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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 28 Nov 2025.
Claims 1-19, 21 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 18 are amended. Claim 20 is canceled. Claim 21 is new.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening member” (claim 12).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination, “fastening member” (claim 12) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0034],[0059] Fig. 3 and 9 of the instant Specification as comprising a clamp ring 117a and a screw 117a or equivalents thereof (Fig. 3, para. [0034] embodiment), or a screw 117e or equivalents thereof (Fig. 9, para. [0059] embodiment).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-19) and 11 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph discussed in the non-final rejection of 27 Aug 2025 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments filed 28 Nov 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”).
Regarding independent claim 1, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Tatsuhiko teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising substrate holder 1, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0029]) comprising:
a substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 3, Fig. 1 and 5) including an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck 3, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0029], [0031]), the substrate support having a first surface (comprising upper surface of 3, Fig. 1 and 5) configured to support a substrate (comprising substrate 10, Fig. 1 and 5) and a second surface (comprising lower surface of 3, Fig. 1; comprising the lower surface of upper portion of 1A, Fig. 5 (see annotated Fig. 5 below)) opposite to the first surface (comprising upper surface of 3, Fig. 1 and 5);
a spacer (comprising heat insulating member 7, Fig. 1 and 5) including a heat insulating member (para. [0032]);
a first base (comprising holder main body 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) having a third surface (comprising upper surface of 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) facing the second surface, the first base (comprising 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) supporting the substrate support (comprising 3, Fig. 1 and 5) through the spacer (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5), the spacer being disposed between a peripheral region of the second surface and the first base (comprising 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) (see annotated Fig. 1 and 5 below);
a first thermal radiator (comprising blackened upper surface of 6, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0087]) disposed on at least a part of the second surface in a region spaced apart from the spacer (Examiner explains that “at least a part of the second surface in a region spaced apart from the spacer” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as the first thermal radiator is at least on a portion of the second surface in a region that is spaced from the spacer and does not preclude the first thermal radiator from being along the entire second surface as long as the first thermal radiator is on at least a part of the second surface in a region that is spaced apart from the spacer); and
a second thermal radiator (comprising blackened lower surface of 6, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0087]) disposed on at least a part of the third surface (comprising upper surface of 1A, Fig. 1 and 5, see annotated Fig. 1 and 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
596
1054
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tatsuhiko does not explicitly teach wherein the first thermal radiator has a thermal emissivity higher than a thermal emissivity of the second surface of the substrate support, and the second thermal radiator has a thermal emissivity higher than a thermal emissivity of the third surface.
However, Tatsuhiko teaches that the thermal radiators (comprising blackened surfaces of 6, Fig. 1 and 5) increase thermal emissivity and heat absorptivity to increase an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation (para. [0087]). In other words, Tatsuhiko teaches that thermal emissivity of a surface is a result-effective variable that affects an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation. Without evidence of unexpected results, the thermal emissivity of each of the second surface of the substrate support, the third surface, and the thermal radiators, cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal emissivity of the first thermal radiator, the second thermal radiator, the second surface of the substrate support and the third surface because Tatsuhiko teaches that thermal emissivity is a result-effective variable that affects an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation wherein one of ordinary skill the art would optimize the thermal emissivity of the first thermal radiator, the second thermal radiator, the second surface of the substrate support and the third surface to optimize the transfer energy by heat radiation of different surfaces of the substrate support for optimal temperature control of a substrate that is held on the substrate support.
Regarding claim 5, Tatsuhiko further teaches the spacer (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5) has an annular shape extending along the peripheral region (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Tatsuhiko further teaches wherein the spacer (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5), the second surface, and the third surface define a space (comprising heat transference varying unit 6 including a gap, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0032]-[0033]) to which a heat transfer fluid (comprising heat transfer gas/sealed gas 103, Fig. 1 and 5, para [0032]) is capable to be supplied and includes a seal (i.e. seal member, disclosed but not shown) that seals the space (para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 8, Tatsuhiko further teaches that first base (comprising 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) provides a flow passage (comprising circulation medium distribution path 100, Fig. 1 and 5) to which a coolant (comprising circulation medium 101, Fig. 1 and 5) is supplied (para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Tatsuhiko further teaches the thermal conductivity of the heat insulating member (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5) is less than or equal to 20 W/mK (para. [0032] teaches that the heat insulating member 7 comprises zirconia, alumina, or stainless steel which are the same materials disclosed in the instant Specification para. [0033]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the apparatus of Tatsuhiko to meet claim 9 limitations.).
Regarding claim 10, Tatsuhiko teaches the heat insulating member (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5) is made of zirconia or alumina or stainless steel (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Tatsuhiko teaches wherein one or more openings (comprising opening through which rear-surface/heat transfer gas 102 flows to reach the back of the substrate, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0035]) are provided in the second surface (comprising bottom surface of 3, Fig. 1; see annotated Fig. 1 and 5 in claim 1 rejection above) of the substrate support (comprising 3, Fig. 1 and 5).
Tatsuhiko as applied above does not explicitly teach the first thermal radiator is provided to surround the one or more openings.
However, Tatsuhiko teaches the first thermal radiator (comprising blackened upper surface of 6 which is understood to be the lower surface of substrate support 3, Fig. 1) is disposed on the second surface wherein the first thermal radiator increases the thermal emissivity and heat absorptivity to increase an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation (para. [0087]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surround the one or more openings with the first thermal radiator because Tatsuhiko already teaches that the first thermal radiator is formed on the second surface (i.e. a surface where the one or more openings is disposed) and because the thermal radiator increases transfer of energy by heat radiation wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that surrounding the one or more openings with the first thermal radiator would enable accommodating the one or more openings in the region occupied by the first thermal radiator on the second surface while also providing the increase of transfer energy by heat radiation.
Regarding claim 16, Tatsuhiko teaches wherein the substrate support further includes a second base (see Fig. 5 embodiment) and the electrostatic chuck (comprising 3, Fig. 5) is disposed on an upper surface of the second base (para. [0052]). See annotated Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
596
839
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 18, Tatsuhiko teaches a substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 3, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0029], [0031]) having a first surface (comprising upper surface of 3, Fig. 1 and 5) configured to support a substrate (comprising substrate 10, Fig. 1 and 5) and a second surface (comprising lower surface of 3, Fig. 1; comprising the lower surface of upper portion of 1A, Fig. 5 (see annotated Fig. 5 above in claim 1 rejection) opposite to the first surface (comprising upper surface of 3, Fig. 1 and 5), the substrate support (comprising 3, Fig. 1 and 5) being configured for support by a base (comprising holder main body 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) through a spacer (comprising heat insulating member 7, Fig. 1 and 5) that includes a heat insulating member (para. [0032]); the substrate support comprising: an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck 3, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0029], [0031]) having the first surface (comprising upper surface of 3, Fig. 1 and 5); and a thermal radiator (comprising blackened upper surface of 6, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0087]) disposed on at least a part of the second surface in a region spaced apart from the spacer and configured to radiate heat transferred from the electrostatic chuck (para. [0087]) (Examiner explains that “at least a part of the second surface in a region spaced apart from the spacer” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as the thermal radiator is at least on a portion of the second surface in a region that is spaced from the spacer and does not preclude the thermal radiator from being along the entire second surface as long as the thermal radiator is on at least a part of the second surface in a region that is spaced apart from the spacer).
Tatsuhiko does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the thermal radiator has a thermal emissivity higher than a thermal emissivity of the second surface.
However, Tatsuhiko teaches that the thermal radiators (comprising blackened surfaces of 6, Fig. 1 and 5) increase thermal emissivity and heat absorptivity to increase an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation (para. [0087]). In other words, Tatsuhiko teaches that thermal emissivity of a surface is a result-effective variable that affects an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation. Without evidence of unexpected results, the thermal emissivity of each of the second surface of the substrate support and the thermal radiator, cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal emissivity of the thermal radiator and the second surface of the substrate support because Tatsuhiko teaches that thermal emissivity is a result-effective variable that affects an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation wherein one of ordinary skill the art would optimize the thermal emissivity of the first thermal radiator, the second thermal radiator, the second surface of the substrate support and the third surface to optimize the transfer energy by heat radiation of different surfaces of the substrate support for optimal temperature control of a substrate that is held on the substrate support.
Regarding claim 19, Tatsuhko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and further teaches a substrate processing apparatus (“plasma processing apparatus”) including a chamber (comprising vacuum vessel, not shown); and the substrate support assembly according to claim 1 disposed in the chamber (para. [0029],[0050], [0089]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 ,11, 16, 18, 19 and further in view of Sugano et al. (JP2004087869A IDS art hereinafter “Sugano” and referring to English Machine Translation provided by the Applicant on 07 Feb 2025).
Regarding claim 2, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the thermal emissivity of the first thermal radiator and the thermal emissivity of the second thermal radiator is more than or equal to 0.7 or more than or equal to 0.9.
However, Sugano teaches a substrate support (comprising wafer stage 2, Fig. 1-3, 6) comprising a thermal radiator including a black coated surface of the base (comprising cooling plate 14, Fig. 6), wherein the black coated surface has an emissivity of 0.9 to increase the heat transferred from the electrostatic chuck (comprising ceramic plate 15, Fig. 6) (middle page 6).
Further, Tatsuhiko teaches that the first thermal radiator and the second thermal radiator comprise blackened surfaces to increase thermal emissivity and heat absorptivity to increase an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation (para. [0087]). In other words, Tatsuhiko teaches that thermal emissivity of a surface is a result-effective variable that affects an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation. Without evidence of unexpected results, the thermal emissivity of each of the second surface of the substrate support, the third surface, and the thermal radiators, cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the thermal emissivity of each of the first thermal radiator and the second thermal radiator because Sugano teaches an exemplary thermal emissivity of a thermal radiator wherein Tatsuhiko teaches that thermal emissivity is a result-effective variable that affects an amount of transfer energy by heat radiation wherein one of ordinary skill the art would optimize the thermal emissivity of the first thermal radiator and the second thermal radiator to optimize heat transfer by radiation of the first and second thermal radiator of the substrate support for optimal substrate temperature control and/or substrate processing.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 ,11, 16, 18, 19 and further in view of Yamagishi (JP2015220413A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation) and Ananda et al. (US 2014/0071582 A1 hereinafter “Ananda”).
Regarding claim 3, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 including a first thermal radiator on at least a part of the second surface (i.e. lower surface) of the substrate support (comprising 3, Fig. 1) and a second thermal radiator on at least a part of the third surface (comprising upper surface of 1A, Fig. 1, see annotated Fig. 1 and 5 in claim 1 rejection) and a spacer (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5).
Tatsuhiko does not explicitly teach an insulating member between the first thermal radiator and the second thermal radiator, the insulating member having infrared transmission properties.
However, Yamagishi teaches providing a member (comprising spacer 16, Fig. 2 and 7) between the second surface/bottom surface of the substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 18, Fig. 1, 2, 7) and the third surface/upper surface of the base (comprising support table 14, Fig. 1 and 2). Yamagishi teaches that the member enables providing heat transfer via conduction/contact between the substrate support (comprising 18, Fig. 1 , 2, 7) and the base (comprising 14, Fig. 1, 2, 7) which would be more heat transfer than when only a space filled with gas is formed between the upper surface of the member (comprising 16, Fig. 1, 2, 7) and the second/lower/bottom surface of the electrostatic chuck(comprising 18 Fig. 1, 2, 7) and between the lower surface of the member (comprising 16, Fig. 1 ,2 ,7) and the base (comprising 14, Fig. 1, 2, 7) (para. [0060]-[0061]).
Examiner notes that in Tatsuhiko heat transfer is adjusted through a gas filled gap (comprising 6, Fig. 1, 2, 7) (para. [0032]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a member between the substrate support and the base such that the member is between the first thermal radiator (Tatsuhiko: comprising blackened upper surface of 6, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0087]) and the second thermal radiator (Tatsuhiko: comprising blacked lower surface of 6, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0087]) because Yamagishi teaches that such a configuration enables heat transfer via contact/conduction which is more heat transfer than only heat transfer through a gas filled space (Yamagishi: para. [0060]-[0061]).
Tatsuhiko in view of Yamagishi as applied above does not explicitly teach the material of the member and the that member is insulating having infrared transmission properties.
However, Ananda teaches that a material (i.e. bonding material) between the substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 110, Fig. 1) and the base (comprising baseplate 150, Fig. 1) is selected as a material such as silicone resin that easily transmits infrared light (para. [0067]). Ananda teaches that the easy of transmittance of infrared light through the substrate support assembly enables ease of heat to flow to the substrate(i.e. "object to the processed") and prevent heat accumulation in the substrate to enable keeping the temperature of the substrate uniform (para. [0022], [0042]). In other words, providing an infrared transmissive material can enable heat transfer through infrared radiation. Examiner also notes that "resin" is disclosed in the instant invention Specification para. [0048] as a suitable material for the insulating member.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an insulating material such as silicone resin that has infrared transmission properties because Ananda teaches that such a material disposed between the base and the substrate support enables heat transfer through infrared radiation which can enable preventing heat accumulation in the substrate and further enabling keeping the temperature of the substrate uniform (para. [0022], [0042]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Tatsuhiko in view of Yamagishi and Ananda teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 above and Ananda further teaches the insulating member is made of resin (Ananda: para. [0067]).
Claim(s) 7, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 above and further in view of Koiwa (US 2017 /0278737 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 5, 6, above but does not explicitly teach wherein the spacer further includes at least one partition that divides the space into a plurality of spaces arranged in a circumferential direction and/or a radial direction, and a pressure of the heat transfer fluid is independently controlled for each of the plurality of spaces.
However, Koiwa teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising pedestal 14 including electrostatic chuck 36, Fig. 2,3, para. [0051], [0053]) comprising a spacer (comprising a plurality of first elastic members EM1 including elastic members 67, 68, 69, Fig. 2, 3, para. [0068]-[0071]) including at least one partition (comprising 67, 68, 69, Fig. 2, 3) that divides the space (comprising DSN, Fig. 2) into a plurality of spaces (comprising DS1, DS2, DS3, Fig. 2 and 3, para. [0068]-[0069]) arranged in a circumferential direction, and a pressure of the heat transfer fluid is independently controlled for each of the plurality of spaces (para. [0032], [0122]). Koiwa teaches that such a configuration can enable providing a range of different temperature distributions in the radial direction of the electrostatic chuck/substrate support (comprising 36, Fig. 2, 3)(para. [0032], [0122]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the spacer to further include at least one partition that divides the space into a plurality of spaces arranged in a circumferential direction, and a pressure of the heat transfer fluid is independently controlled for each of the plurality of spaces because Koiwa teaches that such a configuration enables providing a range of different temperature distributions in the radial direction of the substrate support (para. [0032], [0122]).
Regarding claim 14, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and further teaches the electrostatic chuck includes an electrostatic electrode (“electrostatic adsorption electrode”, not shown, para. [0031]) and at least one electrode (comprising heater 4, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0031]) different from the electrostatic electrode (para. [0031]), the electrostatic electrode and the at least one electrode is disposed in a portion (as understood from Fig. 1 and 5).
Tatsuhiko does not explicitly teach the portion is a dielectric portion.
However, Koiwa teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising pedestal 14 including electrostatic chuck 36, Fig. 2,3, para. [0051], [0053]) comprising an electrostatic chuck (comprising 36, Fig. 2, 3) including a dielectric portion (comprising attracting portion 52, Fig. 2 and 3, para. [0062] discloses a dielectric/ceramic material such as aluminum oxide), wherein the electrostatic electrode (comprising 54, Fig. 2, 3, para. [0065]) and the at least one electrode (comprising heaters HN including 56, 57, 58, Fig. 1, 2 and 3, para. [0066]) are disposed in the dielectric portion (comprising 52, Fig. 2 and 3)(para. [0066]). Koiwa teaches that the dielectric portion has a volume resistivity for sufficient attracting force even at high temperatures exceeding 200ºC (para. [0063]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material such as a dielectric like aluminum oxide as the material for the portion of the electrostatic chuck in which the electrostatic electrode and the at least one electrode is disposed because Koiwa teaches that such a dielectric material in an electrostatic chuck is suitable for providing sufficient attracting force even at high temperatures exceeding 200ºC (Koiwa: para. [0063]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Tatsuhiko in view of Koiwa teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 above and Tatsuhiko further teaches the at least one electrode includes a heater electrode (comprising 4, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0031]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 above and further in view of Koiwa et al. (US 2017/0092472 A1 hereinafter “Koiwa ‘472”).
Regarding claim 12, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate support is fixed to the first base through a fastening member (interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a as comprising a clamp ring and a screw or equivalents thereof (instant application Fig. 3, para. [0034] embodiment), or a screw or equivalents thereof (instant application Fig. 9, para. [0059] embodiment).
However, Koiwa ‘472 teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising mounting table 14, Fig. 1, para. [0062]) including a substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 36 including attracting portion 52 and base 50, Fig. 2, para. [0069]) is fixed to the first base (comprising cooling table 34, Fig. 1 and 2) through a fastening member comprising a clamp ring (comprising cylindrical portion 70a of clamping member 70, Fig. 2, para. [0079]) and a screw (comprising 72, Fig. 2, para. [0081]). Koiwa ‘472 teaches that such a configuration enables suitably fixing the substrate support (comprising 36, Fig. 2) to the first base (comprising 34, Fig. 2) and defining a space between the first base and the substrate support (para. [0081]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a fastening member comprising a clamp ring and a screw and configure the fastening member to fix the substrate support (Tatsuhiko: comprising 3, Fig. 1 and 5) to the first base (Tatsuhiko: comprising 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) because Koiwa ‘472 teaches that this is a known suitable alternative construction configuration of substrate support assembly that is suitable for fixing the substrate support to the first base and defining a space between the first base and the substrate support.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 above and further in view of Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0159325 A1 hereinafter “Parkhe”).
Regarding claim 13, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above including a spacer (comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5) disposed between the substrate support and the first base.
Tatushiko is silent regarding how the spacer is joined or fixed to the substrate support and the first base and thus does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate support and the spacer are fixed to each other by metal bonding, and the first base and the spacer are fixed to each other by metal bonding.
However, Parkhe teaches a substrate support assembly comprising a plate (comprising 302, Fig. 3) having an upper surface bonded to a substrate support (comprising 136, Fig. 3) by metal bond (comprising 308, Fig. 3) and having a lower surface bonded to the base (comprising 164, Fig. 3) with a metal bond (comprising 304, Fig. 3), wherein Parkhe teaches the metal bond can reduce thermal expansion mismatch between the bonded parts (para. [0039]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate support (Tatsuhiko: comprising 3, Fig. 1 and 5) and the spacer (Tatsuhiko: comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5) to fixed to each other by metal bonding, and the first base (Tatsuhiko: comprising 1A, Fig. 1 and 5) and the spacer (Tatsuhiko: comprising 7, Fig. 1 and 5) to be fixed to each other by metal bonding because Parkhe teaches this is a known suitable joining/fixing configuration in a substrate support assembly which can reduce thermal expansion mismatch between bonded/joined parts (Parkhe: para. [0039]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 above and further in view of Kawakami (US 6,558,508 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 16 above but wherein the substrate support further includes a temperature control unit including a heater electrode (comprising 4, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0031]).
Tatsuhiko does not explicitly teach the temperature control unit (heater electrode 4, Fig. 5) being disposed under a surface opposite to the upper surface of the second base.
However, Kawakami teaches a substrate support assembly (comprising mounting table 3, Fig. 2; alternatively, comprising mounting table 9, Fig. 12) including a second base (comprising second intermediate dielectric plate 4B, Fig. 2, col 7 line 22-26; alternatively, comprising 91, Fig. 12, col 12 line 38-col 13 line 34) and a heater electrode (comprising 42, Fig. 2) disposed under a surface (comprising lower surface of 4B, Fig. 2; comprising lower surface of 91, Fig. 12) opposite to the upper surface of the second base (comprising 4B, Fig. 2; comprising 91, Fig. 12). Kawakami teaches that such a configuration enables create desired temperature differences and adjust the coefficient of heat transfer between the plates/parts forming the substrate support assembly for controlling the temperature of the substrate to be processed (col 13 line 35-60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a heater disposed under a surface opposite to the upper surface of the second base of Tatsuhiko (in view of Kawakami Fig. 2 and/or 12) because Kawakami teaches that such a configuration enables creating desired temperature differences and adjusting the coefficient of heat transfer between the parts (i.e. base, heater, electrostatic chuck) forming the substrate support assembly for controlling the substrate to be processed (Kawakami: col 13 line 35-60).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuhiko et al. (US 2010/0014208 A1 hereinafter “Tatsuhiko”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 above and further in view of Wadensweiler et al. (US 5,978,202 hereinafter “Wadensweiler”).
Regarding claim 21, Tatsuhiko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first thermal radiator is disposed on the second surface only in the region spaced apart from the spacer, and the second surface is exposed between the first thermal radiator and the spacer.
However, Wadensweiler teaches a substrate support (comprising electrostatic chuck 75, Fig. 2a-2d) comprising a thermal transfer regulator pad (comprising 100, Fig. 2a-2d) and further teaches an example of a thermal transfer regulator pad (comprising 100, Fig. 2a) disposed only on a second surface (comprising rear surface of 90, Fig. 2a) that is a central region and not on the edge/peripheral region. Wadensweiler further teaches the properties, size, shape, and position of the thermal transfer regulator pad (comprising 100, Fig. 2a-2d) are selected to achieve the desired temperature distribution across a substrate (comprising 25, Fig. 2a-2d) for a particular set of processing conditions (col 6 line 31-480). In other words, Wadensweiler teaches that the size, shape, and position of the thermal transfer regulator pad are result-effective variables which affect the temperature distribution across the substrate. Without evidence of unexpected results, the disposition/position of a thermal transfer regulator cannot be considered critical.
Examiner notes that the first thermal radiator (comprising blackened upper surface of 6, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0087]) of Tatsuhiko is understood to be a member configured to adjust/control the transfer of heat in the substrate support, i.e. a type of thermal transfer regulator.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the position of the first thermal radiator (i.e. a type of thermal transfer regulator) disposed on the second surface (i.e. selective placement of the first thermal radiator on a desired region of the second surface) because Wadensweiler teaches/suggests that the position of a thermal transfer regulator on a second surface of the substrate support is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to optimize the temperature distribution across the substrate and Wadensweiler teaches an example of placing/positioning the thermal transfer regulator only in a central region of the second/rear surface of the substrate support. Examiner notes that placing the first thermal radiator only in a central region of the second surface would meet limitation “disposed on the second surface only in the region spaced apart from the spacer, and the second surface is exposed between the first thermal radiator and the spacer.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks page 6) regarding interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f) of claim limitation “fastening member” is a class of structures known in the art that includes screws, bolts, clamps, rivets, and clips and is used by persons of ordinary skill in the art as a name for a structure. The disclosure of the specific structures in the instant Specification reinforces the understand that “fastening member” is a name for a structure and not a substitute for the word “means” and should not be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and explains that “member” is a substitute for means and “fastening” is the function, as explained in detail in claims interpretation section above. The fact that the Applicant has disclosed a structure for the fastening member does not preclude interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f) because Applicant is required to disclose the corresponding structure which is described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, as explained in detail in claims interpretation section above. The interpretation of “fastening member” under U.S.C. 112(f) is proper. Applicant can amend the claim limitations to recite the disclosed structure to obviate interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f) of “fastening member.”
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 18 over Tatsuhiko: Tatsuhiko fails to teach or suggest the claimed configuration where the first thermal radiator is disposed in a region "spaced apart from the spacer" as recited in amended claim 1 and 18.
Examiner responds claim 1 and 18 requires the first thermal radiator/thermal radiator to be “disposed on at least a part of the second surface in a region spaced apart from the spacer.” Examiner explains that “at least a part of the second surface in a region spaced apart from the spacer” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as the first thermal radiator is at least on a portion of the second surface in a region that is spaced from the spacer and does not preclude the first thermal radiator from being along the entire second surface as long as the first thermal radiator is on at least a part of the second surface in a region that is spaced apart from the spacer. Thus, Tatsuhiko as applied above in claim 1 and 18 rejections would still read amended claim 1 and 18 limitations.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 18 remain rejected. Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 18, the dependent claims dependent claims 2-17, 19 and 21 are also rejected, as detailed 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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716