Fig. 9 and 10, para. [0074]-[0075]) to separately provide temperature control to each region (para. [0074]-[0075]). Oohashi shows that an edge temperature control zone is approximately 25 mm (as understood from Fig. 6), wherein Oohashi teaches that the smaller the temperature control zone the more intricately the temperature control can be and more improved temperature uniformity (para.[0074]- [0075]). In other words, Oohashi teaches the size/dimension of the temperature control zone is a result-effective variable which affects temperature control and overall temperature uniformity.
Without evidence of unexpected results, dimension of the temperature control zone defined by the annular heater setback region cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the dimensions of the annular heater setback region because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the annular heater setback region is a temperature control zone and because Oohashi teaches that the dimension of the temperature control zone is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to improve temperature uniformity.
Regarding claim 10, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein said outer diameter cooling channel(Miura: comprising 18, Fig. 1) of the plurality of cooling channels places at least part of said outer diameter cooling channel in a region of the base plate that is opposite the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (Miura: comprising 12, Fig. 1). See annotated Fig. 1 of Miura above in claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 11, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein said bond layer (Miura: comprising 9, Fig. 1) is disposed between the base plate (Miura: comprising 3, Fig. 1) and the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (comprising 11 and 12, Fig. 1) to provide said thermally conductive cooling of the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate using said cooling fluid (para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above "said thermally conductive cooling of the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate provides for a cold edge region for the substrate, when the substrate is disposed over the raised top surface" is a functional/intended use limitation. Since Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, including conductive cooling of the ceramic plate and an annular heater setback region and a substrate disposed over the raised top surface, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP §2114. II
Regarding claim 13, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches a temperature transition zone is provided in the ceramic plate (Miura: comprising 11,12, Fig. 1) at an interface between the outer diameter of the outer heating element (Miura: comprising 5 modified in claim 1 to have inner and outer heater elements, Fig. 1) and the annular heater setback region, wherein the annular heater setback region is setback away from the outer diameter of the outer heating element. See annotated Fig. 1 of Miura below.
PNG
media_image5.png
638
1035
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein the outer heating element (Miura: comprising 5 modified in claim 1 to have inner and outer heater elements, Fig. 1) does not extend under said annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (Miura: comprising 11, 12, Fig. 1), and said annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate is disposed over a portion of the bond layer (Miura: comprising 9, Fig. 1), and at least over part of one of the plurality of cooling channels (Miura: comprising 18, Fig. 1) disposed along an outer diameter of the base plate (Miura: comprising 3, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (US 2014/0008880 A1 hereinafter “Miura”) in view of Oohashi (US 2015/0132863 A1) and Arai et al. (US 2003/0160568 A1 hereinafter “Arai”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 above and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2019/0013231 A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 5 Miura in view of Oohashi and Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2, 4 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein said interface wall has a dimension of not less than about 1 mm and not greater than about 6 mm.
However, Yamaguchi teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising 110, Fig. 1, para. [0072]) including a cooling channel (comprising communicating passage 55, Fig. 1; comprising 55s, Fig. 3, para. [0084]) formed in the base (comprising 500, Fig. 1 and 3). Yamaguchi further teaches that the dimension (comprising DZ, Fig. 3) of the interface wall of the cooling channel is a result-effective variable that affects the heat capacity of the base and thus affects the ramp rate and the speed at which the substrate reaches the desired/set temperature (para. [0123],[0131]). Yamaguchi teaches that the ratio of dimension Dz to the height Lz should be 0.1 to 10 (i.e. Dz/Lz is between 0.1 and 10) (para. [0134]), the ratio of the height of the cooling channel Lz to the width of the channel Lx is larger than 1 and less than 6 (i.e. Lz/Lx is between 1-6) and wherein Lx is between 3mm and 12 mm(para. [0135])(See Fig. 3).
Further, Arai provides dimensions for a coolant channel is 5 mm in width (i.e. Lx, which is between the 3mm and 12 mm taught by Yamaguchi) and 16 mm in height (i.e. Lz is 16 mm) (para. [0055]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the calculate Dz given the teachings of Arai and Yamaguchi.
Without evidence of unexpected results, dimension of the interface wall cannot be considered critical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the dimension of the interface wall because Yamaguchi teaches the dimension of the interface wall is a result-effective variable which affects heat capacity of the base and the rate speed at which the substrate reaches a desired set temperature (Yamaguchi: para. [0123], [0131]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize the dimension given the teachings of Arai and Yamaguchi in order to optimize the temperature control speed of the substrate.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 2019/0088517 A1 hereinafter “Kosakai”) in view of Arai et al. (US 2003/0160568 A1 hereinafter “Arai”).
Regarding independent claim 1, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Kosakai teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chucking device 1, Fig. 1; comprising Fig. 19, comprising:
a base plate (comprising temperature controlling base part 3, Fig. 1, para. [0124]; comprising temperature controlling base part 1201, Fig. 19, para. [0381]);
a bond layer (comprising adhesive layer 11 and adhesion layer 10A, Fig. 1, para. [0125],[0144]) disposed over the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1);
a ceramic plate (comprising mounting plate 21 and support plate 22, Fig. 1, para. [0126]-[0127]) having a bottom surface disposed over the bond layer (comprising 3, Fig. 1), the ceramic plate (comprising 21, 22, Fig. 1) having a raised top surface (comprising a top surface of 21, Fig. 1) for supporting a substrate (wafer W, Fig. 1), the raised top surface having an outer diameter; and
a heater (comprising main heater/first heater element 5, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0125]; comprising main heater 1011, Fig. 19, para. [0381], [0387]-[0388]) disposed between the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 12, Fig. 1) and the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1);
the heater includes an inner heating element (comprising 5A, Fig. 1 and 2) and an outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1 and 2), said inner heating element (comprising 5A and Fig. 1 and 2) is arranged in a central circular area adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 22, Fig. 1) and said outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1 and 2) is arranged in an annular area that surrounds the central circular area and is adjacent to the bottom surface of the ceramic plate (comprising 22, Fig. 1), wherein an outer diameter of the outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1) is inset from an annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate, the annular heater setback region is between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1 and 2); {See annotated Fig. 1 of Kosakai below} Examiner explains that limitation “annular heater setback region” is defined in the current claims as a region of the ceramic plate between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and an outer diameter of the outer heater element, wherein “outer heater element” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as comprising a heater element which is outer in relation to the inner heater element and does not limit the outer heater element to be an outermost heater element.
wherein the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1) includes a cooling channel comprising flow path 3A, Fig. 1) disposed below the inner heating element (comprising 5A, Fig. 1), below the outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1), and below the annular heater setback region to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (comprising 22, Fig. 1){Examiner notes that conductive cooling would necessarily occur through the layers of the chuck due to the coolant in the channel and the placement of the cooling channel adjacent to the ceramic plate}.
PNG
media_image6.png
619
932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kosakai does not explicitly teach the cooling channel comprises a plurality of cooling channels, said plurality of cooling channels are disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region, and each of said plurality of cooling channels is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate, wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate.
However, Kosakai already teaches at least one cooling channel (comprising 3A, Fig. 1) below the inner heating element (comprising 5A, Fig. 1 and 2), below the outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1), and below the annular heater setback region (i.e. region of ceramic plate corresponding to between outer diameter of the outer heater element and the outer diameter of the raised top surface of the ceramic plate 21, 22), but is silent regarding a plurality of channels.
Additionally, Arai teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck S, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) comprising a plurality of cooling channels (comprising flow-path slits 11 and 2, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10; para. [0042], [0046]) disposed below an inner heating element (comprising inner portion of 15, Fig. 10) and below an outer heating element (comprising outer portion of 15, Fig. 10) and further teaches an outer diameter cooling channel (comprising 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10). Arai teaches that such a configuration enables independent temperature control of different regions of the electrostatic chuck (para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the coolant channel (Kosakai: comprising 3A Fig. 1) to comprise a plurality of cooling channels that are disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region, and each of said plurality of cooling channels is configured to flow a cooling fluid to cause thermally conductive cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate wherein an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate. because Kosakai already teaches a cooling channel below the heater and the setback region of the ceramic plate in an outer diameter region of the electrostatic chuck and because Arai teaches a plurality of cooling channels enables providing independent temperature control of different regions, including an outer diameter region, of the electrostatic chuck (Arai: para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]). Examiner notes that providing a plurality of coolant channels would be a mere duplication of parts of the coolant channel 3A of Kosakai. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
See annotated Fig. 1 of Kosakai below showing the modifications in view of teachings of Arai.
PNG
media_image7.png
619
1039
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 15, Kosakai teaches a method for thermally cooling (para. [0077],[0426], [0426]) a region of an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck device 1, Fig. 1, para. [0124]), the electrostatic chuck including a ceramic plate (comprising mounting plate 21 and supporting plate 22, Fig. 1, para. [0127]) and a base plate (comprising temperature controlling base part 3, Fig. 1, para. [0124]),
comprising providing an inner heating element (comprising mean heater 5A, Fig. 1 and 2) and an outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1 and 2) between the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1) and the ceramic plate (comprising 22, Fig. 1), wherein the outer heating element (comprising 5B, or 5C or 5D, Fig. 1 and 2) is positioned away from an annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (comprising 22, Fig. 1){see annotated Fig. 1 of Kosakai below};
wherein an outer diameter of the outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1) is inset from an annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate, the annular heater setback region is between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element (comprising 5B, Fig. 1 and 2); {See annotated Fig. 1 of Kosakai below} Examiner explains that limitation “annular heater setback region” is defined in the current claims as a region of the ceramic plate between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and an outer diameter of the outer heater element, wherein “outer heater element” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as comprising a heater element which is outer in relation to the inner heater element and does not limit the outer heater element to be an outermost heater element;
flowing a cooling fluid along at least one cooling channel (comprising 3A, Fig. 1) disposed in the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1), wherein the cooling channel (comprising 3A, Fig. 1) is disposed under the annular heater setback region, the cooling fluid is configured to cause thermal cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate to provide for a cold edge region for a substrate when disposed over the electrostatic chuck{ due to the positioning of the cooling channel under the annular heater setback region the limitation “cause thermal cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate to provide for a cold edge region for a substrate when disposed over the electrostatic chuck” would necessarily be met due to conduction of heat through the layers of the electrostatic chuck};
activating alternating current (AC) heaters (comprising AC power supply, para. [0398]) that are connected to the outer heating element (comprising 5B or 5C or 5D of the main heater 5, Fig. 1) and the inner heating element (comprising 5A of the main heater 5, Fig. 1)(para. [0154]-[0155], Fig. 18, 23, 24).
PNG
media_image8.png
618
932
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kosakai as applied above does not explicitly teach a plurality of cooling channels disposed in the base plate, wherein at least one of the plurality of cooling channels is an outer diameter cooling channel disposed under the annular heater setback region, such that a cooling fluid flowing along the outer diameter cooling channel is configured to cause thermal cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate to provide for a cold edge region for a substrate when disposed over the electrostatic chuck; activating a chiller to operate at a set point temperature, said activating the chiller is configured to selectively control flow of the cooling fluid to the outer diameter cooling channel so as to thermally cool the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate.
However, Kosakai already teaches at least one cooling channel (comprising 3A, Fig. 1) disposed under the annular heater setback region, the cooling fluid is configured to cause thermal cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate to provide for a cold edge region for a substrate when disposed over the electrostatic chuck (para. [0141]). Kosakai additionally teaches a chiller (para. [0079], [0405]).
Additionally, Arai teaches a method for thermally cooling an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck S, Fig. 2, para. [0039]), wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a plurality of cooling channels (comprising flow-path slits 11 and 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10; para. [0042], [0046]) disposed below an inner heating element (comprising inner portion of 15, Fig. 10) and below an outer heating element (comprising outer portion of 15, Fig. 10) and further teaches an outer diameter cooling channel (comprising 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10); activating a chiller (comprising coolant supply units 51, 52, Fig. 3) to operate at a set point temperature (para. [0046]), said activating the chiller is configured to selectively control flow of the cooling fluid to an inner diameter channel (comprising 11, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10) or outer diameter cooling channel (comprising 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10)(para. [0046], [0055], [0058]). Arai teaches that such a configuration enables independent temperature control of different regions of the electrostatic chuck (para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cooling channel (Kokusai: comprising 3A, Fig. 1) to comprise a plurality of cooling channels wherein at least one of the plurality of cooling channels is an outer diameter cooling channel disposed under the annular heater setback region, such that a cooling fluid flowing along the outer diameter cooling channel is configured to cause thermal cooling in the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate to provide for a cold edge region for a substrate when disposed over the electrostatic chuck; activating a chiller to operate at a set point temperature, said activating the chiller is configured to control flow of the cooling fluid to thermally cool the ceramic plate and the annular heater setback region because Kosakai already teaches a cooling channel below the heater and the setback region of the ceramic plate in an outer diameter region of the electrostatic chuck and flowing cooling fluid into the cooling channel to cool the electrostatic chuck and because Arai teaches that providing a plurality of cooling channels and activating a chiller to operate at a set point temperature and controlling the flow of the cooling fluid enables independent temperature control/cooling of different regions (i.e. annular heater setback region or central region) of the electrostatic chuck (para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]).
See annotated Fig. 1 of Kosakai below showing the modifications in view of teachings of Arai.
PNG
media_image9.png
619
1039
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kosakai in view of Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above wherein Kosakai further teaches operating a controller to manage control of the temperature of the electrostatic chuck (para. [0499]-[0507]).
Kosakai in view of Arai as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach the operating the controller to manage control of the chiller to operate at said set point temperature.
However, Arai teaches controlling/operating the chiller (comprising coolant supply units 51, 51, Fig. 3) to operate at said set point temperature (para. [0046],[0058]) to control the temperature of the substrate (para. [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the controller to manage control of the chiller to operate at said set point temperature because Arai teaches controlling/operating the chiller to operate at said set point temperature to control the temperature of the substrate (Arai: para. [0054]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a controller would provide automated control of the temperature.
Regarding claim 17, Kosakai in view of Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above including a plurality of cooling channels (i.e. modifying Kosakai to include a plurality of cooling channels in view of teachings of Arai as applied in claim 15 rejection above), and further teaches arranging the plurality of cooling channels (Kosakai: comprising 3A, Fig. 1) in said base plate (Kosakai: comprising 3, Fig. 1) to circulate said cooling fluid (Kosakai: para. [0141],[0395]). Further since, Arai teaches activating the chiller and configured to selectively control flow of the cooling fluid to an inner diameter channel (comprising 11, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10) or outer diameter cooling channel (comprising 12, Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10)(para. [0046], [0055], [0058]) and Kosakai teaches a cooling channel in the annular heater setback region as discussed in detail in claims rejections above, the combination would obviously meet limitation “so as to selectively cool the annular heater setback region.”
Regarding claim 19, Kosakai in view of Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above and Kosakai further teaches measuring temperature data related to the annular heater setback region of the ceramic plate (i.e. temperature measurement from sensor 30 at an outer diameter region of the ceramic plate 22, para. [0175]-[0182], [0413]-[0414]), determining if the temperature data is within a temperature value projected based on the set point temperature (para. [0426]-[0427]).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 2019/0088517 A1 hereinafter “Kosakai”) in view of Arai et al. (US 2003/0160568 A1 hereinafter “Arai”) as applied in claims 1, 15, 16, 17, 19 and further in view of Lilleland et al. (US 2015/0004400 A1 hereinafter “Lilleland”).
Regarding claim 7, Kosakai in view of Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a bond layer (Kosakai: comprising adhesive layer 11 and adhesion layer 10A, Fig. 1, para. [0125], [0144]).
Kosakai in view of Arai as applied above does not explicitly teach the thickness of the bond layer is between about 0.1 mm and less than about 2 mm.
However, Lilleland teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising support assembly 10, Fig. 1, para. [0017], [0018]) and providing a bond layer (comprising adhesive layer 16, Fig. 1) over the base plate (comprising second functional element 14, Fig. 1) (para. [0019]). Lilleland further teaches that the thickness of the layers of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 10, Fig. 1) affects thermal heat transfer and that the thickness of the bond layer can have a thickness of 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm. in other words, the thickness of the bond layer is a result-effective vary which affects thermal heat transfer. Additionally, Lilleland teaches a range {0.25 mmm to 1.25mm} of thickness that is within the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 2 mm.
Without evidence of unexpected results, thickness of the bond layer cannot be considered critical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select/provide a thickness of 0.25 to 1.25 mm for the thickness of bond layer (Kosakai: 11, Fig. 1), or alternatively, to optimize, through routine optimization, the thickness of the bond layer because Lilleland teach that a thickness of 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm is a suitable thickness of a bond layer for an electrostatic chuck or alternatively because Lilleland teaches that the thickness of the bond layer of an electrostatic chuck is a result-effective variable which affects thermal heat transfer wherein one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the thickness of the bond layer to optimize thermal heat transfer of the chuck for optimal electrostatic chuck and substrate temperature control.
Regarding claim 8, Kosakai in view of Arai and Lilleland teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein said bond layer has a thickness of about 0.75 mm.
However, Lilleland teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising support assembly 10, Fig. 1, para. [0017], [0018]) and providing a bond layer (comprising adhesive layer 16, Fig. 1) over the base plate (comprising second functional element 14, Fig. 1) (para. [0019]). Lilleland further teaches that the thickness of the layers of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 10, Fig. 1) affects thermal heat transfer and that the thickness of the bond layer can have a thickness of 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm. In other words, the thickness of the bond layer is a result-effective vary which affects thermal heat transfer.
Without evidence of unexpected results, thickness of the bond layer cannot be considered critical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the thickness of the bond layer because Lilleland teaches that the thickness of the bond layer of an electrostatic chuck is a result-effective variable which affects thermal heat transfer wherein one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the thickness of the bond layer to optimize thermal heat transfer of the chuck for optimal electrostatic chuck and substrate temperature control.
Regarding claim 18, Kosakai in view of Arai teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above and Kosakai additionally teaches a bond layer (comprising adhesive layer 11, Fig. 1) over the base plate (comprising 3, Fig. 1) (para. [0125]).
Kosakai in view of Arai as applied above does not explicitly teach the thickness of the bond layer is between about 0.1 mm and less than about 2 mm.
However, Lilleland teaches an electrostatic chuck (comprising support assembly 10, Fig. 1, para. [0017], [0018]) and providing a bond layer (comprising adhesive layer 16, Fig. 1) over the base plate (comprising second functional element 14, Fig. 1) (para. [0019]). Lilleland further teaches that the thickness of the layers of the electrostatic chuck (comprising 10, Fig. 1) affects thermal heat transfer and that the thickness of the bond layer can have a thickness of 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm. in other words, the thickness of the bond layer is a result-effective vary which affects thermal heat transfer. Additionally, Lilleland teaches a range {0.25 mmm to 1.25mm} of thickness that is within the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 2 mm.
Without evidence of unexpected results, thickness of the bond layer cannot be considered critical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select/provide a thickness of 0.25 to 1.25 mm for the thickness of bond layer (Kosakai: 11, Fig. 1), or alternatively, to optimize, through routine optimization, the thickness of the bond layer because Lilleland teach that a thickness of 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm is a suitable thickness of a bond layer for an electrostatic chuck or alternatively because Lilleland teaches that the thickness of the bond layer of an electrostatic chuck is a result-effective variable which affects thermal heat transfer wherein one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the thickness of the bond layer to optimize thermal heat transfer of the chuck for optimal electrostatic chuck and substrate temperature control.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 2019/0088517 A1 hereinafter “Kosakai”) in view of Arai et al. (US 2003/0160568 A1 hereinafter “Arai”) as applied in claims 1, 15, 16, 17, 19 and further in view of Oohashi (US 2015/0132863 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kosakai in view of Arai teaches all of the limitations of clam 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach said annular heater setback region is between 2 mm and about 10 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the annular heater setback region is a temperature control region defined in the ceramic plate between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element.
Additionally, Kosakai teaches providing different temperature control regions in the form of different annular heater zones formed by the heater (comprising 5, Fig. 1; comprising first heater element 1301, Fig. 20, para. [0391]).
Additionally, Arai teaches forming a plurality of temperature control regions defined by the inner and outer cooling channels (comprising 11 and 2, Fig. 3) to separately/individually/independently control the different regions (para. [0046]).
Further, Oohashi teaches sizing different temperature control regions (comprising center A, inner middle B, outer middle, C, Fig. 9 and 10, para. [0074]-[0075]) to separately provide temperature control to each region (para. [0074]-[0075]). Oohashi shows that an edge temperature control zone is approximately 25 mm (as understood from Fig. 6), wherein Oohashi teaches that the smaller the temperature control zone the more intricately the temperature control can be and more improved temperature uniformity (para.[0074]- [0075]). In other words, Oohashi teaches the size/dimension of the temperature control zone is a result-effective variable which affects temperature control and overall temperature uniformity.
Without evidence of unexpected results, dimension of the temperature control zone defined by the annular heater setback region cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the dimensions of the annular heater setback region because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the annular heater setback region is a temperature control zone and because Oohashi teaches that the dimension of the temperature control zone is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to improve temperature uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Miura does not teach or suggest an annular heater setback region below which no heaters are disposed; the heater having an inner heating element arranged in a central circular area and an outer heating element arranged to surround the inner heating element; the heater disposed between the bottom surface of the ceramic plate and the base plate; the outer diameter cooling channel disposed below the annular heater setback region directly below the bond layer that is disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate.
Examiner responds “an annular heater setback region below which no heaters are disposed” is not commensurate with the claims. The claims require an annular heater setback region between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references (Miura) individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Miura teaches an electrostatic chuck comprising a base, a bond layer disposed over the base plate a ceramic plate having a bottom surface disposed over the body layer, a top raised surface having an outer diameter, a heater disposed between the bottom surface of the ceramic plate and the base plate, at least one cooling channel, and a heater setback region between the outer diameter of the raise top surface and the outer diameter of the heating element, as described in detail in claims rejections. Miura does not explicitly teach the heater setback region is annular; the heater further includes an inner heating element arrange in a central circular area and an outer heating element arranged to surround the inner heating element; the outer diameter cooling channel below the annular heater setback region and below the bond layer that is disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate. However, Oohashi teaches/suggests providing a circular support surface for a circular substrate. It would be obvious to selecting an annular shape for the heater setback region would enable matching the shape of the substrate for suitable substrate support and processing. Oohashi additionally teaches providing an inner heating element arranged in a central circular area and an outer heating element arranged to surround the inner heating element wherein Oohashi teaches such a configuration enables separate/independent temperature control for the inner and out region of the electrostatic chuck. Thus, it would be obvious to provide the heater further includes an inner heating element arrange in a central circular area and an outer heating element arranged to surround the inner heating element because Oohashi teaches such a configuration enables independently controlling inner and outer regions of the electrostatic chuck for improved substrate temperature uniformity. Additionally, Arai teaches a plurality of cooling channels including an outer diameter cooling channel below the bond layer that is disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate wherein such a configuration enables independent temperature control of different regions of the electrostatic chuck. It would be obvious to configure the coolant channel of Miura to comprise a plurality of cooling channels including an outer diameter cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels is disposed below said annular heater setback region and below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate because Miura already teaches a cooling channel below the heater and the setback region of the ceramic plate in an outer region of the electrostatic chuck and because Arai teaches a plurality of cooling channels enables providing independent temperature control of different regions, including an outer diameter region, of the electrostatic chuck, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks middle page 7-bottom page 7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Oohashi nor Arai cure the deficiencies of Miura since neither reference teach an annular heater setback region with no heaters disposed below and to have an outer diameter cooling channel disposed below the annular heater set back region and directly below the bond layer that is disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate.
Examiner responds “an annular heater setback region below which no heaters are disposed” is not commensurate with the claims. Teachings of Oohashi and Arai are discussed in detail in claims rejections above and summarized above and shall not be reiterated here. Examiner explains the combination of Miura, Oohashi, and Arai teach amended claim 1 limitations.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 7-top page 8), regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, neither Oohashi nor Arai are interested in having the ability to selectively cool a select edge region of a wafer while maintaining other regions of the wafer at a normal or a high temperature, thus it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Oohashi and Arai with Miura to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
Examiner responds “the ability to selectively cool a select edge region of a wafer while maintaining other regions of the wafer at a normal or a high temperature” is not commensurate with the claims. Additionally, teachings of Oohashi and Arai are discussed in detail in claims rejections above including motivations to provide inner and outer heating elements and a plurality of cooling channels as discussed in detail above. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues (remarks upper page 8-upper page 9) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 15, Kosakai does not suggest or teach the plurality of cooling channels disposed below the inner heating element, below the outer heating element, and below the annular heater setback region. Kosakai does not suggest or teach a cooling channel being disposed below the annular heater setback region and directly below the bond layer disposed between the ceramic plate and the base plate. Kosakai does not define an annular heater setback region. The cooling channels of Kosakai are disposed below the heater layer. Amended independent claims recite that the annular heater setback region is defined to be between an outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element which clearly suggests that there are no heating elements disposed below the annular heater setback region.
Examiner responds “no heating elements disposed below the annular set back region” is not commensurate with the claims. The claims require an annular heater setback region between the outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references (Kosakai) individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Kosakai does teach annular heater setback region is defined to be between an outer diameter of the raised top surface and the outer diameter of the outer heating element, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Kosakai does not explicitly teach a plurality of cooling channels including an outer diameter cooling channel as required by the claims. Examiner notes that Kosakai does teach a cooling channel below the annular heater setback region, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Further, Arai is cited to teach a plurality of cooling channels including an outer diameter cooling channel configured to cool an outer diameter region of the electrostatic chuck. Arai teaches that such a configuration enables independent temperature control of different regions of the chuck. It would be obvious to provide an outer diameter cooling channel as required by the amended claims because Kosakai already teaches a cooling channel below the heater and the setback region of the ceramic plate in an outer diameter region of the electrostatic chuck and because Arai teaches a plurality of cooling channels enables providing independent temperature control of different regions, including an outer diameter region, of the electrostatic chuck (Arai: para. [0014], [0046], [0063], [0098]).
Applicant argues (remarks page 9), regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 15, Arai does not cure the deficiencies of Kosakai and it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Arai with Kosakai as the combined teachings do not suggest or teach all of the features of the independent claims.
Examiner responds, teachings of Kosakai and Arai are discussed in detail above in claims rejections and summarized above. Examiner explains that the combination of Kosakai and Arai do teach all of the features of the independent claims, wherein Arai does provide motivation to combine, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 15 are rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 15, the dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716