DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is noted that the specification discloses for the outer diameter of the inner heater electrode is preferably not less than 97% and not more than 103% (as 97% to 100%), but the specification does not describe for the outer diameter of the inner heater electrode is not less than 100% and not more than 103% which claims for a range that is not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaname (JP 2016-189425) in view of Gage (US 2021/0398829) and Hayashi et al (US 2008/0110874).
Kaname discloses the structure claimed including a ceramic plate having a circular wafer placement surface having a seal band along an outer periphery, an annular focus ring placement surface located outside the wafer placement surface and below the wafer surface placement surface, a circular inner heater electrode (39) embedded in the ceramic plate, an annular outer heater (37) surrounding the inner heater electrode, a cooling plate (11) disposed opposite the wafer placement surface, and the inner heater electrode overlapping at least a portion of the seal band as illustrated in Figure 4 wherein a diameter of the inner electrode heater substantially extending to an outer diameter of the wafer placement surface. Also, see annotate drawing Figure 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But, Kaname does not explicitly disclose that the outer diameter of the inner heater electrode is not less than 97% and not more than 103% of the outer diameter of the wafer placement surface wherein a distance between an outer circumference edge of the inner heater electrode and an inner circumferential edge of the outer heater electrode is not less than 2 mm and not more than 18 mm.
Gage discloses it is known to provide a ceramic plate having a wafer placement surface (a surface where a wafer 112 is placed thereon) wherein a heating element has an outer diameter that can be 99%, which overlaps with that of the claimed range of not less than 97%, of a diameter of the substrate support having a wafer placement surface. Also see para 0008 and Figure 1A.
Hayashi discloses it is known to provide a ceramic plate with a circular inner heater electrode (15) and an annular outer heater electrode (16) surrounding the inner heater electrode wherein a distance (B2) between an outer circumferential edge of the inner heater electrode and an inner circumferential edge of the outer heater electrode that is set at 2 mm (para 0055) wherein such heater arrangement allows the ceramic plate to achieve a substantially uniform temperature (para 0022).
In view of Gage and Hayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kaname with the outer diameter of the inner heater electrode that is not less than 97% of the outer diameter of the wafer placement surface so that an entirety of the wafer placement surface can be predictably and effectively heated by the inner heater electrode wherein a distance between the inner heater electrode and the outer electrode is set at a distance of 2 mm which allows the ceramic plate to predictably maintain a desired uniform heating temperature.
With respect to claim 4, Kaname discloses an adhesive bonding layer (12) that includes a resin material (para 0050).
With respect to claim 5, Gage discloses for the wafer placement surface (a surface where a wafer 112 is placed thereon) wherein a heating element has an outer diameter that covers 99% of the wafer placement surface, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt to provide for the heater element that covers 100% of the wafer placement surface, as a matter of routine optimization, to ensure that the entirety of the wafer placement surface is adequately and predictably heated by the heating element for its thermal/temperature uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kaname in view of Gage teaches for a broad range of the inner heater electrode that is from 90 to 99% while the claimed range is from 97% to 103% which is critical that provides for improving wafer temperature uniformity.
It is noted, however, that both Kaname and Gage are related to providing a uniform heating temperature (see para 0011 of the English transition of Kaname; and para 0028 of Gage), and there is no particular showing or probative value presented in the specification (or in the Applicant’s remark) that the claimed range is critical that provides some unexpected result that is distinct from that of the applied art.
Thus, the claimed invention with the claimed range, which is shown by the overlapping range of the applied art, is deemed obvious, lacking criticality, as the applied art Kaname and Gage also achieve the same objective of achieving the desired thermal/temperature uniformity as that the Applicant’s claimed invention.
With respect to the claimed distance, it is noted that Hayashi is applied. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed distance are deemed moot and, also, deemed unpersuasive as the claimed distance in Hayashi is provided to achieve the heat uniformity of the ceramic plate which is also desired in the Applicant’s invention.
Thus, the Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights