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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 11/30/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 15, 18-20, 22, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2022/010428).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an electronic device manufacturing system ([0020]) comprising:
- at least one chamber (10, [0029]) configured to receive a substrate (W, [0029]); and
- at least one substrate support device (2, [0029]) located within the at least one chamber ([0029]) and configured to support the substrate ([0029]) within the at least one chamber ([0029]), wherein the at least one substrate support device comprises:
• one or more cooling plates (20, Fig. 2, [0037]) comprising:
○ a monolithic body (20, Fig. 2, [0037]); and
○ one or more channels (31, Fig. 3, [0041]) that are integral to the monolithic body ([0041]) and that traverse an interior volume of the one or more cooling plates ([0041]) and are configured to circulate a coolant within the one or more cooling plates ([0041]), wherein the coolant is to extract heat from the substrate ([0041]);
• one or more sensors (92, 93, Fig. 9, [0086]), in or on a manifold (See annotated Fig. 9 below) coupled to the one or more cooling plates (See annotated Fig. 9 below), to collect sensor data indicative of one or more physical properties of the coolant or coolant flow ([0086]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
678
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- a controller (100, [0056]) to adjust the flow rate of the coolant based on the sensor data ([0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches a cross-sectional shape of the one or more channels is a shape other than a circular shape (31, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the at least one chamber comprises a cooling station (3, [0029], [0037], [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi teaches the one or more cooling plates further comprise an integrated sensor (91, [0082]) that is a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the substrate (W, [0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi teaches the one or more cooling plates further comprise integrated channels housing electrical lines running to the integrated sensor ([0082], a thermocouple is made of electrical lines).
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi teaches at least one of a top of the one or more cooling plates or a bottom of the one or more cooling plates comprises a plurality of rib structures that are configured to increase convection-based heat transfer of heat from the substrate (300, Fig. 8, [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi teaches a one or more cooling plate temperature sensors (91, [0082]) embedded within the one or more cooling plates (20, [0082]), the one or more cooling plate temperature sensors to detect a temperature of the one or more cooling plates (91, [0082]); and
a controller (100, [0056]) to control a coolant flow rate based at least in part on the temperature of the one or more cooling plates ([0083]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2022/010428).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the one or more channels comprise a path having a curve
Kobayashi does not teach the curve radius is at least 2mm.
However, the radius of at least 2 mm would have involved a mere change in the size of a device which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the device will still function property with the size modification.
Therefore, making the curve radius at least 2 mm is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that such a modification is significant. (See re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955))
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi does not teach the cross-sectional shape is one of: a rectangular shape, a pentagonal shape, a hexagonal shape, an octagonal shape, a polygonal shape, a diamond shape, or a gyroid shape.
However, the cross-sectional shape would have involved a mere change in the shape of an object, which is also recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since the device will function properly with the shape modifications.
Therefore, modifying the cross-sectional shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that such a modification is significant. (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966))
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi (third embodiment) does not teach the one or more cooling plates comprise one or more regions having a lattice structure.
However, Kobayashi teaches a second embodiment having a cooling plate (300, Fig. 8, [0081]) having a refrigerant passage (301, [0076]) configuration described and shown (301, Fig. 8, “lattice structure”) and having the effect of improving the in-plane temperature uniformity ([0081]) of the substrate support main body (20, [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third embodiment of Kobayashi to use the cooling plate (300, Fig. 8) of the second embodiment of Kobayashi to improve the in-plane temperature uniformity ([0081]) of the substrate support main body (20, [0081]).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2022/010428) and Harrington (US 2012/180979).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches a substrate support device (2, [0029]) of an electronic device manufacturing system ([0020]), the substrate support device comprising:
- one or more cooling plates (3, Fig. 2, [0037]) configured to support a substrate to be placed on the substrate support device ([0037]), each cooling plate of the one or more cooling plates comprising:
• a monolithic body (3, Fig. 2, [0037]); and
• one or more channels (31, Fig. 3, [0041]) that are integral to the monolithic body ([0041]) and that traverse an interior volume of the cooling plate ([0041]) and are configured to circulate a coolant within the cooling plate ([0041]), wherein the coolant is to extract heat from the substrate ([0041]);
- one or more temperature sensors (92, 93, Fig. 9, [0086]) in or on the manifold (See annotated Fig. 9 below) to detect a first temperature of the coolant provided to the one or more cooling plates (92, Fig. 9, [0086]) and a second temperature of the coolant received from the one or more cooling plates (93, Fig. 9, [0086]).
PNG
media_image2.png
678
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi does not teach a leak detector in or on a manifold of the one or more cooling plates, the leak detector to detect a leak of the coolant or a pressure sensor in or on the manifold to detect a pressure of the coolant.
However, Harrington teaches a cooling system (2200, Fig. 22, [0109]) having a coolant flowing from a reservoir (2218, Fig. 22, [0109]) to electronic equipment, or servers (2222, Fig. 22, [0109]), and removal of heat from that equipment ([0109]). The coolant is circulated via a cold manifold (2226, Fig. 22, [0109]) to the servers and return the heated coolant to the hot manifold (2228, Fig. 22, [0109]).
Harrington also teaches pressure sensors placed on the cool manifold and hot manifold ([0112]) to detect the pressure of the coolant ([0112]). If the pressure sensor detects an abnormal pressure drop, this could signal that there is a leak in the system and the system would alert the operator ([0112]), where an alarm would optionally be activated to alert the operator ([0123]). Harrington teaches a leak would introduce air into the system and potentially reduce the efficiency of the system in cooling ([0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a pressure sensor on the refrigerant supply path (Kobayashi: 33, similar to Harrington: cold manifold 2226) and another pressure sensor on the refrigerant discharge path (Kobayashi: 34, similar to Harrington: hot manifold 2228) and using an alarm (Harrington: [0123]) to signal that there is a leak in the system and the system would alert the operator using the alarm if the pressure sensors detect an abnormal pressure drop (Harrington: [0112]). As leaks would potentially reduce the efficiency of the system in cooling equipment (Harrington: [0112]), alerting the operator if a leak is present could mitigate cooling efficiency reduction of the system.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kobayashi does not teach
- wherein the one or more cooling plates comprise a first cooling plate and a second cooling plate,
- wherein the manifold comprises a first manifold portion and a second manifold portion,
- wherein the first cooling plate and the first manifold portion are parts of a first monolithic structure, and
- wherein the second cooling plate and the second manifold portion are parts of a second monolithic structure mounted to the first monolithic structure.
However, having multiple substrate support devices (Kobayashi: 20, each substrate support device having a cooling plate, each cooling plate having a manifold) would involve a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, duplication of the substrate support device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
Additionally, making duplicated substrate support devices integral or separate would not have affected the operation of the substrate support devices (Kobayashi: 2).
Therefore, making duplicated substrate support devices integral or separate is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Regarding claim 11, modified Kobayashi teaches the one or more cooling plates comprise a first cooling plate and a second cooling plate (3, [0087], area surrounding first refrigerant passage is a first cooling plate, and area surrounding second refrigerant passage is a second cooling plate), and wherein the manifold comprises a monolithic structure mounted to the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate (the refrigerant passage of the first cooling plate and the refrigerant passage of the second cooling plate would share a portion (See annotated Fig. 9 below) because of the refrigerant passage structure shown in Fig. 3 having the ends 31 A and 31 B located at the center of the cooling plate).
PNG
media_image3.png
678
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Kobayashi teaches the manifold comprises a monolithic structure having one or more additional channels (311, 312, See annotated Fig. 9 for claim 1 rejection) that couple to the one or more channels of the one or more cooling plates (31, See annotated Fig. 9 for claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 15, 18-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2022/010428) and Harrington (US 2012/180979).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi teaches an electronic device manufacturing system ([0020]), comprising:
- a chamber (10, [0029]) configured to receive a substrate (W, [0029]); and
- a substrate support device (2, [0029]) located within the chamber ([0029]) and configured to support the substrate ([0029]) within the chamber ([0029]), the substrate support device comprising:
• one or more cooling plates (20, Fig. 2, [0037]) comprising:
○ one or more channels (31, Fig. 3, [0041]) that traverse an interior volume of the one or more cooling plates ([0041]) and are configured to circulate a coolant within the one or more cooling plates ([0041]) to extract heat from the substrate ([0041]); and
• one or more integrated sensors (91, [0082]), configured to detect one or more conditions (temperature, [0082]) associated with the substrate (W, [0082]); and
• a manifold coupled to the one or more cooling plates (See annotated Fig. 9 below), wherein the manifold is configured to deliver coolant to the one or more channels of the one or more cooling plates ([0049], [0034]) and to receive heated coolant from the one or more cooling plates ([0049], [0034], refrigerant is heated because temperature of refrigerant at a discharge position is increased compared to a supply position);
PNG
media_image1.png
678
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• one or more temperature sensors (92, 93, Fig. 9, [0086]), in or on the manifold, to detect at least one of: a first temperature of the coolant provided to the one or more cooling plates (92, Fig. 9, [0086]) or a second temperature of the coolant received from the one or more cooling plates (93, Fig. 9, [0086]); and
Kobayashi does not teach a leak detector, in or on a manifold, to detect a leak of the coolant or a pressure sensor, in or on the manifold, to detect a pressure of the coolant.
However, Harrington teaches a cooling system (2200, Fig. 22, [0109]) having a coolant flowing from a reservoir (2218, Fig. 22, [0109]) to electronic equipment, or servers (2222, Fig. 22, [0109]), and removal of heat from that equipment ([0109]). The coolant is circulated via a cold manifold (2226, Fig. 22, [0109]) to the servers and return the heated coolant to the hot manifold (2228, Fig. 22, [0109]).
Harrington also teaches pressure sensors placed on the cool manifold and hot manifold ([0112]) to detect the pressure of the coolant ([0112]). If the pressure sensor detects an abnormal pressure drop, this could signal that there is a leak in the system and the system would alert the operator ([0112]), where an alarm would optionally be activated to alert the operator ([0123]). Harrington teaches a leak would introduce air into the system and potentially reduce the efficiency of the system in cooling ([0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a pressure sensor on the refrigerant supply path (Kobayashi: 33, similar to Harrington: cold manifold 2226) and another pressure sensor on the refrigerant discharge path (Kobayashi: 34, similar to Harrington: hot manifold 2228) and using an alarm (Harrington: [0123]) to signal that there is a leak in the system and the system would alert the operator using the alarm if the pressure sensors detect an abnormal pressure drop (Harrington: [0112]). As leaks would potentially reduce the efficiency of the system in cooling equipment (Harrington: [0112]), alerting the operator if a leak is present could mitigate cooling efficiency reduction of the system.
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi teaches the one or more cooling plates comprise a monolithic part with the one or more channels formed therein (20, Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi teaches an integrated sensor of the one or more integrated sensors is a temperature sensor (91, [0082]), and the one or more conditions associated with the substrate is a temperature of the substrate (W, [0082]).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi teaches the one or more cooling plates comprise integrated channels housing electrical lines running to the one or more integrated sensors ([0082], a thermocouple is made of electrical lines).
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi teaches
- wherein the one or more cooling plates comprise a first cooling plate and a second cooling plate,
- wherein the manifold comprises a first manifold portion and a second manifold portion,
- wherein the first cooling plate and the first manifold portion are parts of a first monolithic structure, and
- wherein the second cooling plate and the second manifold portion are parts of a second monolithic structure mounted to the first monolithic structure.
However, having multiple substrate support devices (Kobayashi: 2, each substrate support device having a cooling plate, each cooling plate having a manifold) would involve a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, duplication of the substrate support device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
Additionally, making duplicated substrate support devices integral or separate would not have affected the operation of the substrate support devices (Kobayashi: 2).
Therefore, making duplicated substrate support devices integral or separate is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2022/010428) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harrington (US 2012/180979).
Regarding claim 31, Kobayashi teaches the one or more sensors comprise one or more temperature sensors to collect data indicative of a temperature of the coolant provided to (92, Fig. 9, [0086]), or received from, the one or more cooling plates (93, Fig. 9, [0086]).
Kobayashi does not teach the one or more sensors also comprise a leak detector to collect data indicative of a leak of the coolant or a pressure sensor to collect data indicative of a pressure of the coolant.
However, Harrington teaches a cooling system (2200, Fig. 22, [0109]) having a coolant flowing from a reservoir (2218, Fig. 22, [0109]) to electronic equipment, or servers (2222, Fig. 22, [0109]), and removal of heat from that equipment ([0109]). The coolant is circulated via a cold manifold (2226, Fig. 22, [0109]) to the servers and return the heated coolant to the hot manifold (2228, Fig. 22, [0109]).
Harrington also teaches pressure sensors placed on the cool manifold and hot manifold ([0112]) to detect the pressure of the coolant ([0112]). If the pressure sensor detects an abnormal pressure drop, this could signal that there is a leak in the system and the system would alert the operator ([0112]), where an alarm would optionally be activated to alert the operator ([0123]). Harrington teaches a leak would introduce air into the system and potentially reduce the efficiency of the system in cooling ([0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a pressure sensor on the refrigerant supply path (Kobayashi: 33, similar to Harrington: cold manifold 2226) and another pressure sensor on the refrigerant discharge path (Kobayashi: 34, similar to Harrington: hot manifold 2228) and using an alarm (Harrington: [0123]) to signal that there is a leak in the system and the system would alert the operator using the alarm if the pressure sensors detect an abnormal pressure drop (Harrington: [0112]). As leaks would potentially reduce the efficiency of the system in cooling equipment (Harrington: [0112]), alerting the operator if a leak is present could mitigate cooling efficiency reduction of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763