DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 May 2026.
Applicant merely states that the different groups have some features in common. Applicant does not acknowledge the differences between the groups which is the basis for the restriction. Applicant has not provided a persuasive argument as to why the restriction is improper. Accordingly, the restriction of 25 March 2026 is proper. Accordingly, Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from examination.
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.
Claims 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 3, 5, and 7 all include measurements or ratios that have not been disclosed in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiraishi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0286768).
Regarding claim 1, Shiraishi discloses a substrate support assembly, comprising:
an electrostatic chuck 110;
an insulator plate 50; and
a porous plug 70/90 disposed within the insulator plate, wherein the porous plug comprises:
a first cylindrical section 70 having a first volume and a first axial length (vertical in FIG. 2A); and
a second cylindrical section 90 having a second volume and a second axial length (vertical in FIG. 2A), wherein:
the first volume is greater than the second volume (as evidenced in FIG. 2A, both the diameter and height of 70 is larger than the length and height of 90); and
the first axial length is greater than the second axial length (FIG. 1, 2A; Paragraph 72, 86-93, 99-116).
Regarding claim 4, Shiraishi discloses the first cylindrical section further comprises a first diameter (horizontal in FIG. 2A) and the second cylindrical section further comprises a second diameter (horizontal in FIG. 2A)less than the first diameter (FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Shiraishi discloses the first cylindrical section further comprises a first cross-sectional area and the second cylindrical section further comprises a second cross-sectional area less than the first cross-sectional area (FIG. 2A).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Pilgrim (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0105568).
Regarding claim 2, Shiraishi discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Shiraishi is silent regarding the porous plug further comprises a porosity as a function of a grit size, the grit size being between about 50 µm and about 200 µm.
However, Pilgrim teaches utilizing a plurality of alumina balls 120 as the porous plug in a electrostatic chuck 103, the balls having a diameter of approximately 200 micron (FIG. 1B, 4; Paragraph 38-39).
Furthermore, Applicant has not placed any criticality on the range of 50-200 micron (Paragraph 39; “the porosity, diameters, volume ratios, and axial lengths of the plug 201 may be altered to achieve improved flow rates of backside gas”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Shiraishi by utilizing a grit size between 50-200 micron for the porosity of the porous plug, as taught by Pilgrim, for the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics through the porous plug.
Claims 3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi.
Regarding claim 3, Shiraishi discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Shiraishi is silent regarding the first axial length is between 0.9" and 1.1".
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first axial length between 0.9" and 1.1", since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Shiraishi by making the first axial length is between 0.9" and 1.1", for the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics through the porous plug.
Regarding claim 5, Shiraishi discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 4.
Shiraishi is silent regarding a ratio between the first diameter and second diameter is between about 1 and about 1.4.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio between the first diameter and second diameter is between about 1 and about 1.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Shiraishi by making the ratio between the first diameter and second diameter is between about 1 and about 1.4, for the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics through the porous plug.
Regarding claim 7, Shiraishi discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 6.
Shiraishi is silent regarding a ratio between the first cross-section and second cross-section is between about 1 and about 2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio between the first cross-section and second cross-section is between about 1 and about 2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Shiraishi by making the ratio between the first cross-section and second cross-section is between about 1 and about 2, for the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics through the porous plug.
Regarding claim 8, Shiraishi discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Shiraishi is silent regarding a length ratio between the first axial length and the second axial length is between about 2 and about 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the length ratio between the first axial length and the second axial length is between about 2 and about 10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Shiraishi by making the length ratio between the first axial length and the second axial length is between about 2 and about 10, for the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics through the porous plug.
Regarding claim 9, Shiraishi discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Shiraishi is silent regarding a volume ratio between the first volume and the second volume is between about 2 and about 12.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the volume ratio between the first volume and the second volume is between about 2 and about 12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Shiraishi by making the volume ratio between the first volume and the second volume is between about 2 and about 12, for the purpose of achieving the desired flow characteristics through the porous plug.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Larosa (U.S. Patent 11,456,161) discloses a substrate support pedestal similar to the one described in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights