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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
No claim(s) is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-10, 12, 14 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments (claims 1 and 2) with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Naim (claims 1 and 2) in addition to previously relied on references below.
Applicant’s amendments with subsequent arguments in support of the amendments, see pp. 7-8, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection and 103 rejections of 05/07/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gomm discloses passages that a voids within the stem.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that this is Applicant’s subjective interpretation, nowhere in the disclosure of Gomm is the word “void” or related words used, as Applicant has argued. Gomm merely discloses the gas passages are included in the side wall of the stem and no further information is given (para. [0042]).
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-13 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. Claim 1 recites “wherein the ceramic gas delivery tubes each comprise an inner wall and an outer wall separated by a thickness of the first ceramic material.” The claim does not have support in the disclosure for the tubes each having two walls, they each only have one wall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160336213 to Gomm in view of US 20090002913 to Naim.
Claim 1: Gomm discloses a semiconductor processing apparatus comprising: a wafer pedestal (320 [substrate pedestal module], Fig. 6]) comprising a ceramic pedestal shaft (210 [stem]) coupled to an underside of a ceramic wafer chuck (under 205 [platen]), the ceramic pedestal shaft (210) having a central through opening (215 [cylindrical interior region]); and ceramic gas delivery tubes (217 [gas passages]) embedded within the ceramic pedestal shaft (210), at least one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217) being embedded within or attached to a wall (211 [side wall]) of the ceramic pedestal shaft (210, para. [0031]), the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217) being made of a first ceramic material (para. [0030]) and the ceramic pedestal shaft (210) being made of a second ceramic material (para. [0030]), the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217) being coupled to gas channels (280 [platen gas passage]) in the ceramic wafer chuck (205, para. [0031]).
However Gomm does not disclose wherein the ceramic gas delivery tubes each comprise an inner wall and an outer wall separated by a thickness of the first ceramic material.
Naim discloses wherein a ceramic gas delivery tube comprising an inner wall (interpreted as inner side of 21 [dielectric insert], Fig. 2) and an outer wall (interpreted as outer side of 21) separated by a thickness of the first ceramic material (thickness of 21, para. [0022]), for the purpose of preventing arcing to any metal components nearby (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Naim with motivation to prevent arcing to any metal components nearby.
Claims 2-3: Gomm does not disclose (claim 2) wherein the outer wall of the least one of the ceramic delivery tubes physically contacts the wall of the ceramic pedestal at an interface region; (claim 3) wherein the first ceramic material and the second ceramic material have different chemical composition.
However Naim discloses (claim 2) wherein the outer wall of the least one of the ceramic delivery tubes (outer wall of 21, Fig. 2) physically contacts the wall of the ceramic component (wall of 1/3) at an interface region (where 1/3 meets 21, see Fig. 2); (claim 3) wherein the first ceramic material (material of 1/3) and the second ceramic material (material of 21) have different chemical composition (para. [0024], [0021-0022]); for the purpose of preventing arcing that may develop during processing (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the requirements above as taught by Naim with motivation to prevent arcing that may develop during processing.
Claim 10: Gomm discloses wherein the ceramic pedestal shaft (210, Fig. 6, Gomm) is made of a ceramic material selected from a group consisting of aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and boron nitride (para. [0030]).
Claim 11: Gomm discloses wherein the first ceramic material (material of 217, Fig. 6, Gomm) is selected from a group consisting of aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and boron nitride (para. [0030]).
Claim 12: Gomm discloses wherein the first ceramic material (material of 217, Fig. 6, Gomm) and the second ceramic material (material of 210) are made of aluminum nitride (para. [0030]).
Claim 13: Gomm discloses wherein the ceramic pedestal shaft (210, Fig. 6, Gomm) is diffusion bonded to the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (205, para. [0027]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20140117119 to Unno.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Gomm discloses and a second of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (217, Fig. 6, Gomm) embedded in a wall (211) of the ceramic pedestal shaft (210) and coupled to a second gas channel opening (opening of 280) in a peripheral region of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (underside of 205);
The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes is centered within the central through opening and coupled to a first gas channel opening in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck;
Unno discloses further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (18 [inner tube], Fig. 1) is centered within the central through opening (opening of 22 [outer tube]) and coupled to a first gas channel opening (“through-holes,” not shown but disclosed in para. [0025]) in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (12 plate]) for the purpose of reducing cracking and/or reducing unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation (para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the central tube as taught by Unno with motivation to reduce cracking and/or reduce unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20140117119 to Unno, US 20160230281 to Lin.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes is centered within the central through opening and coupled to a gas channel opening in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck; and a second of the ceramic gas delivery tubes disposed within the central through opening and attached to an inside wall of the ceramic pedestal shaft.
Unno discloses further comprising: a first of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (18 [inner tube], Fig. 1) is centered within the central through opening (opening of 22 [outer tube]) and coupled to a first gas channel opening (“through-holes,” not shown but disclosed in para. [0025]) in a center of the underside of the ceramic wafer chuck (12 plate]) for the purpose of reducing cracking and/or reducing unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation (para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the central tube as taught by Unno with motivation to reduce cracking and/or reduce unnecessary deposition at a central portion of the plate due to decreased heat dissipation.
Regarding the second tubes, however Lin teaches many configurations of a conduits (Fig. 1-8B) including embedded in a wall or located within an opening, or both configurations for the purpose of obtaining a pedestal that is temperature controlled in multiple zones (para. 0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tube multiple options as taught by Lin with motivation to obtain a pedestal that is temperature controlled in multiple zones.
Claim(s) 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20190189472 to Dunbar, US 20050069015 to Bogdahn.
Claims 6, 9: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising (claim 6) a resistance heater embedded in one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes; (claim 9) further comprising a resistance heater embedded in one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes.
Dunbar discloses (claim 6, 9) a resistance heater (110 [heating elements], Fig. 3, para. [0013]) embedded in one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes (100 [tube]), for the purpose of being particularly useful in fluid systems for semiconductor manufacturing and/or other chemical processes (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the resistance heater as taught by Dunbar with motivation to be particularly useful in fluid systems for semiconductor manufacturing and/or other chemical processes.
The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose (claim 9) with a cooling tube coiled around one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes with an embedded resistance heater.
Bogdahn discloses further comprising a cooling tube (9-10, 29, Fig. 1) coiled around the ceramic gas delivery tube (1 [quartz glass cylinder]) with heater (21 [furnace jacket]) for the purpose of achieving a controllable temperature (para. [0045], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling structure as taught by Bogdahn with motivation to achieve a controllable temperature.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomm as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20050069015 to Bogdahn, US 20010004879 to Umotoy.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose further comprising a cooling tube coiled around one of the ceramic gas delivery tubes;
Bogdahn discloses further comprising a cooling tube (9-10, 29, Fig. 1) coiled around the ceramic gas delivery tube (1 [quartz glass cylinder]) for the purpose of achieving a controllable temperature (para. [0045], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling structure as taught by Bogdahn with motivation to achieve a controllable temperature.
Claim 8: The apparatus of Gomm does not disclose wherein the cooling tube comprises a metal selected from a group consisting of nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, and tungsten carbide.
Umotoy discloses wherein the cooling structure (399, Fig. 3a) comprises a metal selected from a group consisting of nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, and tungsten carbide (para. [0053]) or other suitable materials for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of good thermal conductivity and chemical compatibility (para. 0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material optimization and/or requirements as taught by Umotoy with motivation to satisfy the requirement of good thermal conductivity and chemical compatibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses a method of forming a wafer pedestal assembly, the method comprising: forming a pedestal shaft structure comprising a central through opening and a ceramic gas delivery tube; sintering the pedestal shaft structure to form a ceramic pedestal shaft with the ceramic gas delivery tube; aligning the ceramic gas delivery tube with a gas channel opening of a ceramic wafer chuck; and attaching the ceramic pedestal shaft to the ceramic wafer chuck with the ceramic gas delivery tube being aligned to the gas channel opening.
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the ceramic gas delivery tube being made of a ceramic glass sintered prior to forming the pedestal shaft structure, as set forth in the pending claims. The method of Unno or Lingampalli fails to disclose the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
Claims 24-29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses a method of forming a wafer pedestal assembly, the method comprising: forming a pedestal shaft structure comprising a central through opening and a metal tube within a wall of the pedestal shaft structure; sintering the pedestal shaft structure to form a pedestal shaft with the metal tube; and attaching the pedestal shaft to a ceramic wafer chuck with the gas delivery tube being aligned to a gas channel opening of the ceramic wafer chuck.
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest etching the metal tube to form a gas delivery tube disposed within the wall of the pedestal shaft, as set forth in the present claims. The method of Unno or Lingampalli fails to disclose the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights