DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 05/07/2026. The claims 1-13 & 21- 25 are pending, of which the claim(s) 7 is/are in independent form.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s election of the Species (b) (Figure 4) during the communication received on 05/07/2026. Applicant’s response indicates that the claims 7- 13 & 21- 25 read on the elected species. Examiner further notes the election was made without traverse. See Response dated 05/07/2026, on page 1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 11, line 6, the sentence of “interaction between the ground plate and the facilities plate/cooling base” is missing period punctuation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8- 12 & 21- 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 8- 12 & 21- 25, the claim element of “comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support” should be removed since it is merely superfluous with the claim element of the claim 7 that already recites this same element of “comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support” in lines 3- 4.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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.
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) 7, 10- 13, 21, & 23- 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyzaik (US 20170133244 A1, Publication Date: 2017-05-11, same application but published outside the grace period) in view of Baker (US 20240287740 A1, Filing Date: 2021-07-07).
Regarding claim 7, Knyzaik teaches a method/system
a cooling base [e.g., “cooling base 130” of figs. 1- 5] wherein the cooling base is configured to support an electrostatic chuck [“substrate support 174 may be a heater, electrostatic chuck or other suitable device for supporting the substrate 124”] on a first surface [“cooling base 130 may have an upper surface 161” of fig. 1 or “top surface 202” of fig. 2] of the cooling base ([021-025]);
one or more cooling channels [“cooling base 130 may include cooling features 190 formed therein… provide about 4 gallons per minute of GALDEN® cooling fluid at about 40 degrees Celsius”, wherein the “cooling base 130 has a plurality of cooling features 190, such as a plurality of cooling channels 210”, wherein “cooling channels 210 may be milled, etched, cast, 3D printed or formed”] embedded within the cooling base and configured to facilitate refrigerant flow within the cooling base ([025-027, 033, 037]);
one or more first gas conduits [“passageways 292 may provide access through the cooling base 130 for electrical connections to the substrate support 174” , “A plurality of fluid passages may be formed in the upper surface161 of the cooling base 130 for regulating the temperature between the substrate support 174 and the cooling base 130.”, or “gas distribution channels 276, 274 may be formed”, wherein the “gas distribution channels 276, 274 may be milled, etched, 3D printed”] formed within the cooling base and configured to facilitate gas flow through the cooling base and couple into one or more second gas conduits of the electrostatic chuck, when the electrostatic chuck is supported by the first surface ([026, 028, 032]); and
one or more thermal isolation structures [“substrate support assembly 126 may include an insulator plate (not shown) disposed between the cooling base 130 and the base plate 176”, or “cooling base 130 may additionally have a cap 232…the body 230 and cap 232 are a single unitary piece formed together, such as through.” The caps are made up with “aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (AlO), yttria, or other suitable material” which are knowns as “exceptional insulators”] integrally formed within the cooling base and oriented [see fig. 2 for the cap 232] to control thermal uniformity [“cooling channels of the cooling base 130, having the spiral shape, improve the temperature uniformity on substrates”] across the cooling base as provided by the refrigerant flowing through the one or more cooling channels ([029-030, 1034, 050]).
Knyazik may not teach “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a data” as claimed even though its teaches the claimed product “substrate support component” and that can be fabricated using 3D printing/additive manufacturing. However, merely saving the instructions to produce “substrate support component” would have been obvious based on the disclosure of Knyazik itself since computer readable medium and method claims are obvious variants of each other.
Nevertheless, by giving the benefit of doubt, examiner further relies on disclosure of Baker. That is, Baker teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component [“fiber molding tool” 100] having various structures using a generic processor/CPU ([021, 027, 049, 077]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Baker and Knyazik because they both related to 3D printing of substrate support component having various structures and (2) modified the method/system of Knyazik to include a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause its 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support comprising the cooling base and other structures as in Baker. Doing so the method steps of fabricating substrate support component of Knyazik can be saved and be easily reused to operate a processor to cause a 3D printer to automatically start forming the substrate support component in future (Baker, [079]).
Regarding claim 10, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests The non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7, wherein the first surface of the cooling base is configured to retain an electrostatic chuck [the top surface 202 is coupled with the “substrate support 174 may be a heater, electrostatic chuck”] and a second, opposing surface of the cooling base is configured to affix to a facilities component [the lower surface 162 of the cooling base 130 may be disposed on the facility plate 145, heater, or base plate 176”] of the substrate support (Knyazik, [026], Figs. 1- 2 & Baker, [063]).
Regarding claim 11, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests The non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7, wherein the substrate support component further comprises one or more conductor paths [“plurality of passageways 292 may be formed proximate”] extending from the first surf ace of the cooling base to a second, opposing surface of the cooling base, 2wherein each of the one or more conductor paths is formed through doping of a material being deposited within a specified region of a respective layer of the cooling base with an electrically conductive material (Knyazik [028]).
Regarding claim 12, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7, wherein the one or more thermal isolation structures are arranged with respect to the cooling base to provide a specified lateral temperature uniformity across the cooling base (Knyazik, fig. 2, [028-029]).
