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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are pending.
Claims 3 and 8 are currently withdrawn.
Claim 10 is newly added.
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, 2, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawajiri (US 20080138645 A1), in view of Aihara (US 20060279899 A1), Shimomura (US 20210287925 A1), and Hoffman (US 20080296757 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawajiri teaches a wafer placement table (Fig. 1, [0021], substrate supporting member 1) comprising:
an upper substrate including a ceramic substrate that incorporates an electrode (Fig. 1, [0021], ceramic body 11 incorporates electrode 12) and having a wafer placement surface at an upper surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig. 1, [0021], ceramic body 11 has substrate supporting surface 11a on the upper surface).
Kawajiri fails to teach a lower substrate disposed on a side of a lower surface of the upper substrate and including a refrigerant flow path through which a refrigerant flow or a refrigerant flow-path groove constituting a side wall and a bottom of the refrigerant flow path;
a through hole extending through the lower substrate in an up-down direction;
a plurality of projections provided in a dot pattern at an entirety of an upper surface of the lower substrate and being in contact with the lower surface of the upper substrate or provided in a dot pattern at an entirety of the lower surface of the upper substrate and being in contact with the upper surface of the lower substrate;
a heat dissipation sheet having a projection insertion hole into which the projections are to be inserted and being disposed in a compressed state between the upper substrate and the lower substrate;
a screw hole provided, in the lower surface of the upper substrate, at a position facing the through hole;
a screw member inserted from a lower surface of the lower substrate into the through hole and screwed into the screw hole; and
a thermally conductive paste interposed between side surfaces of the projections and an inner peripheral surface of the projection insertion hole of the heat dissipation sheet, and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on side surfaces of the projections.
However, Aihara teaches a lower substrate disposed on a side of a lower surface of the upper substrate (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0059], cooling member 5 is disposed at lower surface of base 3) and including a refrigerant flow path through which a refrigerant flow or a refrigerant flow-path groove constituting a side wall and a bottom of the refrigerant flow path (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0031], coolant passage 25 is formed in cooling member 5);
a through hole extending through the lower substrate in an up-down direction (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0059], engagement holes 31 extend through cooling member 5);
a heat dissipation sheet being disposed in a compressed state between the upper substrate and the lower substrate (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0032]-[0033], sheet-like material 7 which can be silicone resin is disposed and compressed between cooling member 5 and base 3 by fixing members 13);
a screw hole provided, in the lower surface of the upper substrate, at a position facing the through hole (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0060], screw holes 45 in base 3 face engagement holes 31 in cooling member 5); and
a screw member inserted from a lower surface of the lower substrate into the through hole and screwed into the screw hole (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0059]-[0061], bolt members 13 are inserted from lower surface of cooling member 5, through engagement holes 31, into screw holes 45 of base 3).
Aihara is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Kawajiri to have incorporated the cooling member and mechanical fixing structure of Aihara as doing so would provide an active substrate cooling mechanism using a coolant to the apparatus by a method that is low cost (Aihara, [0014]).
Modified Kawajiri fails to teach a plurality of projections provided in a dot pattern at an entirety of an upper surface of the lower substrate and being in contact with the lower surface of the upper substrate or provided in a dot pattern at an entirety of the lower surface of the upper substrate and being in contact with the upper surface of the lower substrate;
a heat dissipation sheet having a projection insertion hole into which the projections are to be inserted; and
a thermally conductive paste interposed between side surfaces of the projections and an inner peripheral surface of the projection insertion hole of the heat dissipation sheet, and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on side surfaces of the projections.
However, Shimomura teaches a plurality of projections provided in a dot pattern at an entirety of an upper surface of the lower substrate and being in contact with the lower surface of the upper substrate (Shimomura, Fig. 7, [0042], spacers 51S formed from surface of base plate 51B are in contact with lower surface of top plate 51U, and spacers are provided in a dot pattern, [0021], Fig. 4A) or provided in a dot pattern at an entirety of the lower surface of the upper substrate and being in contact with the upper surface of the lower substrate; and
a heat dissipation sheet having a projection insertion hole into which the projections are to be inserted (Shimomura, Fig. 7, projections 51S are provided through layer AD).
Shimomura is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the cooling base of modified Kawajiri to incorporated spacers in the manner taught by Shimomura as doing so would provide for a constant distance between the cooling base and the upper substrate, thereby helping ensure the substrate placed thereon can be made uniform in temperature (Shimomura, [0025]).
Modified Kawajiri fails to teach a thermally conductive paste interposed between side surfaces of the projections and an inner peripheral surface of the projection insertion hole of the heat dissipation sheet, and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on side surfaces of the projections.
However, Hoffman teaches a thermally conductive paste interposed between side surfaces of the projections and an inner peripheral surface of the projection insertion hole of the heat dissipation sheet, and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on side surfaces of the projections (Hoffman, Figs. 6-7, [0060], fluid 20 is applied between fluid spreader/heat transfer structure 10 and chip 30 such that the fluid 20 fills up spaces between the channels to prevent any voids and contacts full surfaces, and where the fluid 20 can be a TIM like thermal paste made silicone oil, [0004]).
Hoffman is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the thermal paste of Hoffman to the projections of modified Kawajiri as doing so would insure that when the cooling member and upper substrate are pressed together, the thermal paste would flow to fill up any voids present at the interfaces between components such as sidewalls and bottoms of channels, as voids reduce heat transfer efficiency (Hoffman, [0055], [0060], [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Kawajiri teaches wherein the upper substrate includes the ceramic substrate (Fig. 1, [0021], ceramic body 11 incorporates electrode 12) and a support substrate that is made of a metal or a metal ceramic composite material (Fig. 1, [0023], body 21 is a composite material of ceramic and a metallic material) and that is joined to a lower surface of the ceramic substrate with a metal joint layer interposed between the lower surface of the ceramic substrate and the support substrate material (Fig. 1, [0026], body 21 and ceramic body 11 are joined by joint material 22 composed of aluminum), and wherein the screw hole is provided in a lower surface of the support substrate.
Kawajiri fails to teach wherein the screw hole is provided in a lower surface of the support substrate.
However, Aihara teaches wherein the screw hole is provided in a lower surface of the support substrate (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0060], screw holes 45 in base 3 face engagement holes 31 in cooling member 5).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Kawajiri to have incorporated the cooling member and mechanical fixing structure of Aihara as doing so would provide an active substrate cooling mechanism using a coolant to the apparatus by a method that is low cost (Aihara, [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Kawajiri fails to teach wherein the thermally conductive paste is a paste having thermal conductivity of 0.5 W/mK or more.
However, Hoffman teaches wherein the thermally conductive paste is a paste having thermal conductivity of 0.5 W/mK or more (Hoffman, [0004]-[0007], TIM material has thermal conductivity of 1 to 4 W/mk). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the thermal paste of Hoffman to the projections of modified Kawajiri as doing so would insure that when the cooling member and upper substrate are pressed together, the thermal paste would flow to fill up any voids present at the interfaces between components such as sidewalls and bottoms of channels, as voids reduce heat transfer efficiency (Hoffman, [0055], [0060], [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Kawajiri fails to teach wherein the through hole is provided not to intersect with the refrigerant flow path or the refrigerant flow-path groove.
However, Aihara teaches wherein the through hole is provided not to intersect with the refrigerant flow path or the refrigerant flow-path groove (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0059], engagement holes 31 extend through cooling member 5 and do not intersect with the coolant passages 25).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Kawajiri to have incorporated the cooling member and mechanical fixing structure of Aihara as doing so would provide an active substrate cooling mechanism using a coolant to the apparatus by a method that is low cost (Aihara, [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Kawajiri fails to teach wherein the lower substrate is made of an easily machinable material.
However, Aihara teaches wherein the lower substrate is made of an easily machinable material (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0031], cooling member 5 is made from aluminum).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Kawajiri to have incorporated the cooling member and mechanical fixing structure of Aihara as doing so would provide an active substrate cooling mechanism using a coolant to the apparatus by a method that is low cost (Aihara, [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Kawajiri fails to teach wherein the thermally conductive paste is interposed between top surfaces of the projections and the lower surface of the upper substrate; and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on top surfaces of the projections.
However, Hoffman teaches wherein the thermally conductive paste is interposed between top surfaces of the projections and the lower surface of the upper substrate; and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on top surfaces of the projections (Hoffman, Figs. 6-7, [0060], fluid 20 is applied between fluid spreader/heat transfer structure 10 and chip 30 such that the fluid 20 fills up spaces between the channels to prevent any voids and contacts full surfaces, and where the fluid 20 can be a TIM like thermal paste made silicone oil, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied the thermal paste of Hoffman to the projections of modified Kawajiri as doing so would insure that when the cooling member and upper substrate are pressed together, the thermal paste would flow to fill up any voids present at the interfaces between components such as sidewalls and bottoms of channels, as voids reduce heat transfer efficiency (Hoffman, [0055], [0060], [0007]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawajiri (US 20080138645 A1) in view of Aihara (US 20060279899 A1), Shimomura (US 20210287925 A1), and Hoffman (US 20080296757 A1), as applied in claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 9-10, and further in view of Tomizawa (JP 2020080365 A, using previously attached English machine translation).
The limitations of claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 9-10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Kawajiri fails to teach wherein thermal resistance of the heat dissipation sheet is 0.35 K·cm2/W or less.
While modified Tomizawa does not explicitly teach the claim limitation above, Tomizawa teaches that adding carbon to the silicone increases the thermal conductivity and flexibility of the sheet. Thermal resistance is calculated by R = L/kA, where L is the thickness of the material, A is the cross-sectional area of the material and k is thermal conductivity. Hoffman is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be capable of optimizing the addition of carbon in the silicone sheet and thickness of the sheet to achieve the desired thermal conductivity (and therefore thermal resistance) and flexibility of the sheet as required by the application to stably control heat on the substrate (Tomizawa, [0057]-[0058]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawajiri (US 20080138645 A1) in view of Aihara (US 20060279899 A1), Shimomura (US 20210287925 A1), and Hoffman (US 20080296757 A1), as applied in claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 9-10, using Moriya (US 20210305918 A1) as a supporting reference.
The limitations of claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 9-10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kawajiri fails to explicitly teach wherein a Young's modulus of the heat dissipation sheet is 100 MPa or less.
While Kawajiri fails to teach a heat dissipation sheet being disposed in a compressed state between the upper substrate and the lower substrate, Aihara teaches sheet-like material 7 which can be silicone resin is disposed and compressed between cooling member 5 and base 3 by fixing members 13 (Aihara, Fig. 5, [0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Kawajiri to have incorporated the cooling member and mechanical fixing structure of Aihara as doing so would provide an active substrate cooling mechanism using a coolant to the apparatus by a method that is low cost (Aihara, [0014]).
Aihara does not disclose the Young’s modulus of the silicone resin sheet.
However, Moriya teaches wherein a Young's modulus of the heat dissipation sheet is 100 MPa or less (Moriya, [0047]-[0049], Table 1, bonding agent 20 can be silicone resin, with a Young’s modulus of 1 MPa). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 12/22/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Tomizawa, teach the claim limitations “a thermally conductive paste interposed between side surfaces of the projections and an inner peripheral surface of the projection insertion hole of the heat dissipation sheet, and wherein the thermally conductive paste fills irregularities on side surfaces of the projections” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. Particularly, that Tomizawa teaches a sheet instead of a paste, and that it is not disposed on the sidewalls of the projections. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718