DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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 1 recites for a range of “not less than 97%” of an outer diameter of the wafer placement surface which sets a lower range limit, but there is no upper limit that would provide metes and bounds of the range which renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaname (JP 2016-189425) in view of Gage (US 2021/0398829).
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% of the outer diameter of the wafer placement surface.
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.
In view of Gage, 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.
With respect to claim 2, Gage discloses that the diameter of the heater electrode can 99% of the diameter of the wafer placement surface which overlaps and is encompassed within the claimed range of 97% to 103% of the outer diameter of the wafer placement surface wherein the entirety of the wafer placement surface of Kaname would be predictably and effectively heated by the inner heater electrode as modified by Gage.
With respect to claim 3, Kaname discloses a distance between an outer circumferential edge of the inner heater electrode (39) and an inner circumferential edge of the outer heater electrode (37) except for the distance being between 2 to 18 mm, but Kaname discloses that the outer heater electrode (37) distanced from the inner heater electrode is provided to equalize the temperature of the wafer placement surface (i.e., the central part 15; para 0014) for uniform heat heating of the wafer placement surface, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the distance between the inner electrode and the outer electrode to be within 2 mm to 18 mm, or any other suitable range as a matter of routine experimentations, as a routine optimization that results with effective variables, to keep the temperature of the wafer placement surface evenly heated or equalized to predictably an effectively heat a wafer that is supported on the wafer placement surface as desired in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Kaname discloses an adhesive bonding layer (12) that includes a resin material (para 0050).
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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