DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A2 [fig 9], Species B6 [fig 8C], and Species C3 [fig 6] in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
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 18-20 are 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 18:
Claim 18 recites “wherein the second protrusion a central portion of the body and an outer portion of the body opposite to the central portion when viewed from the vertical direction” [lines 12-13]. This is grammatically incoherent. Therefore, it is unclear what this limitation is supposed to convey. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation similar to claim 12 to mean “wherein the second protrusion defines a central portion of the body and an outer portion of the body opposite to the central portion when viewed from the vertical direction”.
Regarding claims 19-20:
Claims 19-20 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumiya et al (JP2006245621).
Regarding claim 1:
Sumiya teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma processing apparatus) [fig 1 & 0025] comprising: a process chamber (processing chamber, 103) comprising a processing space (interior of 103) [fig 1 & 0026]; a heater (202 may include a heater) located inside the process chamber (103) and configured to heat a lower portion of the processing space [fig 2, 9 & 0054, 0074-0075]; a first heat source (microwave and electromagnetic wave 101) located inside the process chamber (introduced into the processing chamber 103) and spaced apart from the heater (202) and configured to heat an upper portion of the processing space [fig 1 & 0026]; a plurality of first protrusions (263) protruding in a vertical direction from an upper surface of the heater (upper surface of 202) [fig 2 & 0041]; and a second protrusion (262) protruding in the vertical direction from an edge portion of the upper surface of the heater (upper surface of 202) [fig 2 & 0041].
Regarding claim 5:
Sumiya teaches the first heat source includes a microwave application unit (microwave) [fig 1 & 0026].
Regarding claim 6:
Sumiya teaches the second protrusion (262) has a ring shape (ring-shaped) when viewed from the vertical direction [fig 2 & 0041].
Regarding claim 7:
Sumiya teaches the heater (202) further comprises a third protrusion (261) protruding from the upper surface of the heater (202) in the vertical direction and formed inside the second protrusion (262), and the third protrusion (261) has a ring shape (ring-shaped) when viewed from the vertical direction [fig 2 & 0041].
Regarding claim 8:
The limitations “wherein a horizontal distance from an outer surface of the second protrusion to a side surface of a substrate disposed on the heater is in a range of about 2400 micrometers (μm) to about 3000 μm” do not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al (JP2006245621) as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and further in view of Park (US 6,531,686).
The limitations of claims 1 and 5-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2:
Sumiya teaches the heater (202) extends in a horizontal direction and the plurality of first protrusions (263) and the second protrusion (262) extend from an upper surface of the heater (upper surface of 202) [fig 2 & 0041].
Sumiya does not specifically teach the heater has a recess formed in the upper surface of the heater, and wherein the recess is formed outside the plurality of first protrusions and the second protrusion in the upper surface of the heater.
Park teaches a chuck (chuck plate, 36b) has a recess (B) formed in the upper surface of the chuck, and wherein the recess (B) is formed outside the substrate supporting surface (see fig 5b) [fig 5b & col 4, lines 54-61].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heater of Sumiya to have a recess formed outside the substrate supporting surface (i.e. outside the plurality of first protrusions and the second protrusion), as in Park, to prevent the etching process from creating defects that would otherwise adversely impact the subsequent processing of the substrate, whereby the manufacturing yield is improved [col 2, lines 10-30].
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Sumiya teaches the recess (B) has a ring shape when viewed from the vertical direction (see fig 7) [Park - fig 5b, 7 & col 4, lines 54-61].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al (JP2006245621) in view of Park (US 6,531,686) as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al (US 2016/0020135).
The limitations of claims 2 and 4 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Sumiya does not specifically disclose a distance from the upper surface of the heater where the recess is formed to an upper surface of the second protrusion is in a range of about 25 micrometers (μm) to about 35 μm.
Kawamura teaches a depth of the recess (H4) is a result-effective variable [fig 9 & 0023, 0103].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the depth of the recess in consideration of the area of the peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate through routine experimentation in order to meet a condition that a pressure applied to the substrate due to the water vapor is less than the weight of the substrate per unit area [0023, 0103]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiya et al (JP2006245621) as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and further in view of Park (US 6,531,686) and Uchida (US 2014/0146434).
The limitations of claims 1 and 5-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Sumiya teaches the heater (202) includes a first part and a second part, the first part includes a lower portion and a central portion of the heater, the second part includes an upper outer portion of the heater, and the second protrusion (262) is formed on an upper surface of the second part (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0041].
Sumiya does not specifically disclose the first part and second part being a first body and a second body coupled to and separated from each other.
Park teaches a first body and a second body coupled to and separated from each other (one or more of the respective parts of the chuck plate may be formed separately and then such parts are integrated together) [col 5, lines 20-27].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first part and the second part of the heater of Sumiya to be a first body and a second body coupled to and separated from each other, as in Park, since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Sumiya modified by Park does not specifically disclose the first body and the second body are coupled to each other by a contact pad.
Uchida teaches a first body (FR) and a second body (18) are coupled to each other by a contact pad (ST) [fig 3 & 0050].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first body and the second body of modified Sumiya to be coupled to each other by a contact pad, as in Uchida, to reduce thermal between the first body and the second body [Uchida – 0054].
Regarding claim 10:
Sumiya teaches the second protrusions (262) is located at the edge of a substrate supporting surface [fig 2 & 0041].
Sumiya does not specifically teach a recess is formed in the second body extending in the vertical direction from the upper surface the second body toward a lower surface of the second body, and the recess is formed outside the edge of a substrate supporting surface.
Park teaches a recess (B) is formed in the second body extending in the vertical direction from the upper surface the second body toward a lower surface of the second body (see fig 5b), and the recess (B) is formed outside the edge of a substrate supporting surface (see fig 5b) [fig 5b & col 4, lines 54-61].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second body of Sumiya to have a recess formed outside the edge of the substrate supporting surface (i.e. outside the second protrusion), as in Park, to prevent the etching process from creating defects that would otherwise adversely impact the subsequent processing of the substrate, whereby the manufacturing yield is improved [col 2, lines 10-30].
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Sumiya teaches a fourth protrusion protruding in the vertical direction toward the second body is formed on an upper surface of a lower portion of the first body, and a fifth protrusion protruding in the vertical direction toward the first body is formed on a lower surface of the second body (it is noted that all materials have an inherent roughness – peaks of the surface roughness meet the limitations of the claim) [Park - col 5, lines 20-27].
Claim(s) 12-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizuka (US 2010/0243605) in view of Park (US 6,531,686) and Sumiya et al (JP2006245621).
Regarding claim 12:
Nishizuka teaches a substrate processing apparatus (etching apparatus, 10) [fig 1 & 0036] comprising: a process chamber (12) comprising a processing space (14) [fig 1 & 0036]; a microwave application unit (plasma generating unit, 50) located in an upper portion of the processing space (14) [fig 1 & 0036, 0043]; and a heater (16) located inside the process chamber (12) and configured to heat a lower portion of the processing space, wherein the heater (16) comprises a body extending in a horizontal direction [fig 1 & 0039].
Nishizuka does not specifically teach the body has a recess formed in the upper surface of the body in the outer portion of the body.
Park teaches a body (chuck plate, 36b) has a recess (B) formed in the upper surface of the body in the outer portion of the body (see fig 5b) [fig 5b & col 4, lines 54-61].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the body of Nishizuka to have a recess formed in the upper surface of the body in the outer portion of the body, as in Park, to prevent the etching process from creating defects that would otherwise adversely impact the subsequent processing of the substrate, whereby the manufacturing yield is improved [col 2, lines 10-30].
Nishizuka modified by Park does not specifically disclose a plurality of first protrusions protruding in a vertical direction from an upper surface of the body; and a second protrusion protruding in the vertical direction from an edge portion of the upper surface of the body, wherein the second protrusion defines a central portion of the body and an outer portion of the body opposite to the central portion when viewed from the vertical direction.
Sumiya teaches a plurality of first protrusions (263) protruding in a vertical direction from an upper surface of the body (upper surface of 202) [fig 2 & 0041]; and a second protrusion (262) protruding in the vertical direction from an edge portion of the upper surface of the body (upper surface of 202), wherein the second protrusion (262) defines a central portion of the body and an outer portion of the body opposite to the central portion when viewed from the vertical direction [fig 2 & 0041].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the upper surface of the body of modified Nishizuka to have a plurality of first protrusions and a second protrusion protruding in a vertical direction therefrom, as in Sumiya, to reduce the amount of foreign matter adhering to the back surface of the wafer during electrostatic adsorption [Sumiya – 0042].
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Nishizuka teaches the recess (B) has a ring shape when viewed from the vertical direction (see fig 7) [Park - fig 5b, 7 & col 4, lines 54-61].
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Nishizuka teaches the second protrusion (262) has a ring shape (ring-shaped) when viewed from the vertical direction [Sumiya - fig 2 & 0041].
Regarding claim 15:
Nishizuka teaches a gas supply unit (gas supply unit, 68) configured to supply a processing gas to the processing space [fig 1 & 0046].
Regarding claim 16:
Nishizuka teaches the body (202) further comprises a third protrusion (261) protruding in the vertical direction from the upper surface of the body (202) formed inside the second protrusion (262), and the third protrusion (261) has a ring shape (ring-shaped) when viewed from the vertical direction [Sumiya - fig 2 & 0041].
Regarding claim 18:
Nishizuka teaches a substrate processing apparatus (etching apparatus, 10) [fig 1 & 0036] comprising: a process chamber (12) comprising a processing space (14) for processing a substrate therein [fig 1 & 0036]; a heater (16) located inside the process chamber (12) and configured to support and heat a lower surface of the substrate, wherein the heater (16) comprises a body extending in a horizontal direction [fig 1 & 0039]; a gas supply unit (gas supply unit, 68) configured to supply a processing gas to the processing space [fig 1 & 0046]; a microwave application unit (plasma generating unit, 50) configured to heat the processing gas supplied to the processing space [fig 1 & 0036, 0043].
Nishizuka does not specifically disclose the body has a recess formed in the upper surface of the body in the outer portion of the body, and the recess has a ring shape when viewed from the vertical direction.
Park teaches a body (chuck plate, 36b) has a recess (B) formed in the upper surface of the body in the outer portion of the body (see fig 5b), and the recess (B) has a ring shape when viewed from the vertical direction (see fig 7) [fig 5b, 7 & col 4, lines 54-61].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the body of Nishizuka to have a recess formed in the upper surface of the body in the outer portion of the body, as in Park, to prevent the etching process from creating defects that would otherwise adversely impact the subsequent processing of the substrate, whereby the manufacturing yield is improved [col 2, lines 10-30].
Nishizuka modified by Park does not specifically disclose a plurality of first protrusions protruding in a vertical direction from an upper surface of the body; and a second protrusion protruding in the vertical direction from an edge portion of the upper surface of the body, wherein the second protrusion defines a central portion of the body and an outer portion of the body opposite to the central portion when viewed from the vertical direction, the second protrusion has a ring shape when viewed from the vertical direction.
Sumiya teaches a plurality of first protrusions (263) protruding in a vertical direction from an upper surface of the body (upper surface of 202) [fig 2 & 0041]; and a second protrusion (262) protruding in the vertical direction from an edge portion of the upper surface of the body (upper surface of 202), wherein the second protrusion (262) defines a central portion of the body and an outer portion of the body opposite to the central portion when viewed from the vertical direction, the second protrusion (262) has a ring shape (ring-shaped) when viewed from the vertical direction [fig 2 & 0041].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the upper surface of the body of modified Nishizuka to have a plurality of first protrusions and a second protrusion protruding in a vertical direction therefrom, as in Sumiya, to reduce the amount of foreign matter adhering to the back surface of the wafer during electrostatic adsorption [Sumiya – 0042].
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Nishizuka teaches a guide wall (C) protruding from an outermost portion of the upper surface of the body (36b) in the vertical direction [Park - fig 5b & col 4, lines 54-61].
Regarding claim 20:
The limitations “wherein a distance from the upper surface of the body where the recess is formed to the lower surface of the substrate is in a range of about 25 micrometers (μm) to about 35 μm, and a horizontal distance from an outer surface of the second protrusion to a side surface of the substrate is in a range of about 2400 μm to about 3000 μm” do not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al (US 2005/0061447) teaches fourth and fifth protrusions between a first body and a second body [fig 5]. Takahashi et al (US 2008/0308230) teaches a plurality of first protrusions and a second protrusion [fig 3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights