DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to Communication filed 06/30/2026
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 .
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 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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 7 and 11 have been withdrawn
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are rejected
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, drawn to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20, in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no excessive burden comes from the search and examination of all pending claims. Examiner disagrees.
The species have mutually exclusive structural features which would require different search strategies and/or syntaxes. As such, a serious search burden would exist. This requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 7 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant has provided limitations requiring different parts to be “in contact.” For example claim 1 recites “a first portion comprised of a first material disposed in contact with the facility plate.” The phrase “in contact” is broad and can be reasonably interpreted to include objects being in thermal contact with each other; two objects being separated by a layer would still be considered as being in thermal contact with each other as there are no perfect insulators. As such, the examiner has determined that the prior art would disclose structures being in contact with each other if they are at least in thermal contact with each other.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a substrate support assembly, comprising: a facility plate; a support plate having an upper surface adapted to support a workpiece,” but this limitation is unclear in light of the disclosure as a whole. The applicant’s specification discloses that it is the ESC 103 that supports the workpiece, not the support plate 105 [IA – Fig. 2 & 0019]. As such, it is unclear how the support plate 105 has an upper surface specifically intended to support the workpiece. Therefore, for the purposes of prosecution on the merits, the aforementioned limitation will be read as “a substrate support assembly, comprising: a facility plate; a support plate; an electrostatic chuck having an upper surface adapted to support a workpiece.”
Regarding Claims 2-6 and 8-9:
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Kuno teaches a substrate support assembly (wafer placement table 10), comprising: a facility plate (bottom base 80); a support plate (ceiling plate 30); an electrostatic chuck (ceramic base 20) having an upper surface adapted to support a workpiece; a seal receiving groove (outer grooves 89a) disposed in at least one of the facility plate and a lower surface of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 6A, the grooves 89a are disposed in bottom base 80); and a seal (outer seal members 16a) disposed in the seal receiving groove and providing a seal between the support plate and the facility plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and 6A, the outer seal members 16a are disposed in outer grooves 89a) [Fig. 1, 6A, 6B & 0038-0039, 0046].
Kuno does not specifically disclose a hybrid seal, the hybrid seal comprising: a first portion comprised of a first material disposed in contact with the facility plate; and a second portion comprised of a second material disposed in contact with the support plate, the second portion having a thickness less than a thickness of the first portion, the second portion laterally constrained relative to the first portion, the second material being a different type of material from the first material.
Minami teaches a hybrid seal (O-ring 200), the hybrid seal comprising: a first portion comprised of a first material (corrosion resistant part 202; the corrosion resistant part 202 may comprise of fluoro resin) disposed in contact with the facility plate; and a second portion comprised of a second material (synthetic rubber portion 201) disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the O-ring 200 is at least in thermal contact with multiple surfaces), the second portion having a thickness less than a thickness of the first portion (as evidenced by Figs. 3 and 14, the portion 201 has a larger thickness than corrosion resistant part 202), the second portion laterally constrained relative to the first portion (the part 202 may have a protrusion embedded within the portion 201, thereby laterally constraining it), the second material being a different type of material from the first material (the corrosion resistant part 202 may comprise of fluoro resin; the rubber inner portion 201 may comprise of a fluorine-based synthetic rubber) [Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim - 0003, 0020].
It is noted that the limitations “the second material thermally shielding the first material from the support plate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that since the part 202 of the O-ring 200 of Minami covers at least a portion of the portion 201, the part 202 would be capable of thermally shielding the portion 201 from an upper structure [Minami - Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
Regarding Claim 3:
Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the hybrid seal has a substantially circular cross section.
Minami teaches wherein the hybrid seal has a substantially circular cross section. (as evidenced by Figs. 3 and 14, the O-ring 200 has a circular cross section) [Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim - 0003, 0020].
Regarding Claim 9:
Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein one of the first or second portions of the hybrid seal includes a recess and the other portion includes a corresponding projection interleaved with the recess.
Minami teaches wherein one of the first or second portions of the hybrid seal includes a recess and the other portion includes a corresponding projection interleaved with the recess (the part 202 may comprise a protrusion going into the portion 201) [Fig. 17 & 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim - 0003, 0020].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 9 above, and further in view of Larsen et al. (US 6839217), with Ahiko (US 20230073711), Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167), and Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion is separated from the support plate by the second portion.
Although Minami does not specifically disclose "the second portion laterally constrained relative to the first portion," the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the O-ring of Minami to have the part 202 above the portion 201 such that the portion 201 is separated from an upper structure by the part 202. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071]. Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31].
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion is separated from the support plate by at least 20 mils.
Although Larsen does not specifically disclose "wherein the first portion is separated from the support plate by at least 20 mils," Larsen does disclose that the thickness of a PTFE layer is a result effective variable. Specifically, the thickness of a PTFE layer can be chosen to obtain desired thermal transfer characteristics [Larsen - Col. 10 lines 10-16, 33-41]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum thickness for a PTFE layer to obtain desired thermal transfer characteristics. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005].
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 9 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) and Schaefer et al. (US 20130097840), with Yoshioka (US 20190093706) and Globus et al. (US 7683130) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the second material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Kobayashi teaches wherein the second material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (second sealing member 24 may comprise of PTFE) [Fig. 1 & Col. 18 lines 20-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second material of Modified Kuno to be PTFE since Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose the first material is a perfluoro elastomer.
Schaefer teaches the first material is a perfluoro elastomer (the elastomeric band 200 is comprised of FFKM such as Kalrez) [Fig. 4 & 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first material of Modified Kuno to be FFKM since Schaefer discloses FFKM as a suitable material for a sealing member [Schaefer - 0030]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It is noted that Schaefer discloses both Teflon (PTFE) and FFKM as suitable materials for a sealing member.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the first material includes monomers attached to branching carbon and fluorine compounds.
Kobayashi teaches wherein the first material includes monomers attached to branching carbon and fluorine compounds (the first sealing member 20 may comprise of a vinylidene fluoride/tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoroalkylvinyl ether copolymer) [Fig. 1 & Col. 10 lines 4-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second material of Modified Kuno to be PTFE since Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the second material has a melt viscosity greater than the first material.
However, Kobayashi teaches wherein the second material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (second sealing member 24 may comprise of PTFE) [Fig. 1 & Col. 18 lines 20-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second material of Modified Kuno to be PTFE since Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Furthermore, Schaefer teaches the first material is a perfluoro elastomer (the elastomeric band 200 is comprised of FFKM such as Kalrez) [Fig. 4 & 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first material of Modified Kuno to be FFKM since Schaefer discloses FFKM as a suitable material for a sealing member [Schaefer - 0030]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It is noted that Schaefer discloses both Teflon (PTFE) and FFKM as suitable materials for a sealing member.
It is noted that Yoshioka (US 20190093706) discloses that PTFE has a melt viscosity of 1010 Pa*s to 1011 Pa*s and Globus et al. (US 7683130) discloses Kalrez has a viscosity between of 4266-14500 Pa*s at 340 Degrees Celsius [Yoshioka – 0028; Globus & Col. 3 lines 45-55].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 11231108), with Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425), Hua et al. (US 20050241844), Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), Ahiko (US 20230073711), Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167), and Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion has a flat face having an orientation perpendicular to a centerline of the hybrid seal, the flat face disposed in contact with the support plate.
Kim ‘108 teaches wherein the second portion has a flat face having an orientation perpendicular to a centerline of the hybrid seal, the flat face disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the second seal member 40 has a flat surface in contact with the second member 30) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 23-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify second portion of modified Kuno to have a flat upper face, as in Kim '108, since Kim discloses making contact surfaces flat would be beneficial so as to improve sealing ability [Kim '108 - Col. 8 lines 48-68, Col. 9 lines 1-2, Col. 10 lines 24-36, 52-67]. Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425) also discloses that flat contact surfaces would be beneficial so as to increase contact surface area, therefore improving sealing [Firouzdor 0026]. Furthermore, O-rings utilizing flat stops surfaces is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Hua et al. (US 20050241844) and Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), and as such, utilizing a flat top surface would also merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP I. D.) [Hua - Fig. 3; Dolecheck - Fig. 4B].
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the O-ring of Minami to have the part 202 above the portion 201 such that the part 202 can fully contact and be parallel with an upper structure. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071]. Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31].
Claim(s) 10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), Krau et al. (US 20170306477), Kim et al. (US 11231108), and Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993), Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425), Hua et al. (US 20050241844), Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), Ahiko (US 20230073711), Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167), Apostolo et al. (US 20130261249), and Liazandara et al. (US 20210379565) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 10:
Kuno teaches a substrate support assembly (wafer placement table 10), comprising a facility plate (bottom base 80); a support plate (ceiling plate 30); a seal receiving groove (outer grooves 89a) disposed in at least one of the facility plate and a lower surface of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 6A, the grooves 89a are disposed in bottom base 80); and a seal (outer seal members 16a) disposed in the seal receiving groove and providing a seal between the support plate and the facility plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and 6A, the outer seal members 16a are disposed in outer grooves 89a) [Fig. 1, 6A, 6B & 0038-0039, 0046].
Kuno does not specifically disclose a hybrid seal, the hybrid seal comprising: a first portion comprised of a first material disposed in contact with the facility plate, and a second portion comprised of a second material disposed in contact with the support plate, the second portion having a thickness less than a thickness of the first portion and laterally constrained relative to the first material.
Minami teaches and a hybrid seal (O-ring 200), the hybrid seal comprising: a first portion comprised of a first material (corrosion resistant part 202; the corrosion resistant part 202 may comprise of fluororesin) disposed in contact with the facility plate; and a second portion comprised of a second material (synthetic rubber portion 201) disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the O-ring 200 is at least in thermal contact with multiple surfaces), the second portion having a thickness less than a thickness of the first portion (as evidenced by Figs. 3 and 14, the portion 201 has a larger thickness than corrosion resistant part 202) and laterally constrained relative to the first portion (the part 202 may have a protrusion embedded within the portion 201, thereby laterally constraining it) [Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim ‘993 - 0003, 0020].
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose the first material including fluorine.
Krau teaches the first material including fluorine (the O-ring is made of a perfluoro elastomer such as FFKM) [Fig. 1 & 0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first material of Modified Kuno to be FFKM since Krau discloses FFKM as a suitable material for a sealing member [Krau - 0063]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Kuno (Kuno modified by Minami and Krau) does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion has a flat face, the flat face disposed in contact with the support plate.
Kim ‘108 teaches wherein the second portion has a flat face, the flat face disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the second seal member 40 has a flat surface in contact with the second member 30) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 23-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify second portion of modified Kuno to have a flat upper face, as in Kim '108, since Kim discloses making contact surfaces flat would be beneficial so as to improve sealing ability [Kim '108 - Col. 8 lines 48-68, Col. 9 lines 1-2, Col. 10 lines 24-36, 52-67]. Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425) also discloses that flat contact surfaces would be beneficial so as to increase contact surface area, therefore improving sealing [Firouzdor 0026]. Furthermore, O-rings utilizing flat stops surfaces is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Hua et al. (US 20050241844) and Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), and as such, utilizing a flat top surface would also merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP I. D.) [Hua - Fig. 3; Dolecheck - Fig. 4B].
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the O-ring of Minami to have the part 202 above the portion 201 such that the part 202 can fully contact and be parallel with an upper structure. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005]. Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31].
Modified Kuno (Kuno modified by Minami, Krau, and Kim ‘108) does not specifically disclose the second material having a greater molecular weight than the first material.
However, Kobayashi teaches wherein the second material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (second sealing member 24 may comprise of PTFE) [Fig. 1 & Col. 18 lines 20-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second material of Modified Kuno to be PTFE since Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
It is noted that Apostolo et al. (US 20130261249) discloses that perfluoro elastomers may have a number-averaged molecular weight of 3000 to 45000 Daltons and Liazandara et al. (US 20210379565) discloses that PTFE may have a number average molecular weight of 3,000,000 to 50,000,000 g/mol [Apostolo – Table 3, 0031; Liazandara - 0065].
It is further noted that the limitations “the second material thermally shielding the first material from the support plate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that since the part 202 of the O-ring 200 of Minami covers at least a portion of the portion 201, the part 202 would be capable of thermally shielding the portion 201 from an upper structure [Minami - Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
Regarding Claim 12:
Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein one of the first or second portions of the hybrid seal includes a recess and the other portion includes a corresponding projection interleaved with the recess.
Minami teaches herein one of the first or second portions of the hybrid seal includes a recess and the other portion includes a corresponding projection interleaved with the recess (the part 202 may comprise a protrusion going into the portion 201) [Fig. 17 & 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim ‘993 - 0003, 0020].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Kuno (Kuno modified by Minami and Krau) does not specifically disclose wherein the flat face is parallel to a lower surface of the support plate.
Kim ‘108 teaches wherein the flat face is parallel to a lower surface of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the second seal member 40 has a flat surface in contact with the second member 30) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 23-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify second portion of modified Kuno to have a flat upper face, as in Kim '108, since Kim discloses making contact surfaces flat would be beneficial so as to improve sealing ability [Kim '108 - Col. 8 lines 48-68, Col. 9 lines 1-2, Col. 10 lines 24-36, 52-67]. Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425) also discloses that flat contact surfaces would be beneficial so as to increase contact surface area, therefore improving sealing [Firouzdor 0026]. Furthermore, O-rings utilizing flat stops surfaces is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Hua et al. (US 20050241844) and Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), and as such, utilizing a flat top surface would also merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP I. D.) [Hua - Fig. 3; Dolecheck - Fig. 4B].
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the O-ring of Minami to have the part 202 above the portion 201 such that the part 202 can fully contact and be parallel with an upper structure. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005]. Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Kuno (Kuno modified by Minami) does not specifically disclose the first material is a perfluoro elastomer.
Krau teaches the first material is a perfluoro elastomer (the O-ring is made of a perfluoro elastomer such as FFKM) [Fig. 1 & 0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first material of Modified Kuno to be FFKM since Krau discloses FFKM as a suitable material for a sealing member [Krau - 0063]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Kuno (Kuno modified by Minami, Krau, and Kim ‘108) does not specifically disclose wherein the second material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Kobayashi teaches wherein the second material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (second sealing member 24 may comprise of PTFE) [Fig. 1 & Col. 18 lines 20-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second material of Modified Kuno to be PTFE since Kobayashi discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 15:
Kuno teaches wherein the facility plate and the support plate define a cavity (there is a gap between the bottom surface of the top base 12 and the top surface of the bottom base 80; the top base 12 includes ceiling base 30) within the facility plate [Fig. 1 & 0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 16:
The limitations of claim 16 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the seal members 16a of Kuno provide sealing, and as such, would be capable of maintaining an internal pressure [Kuno - 0046].
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993), Ahiko (US 20230073711), and Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 17:
Kuno teaches a processing chamber comprising: walls (walls of chamber 94) that partially define processing region; a vacuum source (the chamber 94 operates under vacuum conditions, and as such, a vacuum source can be reasonably inferred), a RF power source (RF power supply 62) and a substrate support assembly (wafer placement table 10), comprising: a facility plate (bottom base 80); a support plate (ceiling plate 30) having an upper surface;
a seal receiving groove (outer grooves 89a) disposed in at least one of the facility plate and a lower surface of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 6A, the grooves 89a are disposed in bottom base 80); and a seal (outer seal members 16a) disposed in the seal receiving groove and providing a seal between the support plate and the facility plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and 6A, the outer seal members 16a are disposed in outer grooves 89a) [Fig. 1, 6A, 6B & 0038-0039, 0046].
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
Kuno does not specifically disclose a hybrid seal the hybrid seal comprising: a first portion comprised of a first material disposed in contact with the facility plate; and a second portion comprised of a second material disposed in contact with the support plate, the second portion having a thickness less than a thickness of the first portion, the second portion laterally constrained relative to the first portion, the second material being a different type of material from the first material.
Minami teaches and a hybrid seal (O-ring 200), and a second portion comprised of a second material (synthetic rubber portion 201) disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the O-ring 200 is at least in thermal contact with multiple surfaces), and a second portion comprised of a second material (synthetic rubber portion 201) disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the O-ring 200 is at least in thermal contact with multiple surfaces), the second portion having a thickness less than a thickness of the first portion (as evidenced by Figs. 3 and 14, the portion 201 has a larger thickness than corrosion resistant part 202), the second portion laterally constrained relative to the first portion (the part 202 may have a protrusion embedded within the portion 201, thereby laterally constraining it), the second material being a different type of material from the first material (the corrosion resistant part 202 may comprise of fluororesin; the rubber inner portion 201 may comprise of a fluorine-based synthetic rubber) [Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim -0003, 0020].
It is noted that the limitations “the second material thermally shielding the first material from the support plate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that since the part 202 of the O-ring 200 of Minami covers at least a portion of the portion 201, the part 202 would be capable of thermally shielding the portion 201 from an upper structure [Minami - Fig. 3, 14, 17 & 0005, 0007, 0015, 0018, 0025, 0027].
Regarding Claim 18:
Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the second material comprises a plasma side configured to separate a plasma from the first material.
Minami teaches wherein the second material comprises a plasma side configured to separate a plasma from the first material (the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere) [Fig. 3 - 0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the O-rings of Kuno to comprise of two different parts and materials, as in Minami, to improve chemical/corrosion resistance whilst maintaining elasticity and sealing properties [Minami - 0005, 0031]. Kim et al. (KR 101885993) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to have a two-part O-ring since the two parts can be colored differently, thereby easing assembly and troubleshooting [Kim -0003, 0020]. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993), Ahiko (US 20230073711), and Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) as evidentiary references, as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 17-18 above, and further in view of Larsen et al. (US 6839217), with Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 17-18 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion is separated from the support plate by at least 20 mils.
Although Larsen does not specifically disclose "wherein the first portion is separated from the support plate by at least 20 mils," Larsen does disclose that the thickness of a PTFE layer is a result effective variable. Specifically, the thickness of a PTFE layer can be chosen to obtain desired thermal transfer characteristics [Larsen - Col. 10 lines 10-16, 33-41]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum thickness for a PTFE layer to obtain desired thermal transfer characteristics. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005].
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the O-ring of Minami to have the part 202 above the portion 201 such that the portion 201 is separated from an upper structure by the part 202. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005]. Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 20230116574) in view of Minami (JP H112328), with Kim et al. (KR 101885993), Ahiko (US 20230073711), and Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 17-18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 11231108), with Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425), Hua et al. (US 20050241844), Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), and Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 17-18 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the second portion has a flat face having an orientation perpendicular to a centerline of the hybrid seal, the flat face disposed in contact with the support plate.
Kim teaches wherein the second portion has a flat face having an orientation perpendicular to a centerline of the hybrid seal, the flat face disposed in contact with the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the second seal member 40 has a flat surface in contact with the second member 30) [Fig. 1 & Col. 6 lines 23-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify second portion of modified Kuno to have a flat upper face, as in Kim '108, since Kim discloses making contact surfaces flat would be beneficial so as to improve sealing ability [Kim '108 - Col. 8 lines 48-68, Col. 9 lines 1-2, Col. 10 lines 24-36, 52-67]. Firouzdor et al. (US 20200152425) also discloses that flat contact surfaces would be beneficial so as to increase contact surface area, therefore improving sealing [Firouzdor 0026]. Furthermore, O-rings utilizing flat stops surfaces is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Hua et al. (US 20050241844) and Dolecheck et al. (US 20060040086), and as such, utilizing a flat top surface would also merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP I. D.) [Hua - Fig. 3; Dolecheck - Fig. 4B].
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the O-ring of Minami to have the part 202 above the portion 201 such that the part 202 can fully contact and be parallel with an upper structure. It is noted that the part 202 is merely placed where the O-ring can come into contact with a corrosive atmosphere, and as such, could be reasonably placed above the portion 201 [Minami - 0014]. Ahiko (US 20230073711) further discloses that it'd be beneficial to have an insulative resin as a top layer over an O-ring or integral with an O-ring so as to improve local thermal uniformity [Ahiko - 0047, 0068, 0081]. It is noted that Minami discloses its part 202 may comprise of a fluoro resin [Minami - 0005]. Kobayashi et al. (US 7866669) discloses PTFE as a suitable material for corrosion resistant sealing members [Kobayashi Col. 10 lines 54-56, Col. 18 lines 20-31]. Hayashi et al. (US 20100243167) further discloses PTFE as both a resin and an insulator [Hayashi - 0071].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Freerks (US 6089543) and Zucker et al. (US 20070012251) teach sealing assemblies [Freerks – Fig. 10; Zucker – Fig. 5].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights