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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 226 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prouty; Stephen Donald et al. (US 20200373184 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1). Prouty teaches a wafer placement table (Figure 2) comprising: a ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) including a wafer placement portion having a reference surface (bottom of 280; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21c; Figure 3) on which a number of small protrusions (216; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21b; Figure 1,3) that support a wafer are provided, the ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) incorporating an electrode (208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 22; Figure 1,3); a cooling plate (104; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 30; Figure 1,3) including a refrigerant flow path (212; Figure 2; [0023];”cooling channels”; [0003]); a joining layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) with which the ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) and the cooling plate (104; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 30; Figure 1,3) are joined to one another; a recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) provided in the reference surface (bottom of 280; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21c; Figure 3) and having a bottom surface positioned lower than the reference surface (bottom of 280; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21c; Figure 3); a plug arrangement hole (211; Figure 2-Applicant’s 24; Figure 1,3) passing through the ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) in a thickness direction and being open to the bottom surface of the recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3); a porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) disposed in the plug arrangement hole (211; Figure 2-Applicant’s 24; Figure 1,3), the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) having a top surface positioned at the same height as the bottom surface of the recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3), the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) having an outer peripheral surface joined to an inner peripheral surface of the plug arrangement hole (211; Figure 2-Applicant’s 24; Figure 1,3), the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) allowing gas to flow; and a gas supply path (270; Figure 2) through which gas is supplied to the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3), wherein the gas supply path (270; Figure 2) is a path extending from a lower surface of the cooling plate (104; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 30; Figure 1,3) to a lower surface of the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) through a joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (204A; Figure 2) provided, in the joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3), at a position where the joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) faces the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3), wherein Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) and Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) each have a circular shape in plan view (253-“diameter”; [0032]) - claim 1
Prouty further teaches:
The wafer placement table according to claim 1, wherein the top surface of the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) is at the same height as the bottom surface of the recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3), as claimed by claim 7
The wafer placement table according to claim 1, wherein the joining layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) includes a through hole (204A; Figure 2) for the gas to pass to the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) – claim 8
Prouty does not teach:
Prouty’s joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (204A; Figure 2) has a size small enough not to allow Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass, a diameter of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) at Prouty’s top surface of Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) being greater than a diameter of Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) at its top surface, and wherein a distance from the bottom surface of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) to Prouty’s reference surface (bottom of 280; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21c; Figure 3) is 0.005 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less - claim 1
wherein a diameter of the joining layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (204A; Figure 2) is less than the diameter of the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) – claim 8
Prouty’s wafer placement table according to claim 1, wherein Prouty’s joining layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) includes a plurality of through holes (204A; Figure 2) for the gas to pass to Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3), as claimed by claim 9
Parkhe also teaches a wafer placement table (100; Figure 3) including:
Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1.
wherein a diameter of the joining layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) is less than the diameter of the porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) – claim 8
Parkhe’s wafer placement table according to claim 1, wherein Parkhe’s joining layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) includes a plurality of through holes (“…but any applicable number of apertures can be utilized”; [0020]) for the gas to pass to Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3), as claimed by claim 9
Unno also teaches a plugged (50; Figure 6) backside gas conduit (42; Figure 6) including a diameter of the recessed groove (20c-e; Figure 6; [0018],[0027],[0047]-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) at the top surface of the porous plug (50; Figure 6-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) being greater than a diameter of the porous plug (50; Figure 6-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) at its top surface, and wherein a distance from the bottom surface of the recessed groove (20c-e; Figure 6; [0018],[0027],[0047]-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) to the reference surface (bottom of W; Figure 6-Applicant’s 21c; Figure 3) is 0.005 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less (depth < 0.1mm; [0047]; Figure 7). Here, groove depth of <0.1mm is considered equivalent to boss height 24 as shown in Figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (204A; Figure 2) as taught by Parkhe.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (204A; Figure 2) as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prouty; Stephen Donald et al. (US 20200373184 A1), Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1), and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Yamaguchi; Kosuke et al. (US 20190287838 A1). Prouty, Parkhe, and Unno are discussed above. Prouty is further believed to teach Prouty’s wafer placement table according to claim 2, wherein a service temperature of Prouty’s joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) is lower than a sintering temperature of Prouty’s ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3), as claimed by claim 3. The Examiner believes this claim to be an intended use claim because the “service temperature” does not further limit the claimed apparatus structurally and is subject to how the claimed apparatus is intended to be used. Further, the service temperature of Prouty’s joining-layer (204; Figure 2; [0021]-[0022]-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) must be lower than a sintering temperature of Prouty’s ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) otherwise, temperatures used in excess of the sintering temperature of Prouty’s ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) would cause Prouty’s ceramic plate (206; Figure 2; [0025]-Applicant’s 20; Figure 1, 3) to fail structurally.
Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Prouty and Parkhe do not teach the wafer placement table (Figure 2) according to Claim 1, wherein the outer peripheral surface of the porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) is joined to the inner peripheral surface of the plug arrangement hole (211; Figure 2-Applicant’s 24; Figure 1,3) by sintering, as claimed by claim 2
Prouty and Parkhe further do not teach:
Yamaguchi also teaches a porous plug (90; Figure 2A) joined to the inner peripheral surface of the plug (90; Figure 2A) arrangement hole (93s; Figure 2A-Applicant’s 24; Figure 1,3) by sintering ([0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Prouty to sinter Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]) to Prouty’s plug arrangement hole (211; Figure 2) as taught by Yamaguchi. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Prouty to optimize Prouty’s relative dimensions.
Motivation for Prouty to sinter Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]) to Prouty’s plug arrangement hole (211; Figure 2) as taught by Yamaguchi is for “integration” as taught by Yamaguchi ([0079]).
Motivation for Prouty to optimize Prouty’s relative dimensions is to “achieve a uniform charge distribution across the backside of the substrate” as taught by Prouty ([0027]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prouty; Stephen Donald et al. (US 20200373184 A1), Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1), and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Chadha; Arvinder et al. (US 20230241731 A1). Prouty, Parkhe, and Unno are discussed above. Prouty, Parkhe, and Unno do not teach Prouty’s wafer placement table (Figure 2) according to Claim 1, wherein Prouty’s top surface of Prouty’s porous plug (244; Figure 2; [0031]-[0033]-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) is covered with a protection cap (Applicant’s 60; Figure 6) having a number of pores, and a top surface of the protection cap (Applicant’s 60; Figure 6) is at a position lower than top surfaces of Prouty’s small protrusions (216; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21b; Figure 1,3).
Chadha also teaches porous plug (202; Figure 2) covered with a protection cap (204; Figure 2-Applicant’s 60; Figure 6) having a number of pores (206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Prouty to add Chadha’s pores (206) as a protection cap (204; Figure 2-Applicant’s 60; Figure 6).
Motivation for Prouty to add Chadha’s pores (206) as a protection cap (204; Figure 2-Applicant’s 60; Figure 6) is for shielding adhesive layers as taught by Chadha ([0053]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larosa; Steven Joseph et al. (US 20190371578 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1). Larosa and Unno do not teach the feature of the joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole has a size small enough not to allow the porous plug (Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1. Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Larosa to optimize the size of Larosa’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe. Motivation for Larosa to optimize the size of Larosa’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki; Yuki et al. (US 20230068968 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1). Sasaki and Unno do not teach the feature of the joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole has a size small enough not to allow the porous plug (Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1. Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to optimize the size of Sasaki’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe. Motivation for Sasaki to optimize the size of Sasaki’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inoue; Seiya et al. (US 20230298861 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Inoue does not teach the amended feature of the joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole has a size small enough not to allow the porous plug (Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1. Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe. Motivation for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inoue; Seiya et al. (US 20230238224 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Inoue does not teach the amended feature of the joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole has a size small enough not to allow the porous plug (Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1. Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe. Motivation for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inoue; Seiya et al. (US 20230207370 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Inoue does not teach the amended feature of the joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole has a size small enough not to allow the porous plug (Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1. Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe. Motivation for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inoue; Seiya et al. (US 20230197502 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Inoue does not teach the amended feature of the joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole has a size small enough not to allow the porous plug (Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass – claim 1. Parkhe’s joining-layer (306; Figure 3-Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole (302; Figure 3) has a size small enough not to allow Parkhe’s porous plug (220; Figure 3-Applicant’s 50; Figure 1,3) to pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe. Motivation for Inoue to optimize the size of Inoue’s joining-layer (Applicant’s 40; Figure 1,3) through hole as taught by Parkhe is as a “choke for gas flow” as taught by Parkhe ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno.
Motivation for Prouty to optimize the size of Prouty’s relative dimensions of Prouty’s recessed groove (210; Figure 2-Applicant’s 21d; Figure 1,3) as taught by Unno is for avoiding process gases from getting below the wafer surfaces as taught by Unno ([0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-18, filed January 27, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 under Prouty; Stephen Donald et al. (US 20200373184 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Prouty; Stephen Donald et al. (US 20200373184 A1) in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. et al. (US 20190099977 A1) and Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1).
Applicant states:
“
Yamaguchi discloses an electrostatic chuck including a ceramic dielectric substrate having a first major surface placing a suction object and a second major surface on an opposite side to the first major surface, a base plate supporting the ceramic dielectric substrate and including a gas introduction path, and a first porous part provided at a position between the base plate and the first major surface and being opposite to the gas introduction path. The first porous part includes sparse portions including pores and a dense portion having a density higher than a density of the sparse portions. Each of the sparse portions extends from the base plate toward the ceramic dielectric substrate. The dense portion is positioned between the sparse portions. The sparse portions include a wall portion provided between the pores and the pores (see Yamaguchi, Abstract). Referring to Fig. 2A of Yamaguchi, which is reproduced below, the porous plug 90 includes a recessed groove 15 above its upper surface 90U. However, as can be seen in Fig. 2A, all 3 sections 15a, 15b, 15c of the recessed groove 15 have a diameter that is smaller or equal to the diameter of the porous plug 90. Hence, Yamaguchi also does not teach or suggest a recessed groove wherein a diameter of the recessed groove at the top surface of the porous plug is greater than a diameter of the porous plug at its top surface as required by proposed rewritten claim 1 of the instant application.
“
And…
“
Yamaguchi is also silent with regard to the feature of amended claim 1 of the instant application calling for "wherein a distance from the bottom surface of the recessed groove to the reference surface is 0.005 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less", but the Examiner asserts on page 7 of the instant Office Action that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Prouty to optimize Prouty's relative dimensions. The Examiner also asserts on page 7 of the instant Office Action that "[m]otivation for Prouty to optimize Prouty's relative dimensions is to "achieve a uniform charge distribution across the backside of the substrate" as taught by Prouty ([0027])." However, paragraph [0027] of Prouty, which is reproduced below, does not provide any motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance from the bottom surface of the recessed groove to the reference surface of the ceramic plate. The Examiner has erred in this regard, and must provide a prior art reference that teaches or suggests that a distance from the bottom surface of the recessed groove to the reference surface being 0.005 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less. Applicant has discovered that this distance range from the bottom surface of the recessed groove to the reference surface as being optimal for providing a combination of preventing electrical or arc discharge while also preventing the ceramic plate and porous plug from having a defect during manufacture (see paragraph [0035] of the as-filed specification).
“
In response, the Examiner agrees and notes that Unno; Yutaka et al. (US 20200312696 A1) is now cited as teaching the claimed range and related newly claimed relative dimensions.
Applicant states:
“
In summary, the combination of Prouty in view of Parkhe and Yamaguchi does not teach or suggest the features of amended claim 1 of the instant application calling for the following: 1) "wherein the recessed groove and the porous plug each have a circular shape in plan view with a diameter of the recessed groove at the top surface of the porous plug being greater than a diameter of the porous plug at its top surface", and 2) "wherein a distance from the bottom surface of the recessed groove to the reference surface is 0.005 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less." Therefore, the combination cannot possibly obviate rewritten claim 1 of the instant application. Correspondingly, claims 2-3 are also patentable in view of at least the dependency from rewritten claim 1.
“
As noted above, the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection addresses the newly amended independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied upon and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Back side gas delivery is demonstrated by the above and below cited art: US 20230238224 A1; US 20160276198 A1; US 20200279765 A1; US 20190287838 A1; US 20200135529 A1; US 20190287840 A1; US 20200373184 A1; US 20190287839 A1; US 20230061208 A1; US 20220258431 A1; US 20200135528 A1; US 6490145 B1; US 6471779 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716