Regarding claim 13, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7, wherein the substrate support component resides on storage medium as a data format used for an exchange of layout data (Fig. 1-2 of Knyazik & Baker [077]).
Regarding claim 21, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7, wherein the cooling base further comprises a ceramic body [“body 230 and the cap 232 may be formed from a metal or ceramic such as aluminum (Al)”] having a coefficient of thermal expansion substantially the same as the electrostatic chuck (Knyazik Fig. 1 [029]).
Regarding claim 23, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 21, wherein the cooling base further comprises a lattice infill region defining a volume within the ceramic body (Knyazik Figs. 1-2 [029] & Baker [056]—using of the “a lattice infill region” as in Baker in Knyazik would allow to replace the solid interior of the object with repeating, porous network of geometric struts or cells to reduces material needed during 3D printing in Knyazik’s system).
Regarding claim 24, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 21, wherein the cooling base further comprises a plurality of lift pin guides [“substrate support 174 may also include lift pinholes”] integrated within, and extending through, the ceramic body, each lift pin guide configured to receive a lift pin (Knyazik [022, 035]).
Regarding claim 25, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches/suggests the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7,
wherein the one or more cooling channels comprise a first cooling channel [“the first cooling channel 300 may have a first segment 312 disposed between the inlet 310 and the inner ring-shaped channel 214.”] oriented to provide a first surface area oriented to the first surface of the cooling base and a second cooling channel [“the fifth segment 320 flows in a direction 370 toward the outlet 380”] positioned adjacent to the first cooling channel and further from the first surface than the first cooling channel, wherein the a refrigerant inflow is provided to the first cooling channel and a refrigerant outflow is provided from the second cooling channel ([039-043]).
Claim(s) 8-9 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik in view of Baker as in claim 7 & 21, and further in view of Gracia et al. (US 20200395197 A1, Publication Date: 2020-12-17).
Regarding claim 22, Knyazik in view of Baker teaches non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 21 as set forth above.
However, Knyazik in view of Baker fails to teach wherein the substrate support component further comprises a mechanical thermal brake structure embedded within the ceramic body of the cooling base, the mechanical thermal brake structure configured to provide lateral temperature uniformity across the cooling base.
Gracia in the same field of endeavor teaches fabricating a substrate support component of a substrate support, the substrate support component comprising a mechanical thermal brake structure embedded [“the adjustable thermal break 200 is disposed in the cooling base assembly 105”] within the ceramic body of the cooling base, the mechanical thermal brake structure configured to provide lateral temperature uniformity across the cooling base ([036-040]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Gracia and Knyazik in view of Baker because they both related to fabricating a substrate support component comprising a cooling base and (2) modified the substrate support component of Knyazik in view of Baker to include mechanical thermal brake structure embedded within the ceramic body of the cooling base as in Gracia. Doing so would allow to vary/adjust the thermal conductivity across the cooling base of the substrate support component of the Knyazik in view of Baker as desired (Gracia [045]).
Regarding claims 8- 9, Knyazik in view of Baker further teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium comprising data to cause a 3D printer to fabricate a substrate support component of a substrate support of claim 7 including the one or more thermal isolation structures as set forth above.
However, Knyazik in view of Baker fails to teach its the one or more thermal isolation structures comprises:
Claim 8- a mechanical thermal break formed from a material having different thermal conduction along at least two orthogonal axes;
Claim 9- plurality of independent fluid pathways configured to receive a controlled amount of gas flow.
Gracia in the same field of endeavor cures both of these deficiencies. Specifically, Gracia teaches a method for fabricating a substrate support component of a substrate support comprising one or more thermal isolation structures comprise
a mechanical thermal break [“the adjustable thermal break 200 is disposed”] formed from a material having different thermal conduction along at least two orthogonal axes ([038-041]);
plurality of independent fluid pathways configured to receive a controlled amount of gas flow ([041, 052]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Gracia and Knyazik in view of Baker because they both related to fabricating a substrate support component comprising a cooling base and (2) modified the more thermal isolation structures of Knyazik in view of Baker to incorporate missing limitations. Doing so would allow to vary/adjust the thermal conductivity across the substrate support component of the Knyazik in view of Baker as desired/needed for the semiconductor manufacturing (Gracia [045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Sarode et al. (US 11569114 B2) teaches a substrate support comprising an insulator plate 109 that insulates the facility plate 107 from the ground plate 111 (Col 4 lines 5-20).
2) Madananth (US 20210175103 A1) teaches substrate support component comprising: one or more thermal isolation structures [“insulator plate 109 may insulate the facility plate 107”] integrally formed within the cooling base and oriented to control thermal uniformity across the cooling base as provided by the refrigerant flowing through the one or more cooling channels of a cooling base [plate 107] (Fig. 1, [027]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “cap232 and the body 230 may be formed integral to one another through an process such as 3D printing.”
2 The italic portion covers how the conductor paths are being formed and hence do not provide patentable distinction with the claimed structure in product-by process claim. However, please note that forming conductor paths through doping of a material being deposited within a specified region of a respective layer of the cooling base with an electrically conductive material is well-established and matured technique and would have been obvious to apply here as well to easily form “plurality of passageways 292” in Knyazik with well-established technique.
Prosecution Insights