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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
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 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation, the wing portion. However, claim 7 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 did not introduce a wing portion. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly the wing portion is referring to, since the definite article presupposes a previously known existence or instance of something. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Strang (US 20040063312).
Regarding claim 1. Strang teaches in the drawings a substrate support device (apparatus 100 which supports wafer 108 fig. 2 [37-41]) comprising: a seating plate part (heating assembly 102 [41]) on which a substrate is seated (fig. 2 108 is seated on top of 102); a shaft part (the hollow cylinder/shaft 142 [47], fig. 2-5) coupled to a lower portion of the seating plate part (fig. 2, top of 142 coupled to bottom of 102) to support the seating plate part (142 supports the center bottom of 102 that directly rests on 142, fig. 2); and a gap flange part (the flange shaped x-section of gap body 184 [50] with flanges/extensions such as outer/sidewalls of 184 and ribs 113 [52]) coupled to the shaft part or the seating plate part (the sidewalls of 184 x-section and 113 are directly coupled to bottom of 102 and indirectly coupled to 142 via 116, fig. 2, consistent w/ applicant’s fig. 1) to define a thermal insulation gap (the spaces/gap 111 [54-63] which control thermal conductance from high to low/hi thermal insulative properties [55])
between the shaft part and the gap flange part (111 between 142 and sidewalls of the flange x-section of 184 and 113s in horizontal direction, fig. 2) and between the seating plate part and the gap flange part (111 between bottom of 102 and bottom of the flanged x-section of 184 in the vertical direction, fig. 2), the gap flange part including a gas inlet port and a gas outlet port (the 113s of said flanged part include pores, fig. 2, that are both inlets and outlets since gas flows freely in the matrix of 113 and gas is both input and exhausted thru the porous ribs to fill/vacuum the gap 111 [55]) so that cooling gas circulates in the thermal insulation gap ([55] temperature control and cooling gases, such as He, circulate in 111).
Regarding claim 8. Strang teaches the substrate support device of claim 1, wherein a heat sink flange part (cooling/heat absorbing assembly 106 [37] which has flanges in the x-section, including the corners and upwards extending inner walls, fig. 2) is coupled to a lower portion of the shaft part (fig. 2, 106 is coupled, indirectly to 142 via 116, 138), and the gap flange part is fastened to the heat sink flange part (fig. 2, 184/113 fastened/attached to the top of 106).
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) 2-6, 9-11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang (US 20040063312) in view of Takada (US 20220223384).
Regarding claim 2. Strang teaches the substrate support device of claim 1, wherein the gap flange part comprises a wing portion (the horizontal wing/laterally extending bottom portion of 184, fig. 2, consistent w/ applicant’s horizontal 141) extending along the seating plate part (fig. 2, 5, it extends along the length of the bottom of 102, consistent w applicant’s 141 extending along bottom of 110), but does not teach wherein a sealing member is interposed between the wing portion and the seating plate part and surrounds the shaft part to seal the thermal insulation gap. However, Takada teaches a sealing member (at least a sealing o-ring 108) is interposed between the wing portion (the 108 formed between the horizontal bottom part of the casing portion 106 label circled in fig. 1, i.e. at the inner L of said 106) and the seating plate part (and top cooling plate 131 on which wafer 10 is seated) and surrounds the shaft part (said 108 at the L of the circled 106 surrounds the upper part of central shaft/power cable 142) to seal the thermal insulation gap (said 108 seals at least the inner space 161, fig. 1 at its outer top edge sides). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Strang to have highly reliable sealing that is plasma resistant and does not contaminate [73-77].
Regarding claim 3. Strang in view of Takada teaches the substrate support device of claim 2, but does not teach wherein one or more cap members are interposed between the wing portion and the seating plate part to surround the sealing member. However, Takada teaches one or more cap members (RF plate 141 capping and surrounding the said 108 in the L fig. 1) are interposed between the wing portion and the seating plate part (fig. 1, 141 between the bottom wing of the said L shaped 106 and 131) to surround the sealing member (as discussed, fig. 1, 141 covers over and surrounds the 108 in the L). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Strang as a way to provide a lower electrode to form capacitive coupled/parallel plate plasma for plasma processing [52].
Regarding claim 4. Strang in view of Takada teaches the substrate support device of claim 3, wherein one or more one protruding portions (the membrane ribs 113 which protrude upwards from the base of 184, fig. 2) each having a shape surrounding the shaft part (fig. 2, all the 113 form at least a honeycomb or connected rib structure filling the space inside 184 surrounding 142 [52], fig. 2, 5) are formed on the wing portion (as discussed, the 113s formed on top of the horizontal wing/base of 184 fig. 2), and the one or more cap members are fitted with the one or more protruding portions (since the Takada based 141 is at the bottom of the seating member, i.e. 102 in Strang, its bottom would be fitted/connected with the tops of the 113 when combined in Strang, since the 113s extend the full height of the space 111 whose ceiling is now the 141).
Regarding claim 5. Strang in view of Takada teaches the substrate support device of claim 3, but does not teach wherein the one or more cap members comprise a pair of cap members disposed to be spaced apart from each other to define an additional thermal insulation gap between the wing portion and the seating plate part; however, Takada teaches in fig. 1 wherein the one or more cap members comprise a pair of cap members (Takada fig. 1, at least a pair of x-sections of 141 in the specific x-section slice shown in fig. 1 separated by 111) disposed to be spaced apart from each other (as just discussed, fig. 1) to define an additional thermal insulation gap between the wing portion and the seating plate part (there is block 111 which creates a thermal disconnect/insulation, fig. 2, 5 [58]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Strang to trap unwanted moisture [61 62].
Regarding claim 6. Strang in view of Takada teaches the substrate support device of claim 5, wherein the wing portion further extends to the outside of the seating plate part (fig. 2, the bottom horizontal of 184 extends laterally to areas all at the outside of the bottom of 102), and an outer cap member of the pair of cap members is disposed to support a lower side of an outer peripheral surface of the seating plate part (the Takada based split 141 is completely below the bottom of 131/seating part and the entire 141 including its left and right outer parts supports the lower/bottom of all the seating part including its outer/edge surface areas Takada fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9. Strang teaches the substrate support device of claim 8, but does not teach wherein an O-ring is interposed between the heat sink flange part and the gap flange part to seal the thermal insulation gap. However, Takada teaches in fig. 1 an O-ring (o-rings 108 [73-77]) is interposed between the heat sink flange part and the gap flange part to seal the thermal insulation gap (108 is between said stacked L-shaped flange block 106 and the block 106 directly below, sealing the gap space 161). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Strang to have highly reliable sealing that is plasma resistant and does not contaminate [73-77].
Regarding claim 10. Strang teaches the substrate support device of claim 1, further comprising: a cooling plate (relatively flat/rectangular overall profiled cooling assembly 106 [37]) but does not teach it is detachably coupled to an outer side of the gap flange part. However, Takada teaches in fig. 1 the block 106 detachably coupled to an outer side/bottom side outside of the gap flange part/L shaped block 106, since they would have to detached in order to replace/add the O-ring 108 and/or access parts or inside of the substrate support in case of a detected structural defect [29]. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Strang to allow adding an o-ring that is reliable sealing that is plasma resistant and does not contaminate [73-77]. Further, per MPEP 2144.04, it has been held that differences in separability did not render the claims patentable.
Regarding claim 11. Strang in view of Takada teaches the substrate support device of claim 10, wherein a cooling flow path is formed in the cooling plate (112 coolant flow path in 106 fig. 2 [48]).
Regarding claim 20. Strang teaches a substrate support device comprising: a seating plate part on which a substrate is seated (see claim 1); a shaft part coupled to a lower portion of the seating plate part to support the seating plate part (see claim 1) and having a lower portion to which a heat sink flange part is coupled (the bottom of 102 is indirectly coupled to the heat sink/cooling part 106’s internal flanges/vertical extending walls, via 104 and the outer walls of 106, fig. 2); a gap flange part (claim 1) fastened to the heat sink flange part (fig. 2, 104 is attached/fixed to 106, and by extension, its internal flanges/vertical extending walls) to define a thermal insulation gap (claim 1) between the shaft part and the seating plate part (see claim 1) and comprising a gas inlet port and a gas outlet port so that cooling gas circulates in the thermal insulation gap (see claim 1); and a cooling plate (the cooling assembly 106’s outer rectangular structure forming a flat/plate shape)
coupled to an outer side of the gap flange part (fig. 2, 106 attached to the bottom side’s outer surface of 104) but does not teach it is detachably coupled; However, Takada teaches in fig. 1 the block 106 detachably coupled to an outer side/bottom side outside of the gap flange part/L shaped block 106, since they would have to detached in order to replace/add the O-ring 108 and/or access parts or inside of the substrate support in case of a detected structural defect [29]. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Strang to allow adding an o-ring that is reliable sealing that is plasma resistant and does not contaminate [73-77]. Further, per MPEP 2144.04, it has been held that differences in separability did not render the claims patentable.
Strang further teaches wherein the gap flange part comprises: a wing portion extending along the seating plate part (see claim 2); and a ring portion connected to the wing portion and extending along the shaft part while surrounding the shaft part (see claim 7), and in view of Takada, teaches wherein a sealing member is interposed between the wing portion and the seating plate part and surrounds the shaft part to seal the thermal insulation gap (claim 2), and in view of Takada, teaches wherein one or more cap members are interposed between the wing portion and the seating plate part to surround the sealing member (claim 3).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang (US 20040063312) in view of Fink (US 20040115947).
Regarding claim 7. Strang teaches the substrate support device of claim 1, wherein the gap flange part comprises a ring portion (the outer vertical circular/ring sidewall of 184, fig. 2, 5) connected to the wing portion (connected to the horizontal wing/laterally extending bottom portion of 184, fig. 2, consistent w/ applicant’s horizontal 141) and extending along the shaft part (fig. 5 the outer circular wall of 184 is around in a matching way/moves along the circular 142, consistent w/ applicant’s 145 surrounding 120) while surrounding the shaft part (fig. 5, circular outer wall of 184 concentric w/ 142), but does not teach the gas inlet port and the gas outlet port are formed in the ring portion. However, Fink teaches in fig. 4a-5b [39-] the gas inlet port (inlet 44) and the gas outlet port (outlet 45) are formed in the ring portion (fig. 4b, 5b, the pair of inlet/outlet holes formed in along the circumference of the ring portions). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Strang to circulate the coolant for specific zones along a ring region [27 39 40], which would allow more targeted cooling/temp control for specific zones of the wafer holder [52].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang (US 20040063312) in view of Kobayashi (US 20150083042).
Regarding claim 12. Strang teaches the substrate support device of claim 1, wherein an electrostatic electrode ([40 42] an ESC w/ electrode, as disc in referenced Fukasawa US 5310453, is within the top surface of 102 in order to hold the wafer at the top of 102 in Fig. 2), a heating wire (thin heating resistive metal element/wire 110 [43] in 102 and heater power wires 194 which penetrates into 102 to reach 110 [53], fig. 2), but does not teach an RF electrode disposed in the seating plate part, and power rods connected to the electrostatic electrode, the heating wire, and the RF electrode are disposed in the shaft part. However, Kobayashi teaches in fig. 1 an RF electrode [33] disposed in the seating plate part (disposed in the seating/pedestal 124), and power rods connected to the electrostatic electrode, the heating wire, and the RF electrode are disposed in the shaft part (includes a rod like plug 310 with electrical rods/connectors 315 for the elements in the pedestal/seating part, including said ES chuck electrode [32], heater [30], RF electrode [33]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Strang in order to provide a cathode for plasma processing [33 6] and to have a combined/unitary power source plug which simplifies the structure and also facilitates repair/replacement by allowing detachment [57 58].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718