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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 5/12/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103(a) are necessitated by the amendments.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima (US 20030075537) in view of Elliot (US 20070169703)
As to claim 1, Okajima discloses a pedestal comprising:
A base portion and stem portion attached to a center of the base portion (figure 2: base 2 with stem 11);
A single heater arranged in the base portion including a first loop in a center region of the base, a perimeter of the first loop less than the perimeter of the first end of the stem portion (figure 4: resistive heater 4 with central first loop; figure 2: showing heater 4 with first two loops [shown as cross sectional dots] within diameter of base 11 and third loops at the same diameter as base 11).
Okajima, while disclosing the base for clamping a substrate (paragraph 62: electrostatic chucking), is silent as to the base comprising a plurality of metal plates with the heater between two plates.
Elliot discloses a pedestal with base and stem including an electrostatic chuck for a substrate (figure 1: base 110 with stem 150; paragraph 16) and the base comprising a plurality of metal plates with a resistive heating coil between two of the base’s plates (paragraph 7: CTE-matching layer plate includes metal and metal alloys; paragraph 27 and figure 3: CTE-matching layers 305, 310 with resistive heater coil 335 therebetween). Elliot discloses the structure designed to provide excellent thermal conductivity and preventing cracking (paragraph 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of plates with heating elements between plates, as disclosed by Elliot, in the system of Okajima, because this allows for good thermal conduction while preventing cracking.
As to claim 2-3, Elliot discloses the stem comprises a conical portion attached to the base and a second end with smaller diameter than the conical end extending from the second end (figure 2: conical section 230 with wider connection to base portion of pedestal and ‘second end’ narrower section 160).
As to claims 5-6, Okajima discloses the heater includes a second loop surrounding and concentric with the first loop and has a third perimeter that is greater than the second/stem perimeter (figure 1-2: showing heater 4 with a series of concentric loops, figure 2 illustrating multiple loops outside the diameter/perimeter of stem 11).
As to claims 7-8, Okajima discloses a heater with a plurality of concentric loops (figures 1-2: heater 4), but is silent as to the specific loop sizes relative to the stem and central loops.
Adjustment of relative size of components is generally held to be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art(see MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the relative components, including a second loop and the central loop and stem as required by the instant claims to obtain the desired heating profile within the structure.
As to claim 10, Eliot discloses the top conical portion is less than one third the overall stem length (figure 2) and therefore contains a height of the overall stem at an arbitrarily chosen location to meet the 1/3 length to height requirement.
As to claim 12 Elliot discloses a Y-shaped stem (figure 2).
As to claim 15, Elliot discloses the first portion of the stem is a polygon shape (figure 2: triangular/Y-shaped stem attachment portion).
As to claim 18 Okajima discloses a pedestal comprising:
A base portion and stem portion attached to a center of the base portion (figure 2: base 2 with stem 11);
A single heater arranged in the base portion including a first loop in a center region of the base, a perimeter of the first loop less than the perimeter of the first end of the stem portion (figure 4: resistive heater 4 with central first loop; figure 2: showing heater 4 with first two loops [shown as cross-sectional dots] within diameter of base 11 and third loops at the same diameter as base 11).
A second loop connected to and surrounding the first loop, the second loop having a perimeter greater than the stem perimeter and less than the base perimeter (figures 1-2: showing heater 4 with a series of connected concentric loops, figure 2 illustrating multiple loops outside the diameter/perimeter of stem 11).
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Elliot, as applied to claim 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20160230281).
As to claims 4 and 19, Okajima and Elliott disclose a pedestal with base containing a resistive heater and a stem, but is silent as to the thickness of the stem walls being 0.25 to 0.35 inches.
Lin discloses a substrate pedestal including a base and stem portion, the base containing a resistive heater (figure 2; paragraph 29). Lin also discloses knowledge in the art of providing a stem with thickness of 0.1 to 0.4 inches to control the thermal conductance of the shaft as desired (paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness of 0.25 to 0.35, as taught within the range of Lin, in the system of Okajima and Elliot, because this allows for control over thermal conductance in the stem.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Elliot, as applied to claim 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Lei (US 6494955).
As to claims 16 and 20, Okajima discloses a base plate, stem and heating system for a substrate support, but is silent as to a cooling system mounted to the stem.
Lei discloses a substrate support with support plate and stem, the support [base portion] containing an embedded heater electrode (abstract; figure 1, 2a: heater electrode 234 in plate 210 on stem 204). Lei also discloses knowledge in the art of providing a cooling system mounted on the stem (figure 2a: heat exchange 256) to remove heat and obtain temperature uniformity in the support structure (col 7 lines 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount a cooling system to the stem, as disclosed by Lei, in the system of Okajima, because this allows for temperature control and uniformity.
As to claim 17, Lei discloses a lift system for the pedestal structure (figure 1: lift 144).
Claim(s) 9, 11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima in view of Elliot, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (US 20210243850).
As to claim 9, Elliot discloses an angled stem portion, as discussed above, but is silent as to a 25-30 degree slope.
Ishikawa discloses a pedestal with base portion containing concentrically contained resistive heating loops and a connected stem portion (figure 2: heater 23 within base 20 and stem/shaft 40). Ishikawa also discloses knowledge in the art of a curved connection between a vertical and horizontal extension portion containing all angles including the requisite 25-30 degrees (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the curved connection of Ishikawa in the system of Okajima in view of Elliot, because this allows for a known effective stem and base connection shape.
As to claim 11, Ishikawa discloses a monolithic stem (figure 1-2).
As to claim 13, Ishikawa discloses the stem is cylindrical (figure 1: stem 40).
As to claim 14, Ishikawa discloses the stem is cup shaped (figure 1-2: showing narrow to wide open structure of ‘cup’ shape of stem 40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as discussed above.
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 JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights