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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are pending
Claims 15-20 have been cancelled
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Inazumachi et al. (US 20040065259).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kosakai teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a support plate (placing plate 11) configured to support a substrate; a base plate (base part 3) under the support plate; a thermal insulation layer (supporting plate 14) between the support plate and the base plate; a bonder (adhesion layer 4) bonding the base plate and the thermal insulation layer to each other [Fig. 1 & 0043].
Kosakai does not specifically disclose a sealing member disposed around a vertical side surface of the bonder to prevent damage to the bonder, wherein the sealing member contacts the vertical side surface of the bonder, a side surface of the thermal insulation layer, and a vertical side surface of the base plate.
Migita teaches and a sealing member (annular protective member 105) disposed around a vertical side surface of the bonder (bonding layer 111) to prevent damage to the bonder,
wherein the sealing member contacts the vertical side surface of the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the bonding layer 111),
a side surface of the thermal insulation layer(as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the insulating film 113), and a vertical side surface of the base plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the base member 107) [Fig. 1B, 3C & 0029, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein the sealing member contacts a vertical side surface of the thermal insulation layer.
Although Inazumachi does not specifically disclose "wherein the sealing member contacts a vertical side surface of the thermal insulation layer," Inazumachi teaches that the thicknesses of layers in a substrate support are result effective variables. Specifically, the thicknesses of layers in a substrate support determine thermal conductivity [Inazumachi - 0045-0046]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum thicknesses for layers in a substrate support to obtain a desired temperature gradient/profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the thickness of an insulation layer such that it contacts a peripheral structure.
Regarding Claim 2:
Kosakai does not specifically disclose a barrier around a periphery of the base plate, wherein the sealing member is disposed in a groove between the barrier and the bonder.
Migita teaches a barrier (guard ring 115) around a periphery of the base plate, wherein the sealing member is disposed in a groove (annular recess 114) between the barrier and the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B, the protective member 105 is disposed in the recess 114, which is disposed between the guard ring 115 and the bonding layer 111) [Fig. 1B & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Regarding Claim 3:
Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein an upper end surface of the barrier is higher than an upper end surface of the bonder.
Migita teaches wherein an upper end surface of the barrier is higher than an upper end surface of the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B, the guard ring 115 is higher than an upper end of the bonding layer 111) [Fig. 1B & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Regarding Claim 4:
Kosakai teaches wherein the support plate comprises a direct current (DC) electrode (internal electrode 13) configured to fix the substrate supported on an upper end of the support plate by using electrostatic force [Fig. 1 & 0044].
Regarding Claim 6:
Kosakai teaches wherein the support plate comprises at least one gas supply hole (through-hole 30) to supply a temperature control gas through the at least one gas supply hole (through-hole 30 may be used to introduce cooling gas), and wherein the at least one gas supply hole is horizontally surrounded by a dam (protrusions 16) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0047, 0061].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Inazumachi et al. (US 20040065259), as applied to claims 1-4 and 6 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20170040198).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 6 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein the support plate comprises a radio frequency (RF) layer configured to form an electromagnetic field by receiving power from an RF power source.
Lin teaches wherein the support plate (chuck body 228) comprises a radio frequency (RF) layer (electrode 223) configured to form an electromagnetic field by receiving power from an RF power source (RF power source 276) [Fig. 2A & 0031, 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Kosakai to include an RF electrode within the support plate, as in Lin, to provide uniform plasma generation [Lin - 0032].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Inazumachi et al. (US 20040065259), as applied to claims 1-4 and 6 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 20010033369).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 6 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein at least one suction hole is formed in an upper end of the thermal insulation layer to fix the support plate by vacuum suction, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump communicating with the at least one suction hole to form a vacuum pressure in the at least one suction hole.
Matsui teaches wherein at least one suction hole (plate suction hole 15) is formed in an upper end of a first layer (base member 15) to fix a second layer (plate 2) by vacuum suction, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump (plate suction mechanism 4 fixes the plate 2 via vacuum suction, therefore a vacuum pump can be reasonably inferred) communicating with the at least one suction hole to form a vacuum pressure in the at least one suction hole [Fig. 1, 2 & 0033, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first layer (thermal insulation layer) and second layer (support plate) of Modified Kosakai with the arrangement of the first layer, second layer, and suction holes of Matsui to provide further mechanical security and to provide further control over contact and heat transfer between layers in a support [Matsui - 0066].
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442), Inazumachi et al. (US 20040065259), and Hayashi et al. (US 20190348316).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kosakai teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a support plate (placing plate 11) configured to support a substrate; a base plate (base part 3) under the support plate; a thermal insulation layer (supporting plate 14) between the support plate and the base plate; a bonder (adhesion layer 4) bonding the base plate and the thermal insulation layer to each other [Fig. 1 & 0043].
Kosakai does not specifically disclose a sealing member disposed around a vertical side surface of the bonder to prevent damage to the bonder, wherein the sealing member contacts the vertical side surface of the bonder, a side surface of the thermal insulation layer, and a vertical side surface of the base plate.
Migita teaches and a sealing member (annular protective member 105) disposed around a vertical side surface of the bonder (bonding layer 111) to prevent damage to the bonder,
wherein the sealing member contacts the vertical side surface of the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the bonding layer 111),
a side surface of the thermal insulation layer(as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the insulating film 113), and a vertical side surface of the base plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the base member 107) [Fig. 1B, 3C & 0029, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein the sealing member contacts a vertical side surface of the thermal insulation layer.
Although Inazumachi does not specifically disclose "wherein the sealing member contacts a vertical side surface of the thermal insulation layer," Inazumachi teaches that the thicknesses of layers in a substrate support are result effective variables. Specifically, the thicknesses of layers in a substrate support determine thermal conductivity [Inazumachi - 0045-0046]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum thicknesses for layers in a substrate support to obtain a desired temperature gradient/profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the thickness of an insulation layer such that it contacts a peripheral structure.
Modified Kosakai (Kosakai modified by Migita and Inazumachi) does not specifically disclose a bolt fastened to the thermal insulation layer to bring an upper end surface of the thermal insulation layer into tight contact with a lower end surface of the support plate.
Hayashi teaches a bolt (first fasteners 60) fastened to a first layer (placement portion 12a) to bring an upper end surface of the first layer into tight contact with a lower end surface of a second layer (base portion 12b) [Fig. 7 & 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first layer (thermal insulation layer) and second layer (support plate) of Modified Kosakai with the arrangement of the first layer, second layer, and bolts of
Regarding Claim 9:
Kosakai does not specifically disclose a barrier around a periphery of the base plate, wherein the sealing member is disposed in a groove between the barrier and the bonder.
Migita teaches a barrier (guard ring 115) around a periphery of the base plate, wherein the sealing member is disposed in a groove (annular recess 114) between the barrier and the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B, the protective member 105 is disposed in the recess 114, which is disposed between the guard ring 115 and the bonding layer 111) [Fig. 1B & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Regarding Claim 10:
Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein an upper end surface of the barrier is higher than an upper end surface of the bonder.
Migita teaches wherein an upper end surface of the barrier is higher than an upper end surface of the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B, the guard ring 115 is higher than an upper end of the bonding layer 111) [Fig. 1B & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Regarding Claim 12:
Kosakai teaches wherein the support plate comprises a direct current (DC) electrode (internal electrode 13) configured to fix the substrate supported on an upper end of the support plate by using electrostatic force [Fig. 1 & 0044].
Regarding Claim 13:
Kosakai teaches wherein the support plate comprises at least one gas supply hole (through-hole 30) to supply a temperature control gas through the at least one gas supply hole (through-hole 30 may be used to introduce cooling gas) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0061], and wherein the at least one gas supply hole is horizontally surrounded by a dam (protrusions 16) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0047, 0061].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442), Inazumachi et al. (US 20040065259), and Hayashi et al. (US 20190348316), as applied to claims 8-10 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20200135526), with Raoux et al. (US 6136388) and Fischer (US 20060075969) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 8-10 and 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Kosakai teaches wherein the bolt is fastened to a tube (through-holes 13a and fastening holes 12d) comprising an internal thread (first fasteners 60 are screws and are screwed into the through holes 13a and fastening holes 12d, therefore it can be reasonably inferred that the through holes comprise internal threads for fastening the screws) [Hayashi - Fig. 7 & 0049].
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein a tube is brazed to a lower end of the support plate, and the bolt is fastened to the tube.
Takahashi teaches wherein a tube (brazed portion 24) is brazed to a lower end of the second layer (ceramic base 21), and the bolt (rod 32) is fastened to the tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the second layer (support plate) of Modified Kosakai with the arrangement of the second layer, and brazed tube of Takahashi to provide further mechanical bonding [Takahashi - 0029]. Raoux et al. (US 6136388) also discloses that brazing is a well-known technique in the art [Raoux - Col. 8 lines 38-47]. Fischer (US 20060075969) also discloses that brazing helps improve contact between surfaces [Fischer - 0011].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442), Inazumachi et al. (US 20040065259), and Hayashi et al. (US 20190348316), as applied to claims 8-10 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 20010033369).
The limitations of claims 8-10 and 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein at least one suction hole is formed in an upper end of the thermal insulation layer to fix the support plate by vacuum suction, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump communicating with the at least one suction hole to form a vacuum pressure in the at least one suction hole.
Matsui teaches wherein at least one suction hole (plate suction hole 15) is formed in an upper end of a first layer (base member 15) to fix a second layer (plate 2) by vacuum suction, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump (plate suction mechanism 4 fixes the plate 2 via vacuum suction, therefore a vacuum pump can be reasonably inferred) communicating with the at least one suction hole to form a vacuum pressure in the at least one suction hole [Fig. 1, 2 & 0033, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first layer (thermal insulation layer) and second layer (support plate) of Modified Kosakai with the arrangement of the first layer, second layer, and suction holes of Matsui to provide further mechanical security and to provide further control over contact and heat transfer between layers in a support [Matsui - 0066].
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Nozawa et al. (US 20060175772).
Regarding Claim 21:
Kosakai teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a support plate (placing plate 11) configured to support a substrate; a base plate (base part 3) under the support plate; a base plate (base part 3) under the support plate; a thermal insulation layer (supporting plate 14) between the support plate and the base plate; a bonder (adhesion layer 4) bonding the base plate and the thermal insulation layer to each other [Fig. 1 & 0043].
Migata teaches a sealing member (annular protective member 105) disposed in a groove (annular recess 114) between the barrier and the bonder and contacting a side surface of the bonder (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the bonding layer 111), a side surface of the base plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 3C, the protective member 105 contacts the base member 107) [Fig. 1B, 3C & 0029, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kosakai to include a sealing member, as in Migita, to protect internal layers [Migita - 0032].
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose a barrier around a periphery of the base plate, and a side surface of the barrier in the groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Kosakai to include a barrier and a sealing member, as in Nozawa, to protect internal layers [Nozawa - 0085].
Regarding Claim 23:
Kosakai teaches wherein the support plate comprises a direct current (DC) electrode (internal electrode 13) configured to fix the substrate supported on an upper end of the support plate by using electrostatic force [Fig. 1 & 0044].
Regarding Claim 25:
Kosakai teaches wherein the support plate comprises at least one gas supply hole (through-hole 30) to supply a temperature control gas through the at least one gas supply hole (through-hole 30 maye be used to introduce cooling gas) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0061], and wherein the at least one gas supply hole is horizontally surrounded by a dam (protrusions 16) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0047, 0061].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Nozawa et al. (US 20060175772), as applied to claims 21, 23, and 25 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20190348316).
The limitations of claims 21, 23, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 22:
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose a bolt fastened to the thermal insulation layer to bring an upper end surface of the thermal insulation layer into tight contact with a lower end surface of the support plate.
Hayashi teaches a bolt (first fasteners 60) fastened to a first layer (placement portion 12a) to bring an upper end surface of the first layer into tight contact with a lower end surface of a second layer (base portion 12b) [Fig. 7 & 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first layer (thermal insulation layer) and second layer (support plate) of Modified Kosakai with the arrangement of the first layer, second layer, and bolts of Hayashi to help prevent unwanted movement [Hayashi - 0051].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Nozawa et al. (US 20060175772), as applied to claims 21, 23, and 25 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20170040198)
The limitations of claims 21, 23, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 24:
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein the support plate comprises a radio frequency (RF) layer configured to form an electromagnetic field by receiving power from an RF power source.
Lin teaches wherein the support plate (chuck body 228) comprises a radio frequency (RF) layer (electrode 223) configured to form an electromagnetic field by receiving power from an RF power source (RF power source 276) [Fig. 2A & 0031, 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Kosakai to include an RF electrode within the support plate, as in Lin, to provide uniform plasma generation [Lin - 0032].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (US 20190019714) in view of Migita (US 20070144442) and Nozawa et al. (US 20060175772), as applied to claims 21, 23, and 25 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 2001003336).
The limitations of claims 21, 23, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 26:
Modified Kosakai does not specifically disclose wherein at least one suction hole is formed in an upper end of the thermal insulation layer to fix the support plate by vacuum suction, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump communicating with the at least one suction hole to form a vacuum pressure in the at least one suction hole.
Matsui teaches wherein at least one suction hole (plate suction hole 15) is formed in an upper end of a first layer (base member 15) to fix a second layer (plate 2) by vacuum suction, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump (plate suction mechanism 4 fixes the plate 2 via vacuum suction, therefore a vacuum pump can be reasonably inferred) communicating with the at least one suction hole to form a vacuum pressure in the at least one suction hole [Fig. 1, 2 & 0033, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first layer (thermal insulation layer) and second layer (support plate) of Modified Kosakai with the arrangement of the first layer, second layer, and suction holes of Matsui to provide further mechanical security and to provide further control over contact and heat transfer between layers in a support [Matsui - 0066].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the claim objection of claims 15-20, has been fully considered. The objection is now moot since the applicant has cancelled claims 15-20.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 and 21-26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Migita (US 20070144442) and Nozawa et al. (US 20060175772) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights