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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I (Figures 1-3) in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species identified in the Restriction Requirement of 04/08/2026 are sufficiently related. This is found persuasive.
The requirement is therefore WITHDRAWN.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 20050098120).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 10, Maki discloses a wafer placement table 21 comprising a ceramic substrate 22 having a wafer placement surface 22a on an upper surface thereof and containing an electrode 23 therein (see Fig. 1), a cooling substrate 27 made of a metal-ceramic composite (Paragraph [0046]) having a cooling medium passage 26 formed therein and a metal joining layer 28 (Paragraph [0049]). Maki discloses the cooling substrate having an exemplary thickness of 30 mm (Paragraph [0070]) and illustrates a larger amount of the substrate below the cooling medium passage(s) with a smaller amount of the substrate above the cooling medium passage(s) (see e.g. Fig. 1). Maki does not explicitly disclose the exact measurements of the thickness of the lower and upper parts of the cooling substrate below and above the cooling medium passage(s) respectively.
However, modifying the thicknesses of the lower part and upper part to be greater than or equal to 15mm/49% of the overall thickness of the cooling substrate and less than or equal to 3mm respectively, would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made in order to achieve the best cooling performance by optimizing the distance between the cooling medium passage(s) and the ceramic substrate. For example, a thinner upper part would allow for more effective cooling. See MPEP 2144.05 and 2144.04, IV, A.
Claims 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 20050098120) in view of Boyd Jr. (US 20220270907, hereinafter ‘Boyd’).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 11-12, Maki does not disclose the claimed clamping flange.
Boyd discloses a similar wafer placement table wherein a cooling substrate 110 disposed beneath a ceramic substrate 120 is provided with a flange portion 214 configured to clamp the wafer placement table greater in diameter than the ceramic substrate (see Fig. 2). Similar to above, Boyd does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the flange portion.
However, providing the flange portion with a width of at least 10 mm or greater than or equal to 106% of an outside diameter of the ceramic substrate would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made in order to provide a suitably sized surface for clamping while not overly enlarging the wafer placement table. See above-cited optimization and dimension case law.
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Maki discloses the importance of providing coefficients of thermal expansion between parts of the wafer placement table “as close as possible” (Paragraphs [0037 & 0041-0042]). However, Maki does not explicitly disclose the exact difference between thermal expansion coefficients, specifically between the metal-ceramic composite and the ceramic material.
Boyd discloses a similar wafer placement table wherein the metal-ceramic composite cooling substrate 110 and ceramic material forming the ceramic substrate 120 are “substantially matched” in order to reduce a mismatch and mitigate warping or separation between the two pieces during processing of the substrate (Paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to match the coefficients of thermal expansion of the cooling substrate and the ceramic substrate as taught by Boyd in order to avoid warping or separation of the two pieces. A “substantially matched” coefficient of thermal expansion would have zero difference.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 20050098120) in view of Venkatraman et al. (US 20220208592, hereinafter ‘Venkatraman’).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Maki illustrates the cooling medium passage(s) having a square/rectangular shape in cross section, but makes no discussion of the shape.
Venkatraman discloses a similar wafer placement table, wherein the cooling plate 100 is provided with cooling medium passage(s) 106 having cross-sectional shapes having rounded corners (see e.g. Figs. 2B and 2C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cooling medium passage(s) of the table of Maki with rounded upper corners, as taught by Venkatraman, in order to provide more effective heat transfer (Paragraphs [0077-0080] of Venkatraman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights