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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the first plurality of mesochannels extend from a center area of the body to an area adjacent an outer circumferential edge of the body and back to the center area of the body". This limitation is unclear and confusing because claim 1 requires the first plurality of mesochannels to be in a spiral pattern, so by definition the channels cannot turn back and end inward since a spiral pattern (e.g. Merrian Webster spiral: “winding around a center or pole and gradually receding from or approaching it”). Similar deficiencies appear in claims 8-9.
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) 1-7, 10, 14-17, 22-31, 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanya (US 20240213081), hereinafter referred to as Subramanya
Re claim 1, Subramanya teaches a substrate support comprising:
a body (110) configured to support a substrate within a substrate processing system (e.g. abstract, “a substrate support chuck configured to support a substrate in the process chamber”); and
a first channel assembly (e.g. 121) disposed in the body and comprising
a first plurality of channels (e.g. 121; see e.g. Fig 14 illustrating the multiple channels divided by 117), wherein the first plurality of channels extend parallel to each other and in a spiral pattern (e.g. Fig 8 and 12),
a first supply manifold (Fig 7; 121E1 when considering the plurality of channels) supplying coolant to each of the first plurality of channels, and
a first return manifold (Fig 7; 121E2 when considering the plurality of channels) receiving the coolant from the first plurality of channels,
wherein
the first plurality of channels is disposed between the first supply manifold and the first return manifold to facilitate flow of the coolant from the first supply manifold to the first return manifold (e.g. Fig 7-12), and
the first plurality of channels are connected in parallel such that first ends of the first plurality of channels are connected to the first supply manifold and second ends of the first plurality of mesochannels are connected to the first return manifold (e.g. Fig 7-12).
Subramanya does not explicitly teach the limitation of the channels being mesochannels.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that the fact that using mesochannels in heat exchangers, for the purpose of having a higher heat transfer than macrochannels and/or a lower pressure drop than microchannels, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Subramanya, and configured the channels as mesochannels, for the purpose of having a higher heat transfer than macrochannels and/or a lower pressure drop than microchannels.
Re claim 2, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein a cross-section of each of the first plurality of mesochannels has a hydraulic diameter of less than 3.0 mm (implied by virtue of the modification, a mesochannel has a hydraulic diameter of less than 3mm).
Re claim 3, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein the first supply manifold is disposed radially inward of the first return manifold (e.g. Fig 7-8).
Re claim 4, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein the first supply manifold is disposed radially outward of the first return manifold (e.g. Fig 6).
Re claim 7, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein the first supply manifold is disposed adjacent to the first return manifold (e.g. Fig 7-8).
Re claim 10, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 7. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein the first supply manifold and the first return manifold extend in a radial direction (e.g. Fig 7-8).
Re claim 14, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 7. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein at least one of cross-section widths and cross-section heights of the first plurality of mesochannels are uniform (e.g. Fig 7).
Re claim 15, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 7. Subramanya, as modified, teaches the first plurality of mesochannels comprise a first mesochannel having a first cross-section width (see cross-sectional width one of the left than 121, Fig 7), and a second mesochannel having a second cross-section width (see cross-sectional width one of the right than 121, Fig 7). Subramanya does not explicitly teach the limitation of the second cross-section width is smaller than the first cross-section width. However, Per MEPE 2143-I, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: smaller, same or bigger. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that having difference cross-section width, fort her purpose of increasing/decreasing the fluid/heat flow rate, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, since modifying the prior art Subramanya, as modified, to have the second cross-section width smaller than the first cross-section width, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the Subramanya; and in view of Official Notice there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Subramanya, as modified, by having the second cross-section width smaller than the first cross-section width in order to increase/decrease the fluid/heat flow rate.
Re claim 16, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 7. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein the first plurality of mesochannels have a same length (e.g. Fig 7-8).
Re claim 17, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 7. Subramanya, as modified, teaches wherein the first plurality of mesochannels comprise a first mesochannel having a first length, and a second mesochannel having a second length (e.g. Fig 7-8). Subramanya does not explicitly teach the limitation of the second length is different than the first length. However, Per MEPE 2143-I, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: same or different. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that having difference lengths, for her purpose of increasing/decreasing the fluid/heat flow rate, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, since modifying the prior art Subramanya, as modified, to have the second length is different than the first length, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the Subramanya; and in view of Official Notice there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Subramanya, as modified, by having the second length is different than the first length in order to increase/decrease the fluid/heat flow rate.
Re claim 21, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the body comprises: a first plate (e.g. 113U) defining a first portion of the first mesochannel assembly; and a second plate (e.g. 113L) attached to the first plate and defining a second portion of the first mesochannel assembly (see Fig 9).
Re claim 22, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 21. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the first portion includes a plurality of grooves; the plurality of grooves define three sides of each of the first plurality of mesochannels; and the second portion including a fourth side of each of the first plurality of mesochannels (see Fig 9). Subramanya does not explicitly teach the limitation of the channels being mesochannels.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that the fact that using mesochannels in heat exchangers, for the purpose of having a higher heat transfer than macrochannels and/or a lower pressure drop than microchannels, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Subramanya, and configured the channels as mesochannels, for the purpose of having a higher heat transfer than macrochannels and/or a lower pressure drop than microchannels.
Re claim 23, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the body comprises: a first layer (layer where 121 is) comprising the first mesochannel assembly, and a second layer (layer where 123 is) comprising a second mesochannel assembly (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 24, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the second mesochannel assembly comprises a second plurality of channels (e.g. 123; see e.g. Fig 14 illustrating the multiple channels divided by 117), a second supply manifold (Fig 7; 123E1 when considering the plurality of channels) supplying coolant to each of the second plurality of channels, and a second return manifold (Fig 7; 123E2 when considering the plurality of channels) receiving the coolant from the second plurality of channels; and the second plurality of channels is disposed between the second supply manifold and the second return manifold to facilitate flow of the coolant from the second supply manifold to the second return manifold (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 25, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 24. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the second mesochannel assembly comprises a second plurality of channels (e.g. 123; see e.g. Fig 14 illustrating the multiple channels divided by 117), a second supply manifold (Fig 7; 123E1 when considering the plurality of channels) supplying coolant to each of the second plurality of channels, and a second return manifold (Fig 7; 123E2 when considering the plurality of channels) receiving the coolant from the second plurality of channels; and the second plurality of channels is disposed between the second supply manifold and the second return manifold to facilitate flow of the coolant from the second supply manifold to the second return manifold (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 26, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 24. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the first mesochannel assembly is disposed over the second mesochannel assembly (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 27, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 24. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the first layer is disposed over the second layer; the first supply manifold of the first mesochannel assembly is disposed over the second return manifold of the second mesochannel assembly; and the first return manifold of the first mesochannel assembly is disposed over the second supply manifold of the second mesochannel assembly (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 28, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the body comprises a plurality of mesochannel assemblies including the first mesochannel assembly (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 29, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 28. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the plurality of mesochannel assemblies are each disposed in at least a portion of a same layer of the body (see Fig 7-9; if 110 is considered an entire layer).
Re claim 30, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 28. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the plurality of mesochannel assemblies are each disposed in and defined by a same two plates of the body (see Fig 7-9; upper cover plate 113U and a lower cover plate 113L).
Re claim 31, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 28. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the plurality of mesochannel assemblies are each disposed in different layers of the body (see Fig 7-9; when consider the 121 and 123 different layers).
Re claim 38, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya further teaches the limitation of wherein the first plurality of mesochannels comprise at least one mesochannel disposed at varying vertical levels within the body (see Fig 7-9).
Re claim 39-40, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim 1. Subramanya does not explicitly teach the limitation of the first plurality of mesochannels comprise at least one mesochannel having cross-sections that vary in height along a length of the at least one mesochannel. However, Per MEPE 2143-I, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: same or varying. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that having varying heights, for her purpose of increasing/decreasing the fluid/heat flow rate, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, since modifying the prior art Subramanya, as modified, to have the second length is different than the first length, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the Subramanya; and in view of Official Notice there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Subramanya, as modified, by having the the first plurality of mesochannels comprise at least one mesochannel having cross-sections that vary in height along a length; and/or the first plurality of mesochannels comprise at least one mesochannel having cross-sections that transition between increasing in height and decreasing in height of the at least one mesochannel in order to increase/decrease the fluid/heat flow rate.
Re claim 59, Subramanya, as modified, teaches a substrate processing system comprising substrate support of claim 1; a first line supplying the coolant to the first supply manifold (see first line in Fig 7); a second line supplying the coolant to the first return manifold (see second line in Fig 7); and a pump (inherent to move the coolant) connected to at least one of the first line and the second line and circulating the coolant through the first mesochannel assembly (see Fig 7).
Re claim 60, Subramanya, as modified, teaches the substrate support of claim the substrate processing system of claim 59, further comprising: a temperature sensor (e.g. 1114) configured to detect a temperature within a processing chamber, wherein the substrate support is disposed in the processing chamber (see Fig 15); and a controller (135). Subramanya, as modified, does not teach the limitation of the controller configured to control operation of the pump based on the temperature. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a controller configured to control operation of the pump based on the temperature, in order to control the appropriate temperature, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Subramanya, and configured the controller to control operation of the pump based on the temperature, in order to control the appropriate temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 41-58 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 10/31/2025