DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 02/05/26 has been received and entered in the case. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-14 are now rejoined in view of the amendments made to independent claims 1 and 8. The new limitations added to each of the independent claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0204757.
As to claim 15, the broadest claim in the application, Fushimi discloses, in figure 1,
a cooling plate assembly, comprising:
a first cooling plate (first cooling plate 13) embedded within a body of a substrate support assembly (substrate support assembly 12), the first cooling plate including a first cooling gas channel (first cooling channel 18a, which could obviously be a cooling gas channel because it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that cooling channels typically receive either water or a cooling gas as the coolant, note paragraph [0035] of Fushimi);
a second cooling plate (second cooling plate 14) embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly, the second cooling plate including a second cooling gas channel (second cooling channel 18d, which could also obviously be a cooling gas channel because, as noted above, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that cooling channels typically receive either water or a cooling gas as the coolant) fluidly coupled to the first cooling plate by a connecting line (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Fushimi's second cooling channel 18d will be fluidly coupled to the first cooling plate 13 by a connecting line, the reason being that Fushimi indicates in paragraph [0035] that a single chiller unit 19 can be used for supplying the coolant to both cooling channels 18a and 18d, and using a single chiller unit 19 would obviously suggest a single entrance pipe 18b and a single exit pipe 18c for supplying and removing coolant to/from the cooling channels 18a and 18d, i.e., there will obviously be a connecting line between the two different cooling channels because cooling channels 18a and 18d will be in fluid communication with each other if a single coolant entrance pipe 18b and a single coolant exit pipe 18c are used, and therefore there will obviously be a connecting line fluidly connecting the two cooling channels 18a and 18d in figure 1 of Fushimi);
a supply line (supply line 18b) coupled to the first cooling gas channel; and
a return line (return line 18c) coupled to the second cooling gas channel.
As to claim 16, as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a cooling gas as the coolant in figure 1 of Fushimi, note paragraph [0035] of this reference which indicates that "cooling water, etc." can be used as the coolant, and it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that cooling channels typically receive either water or a cooling gas as the coolant.
As to claim 17, although Fushimi does not disclose a mass flow controller configured to set the rate of gas flow to 20 gallons per minute or more, this limitation does not distinguish patentably over Fushimi because it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use such a mass flow controller to control the rate of coolant flow in a plasma processing apparatus and, moreover, it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 18, the specifically recited length, height and width-to-height ratio of the first cooling gas channel similarly does not distinguish patentably over figure 1 of Fushimi because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the dimensions of the first cooling gas channel in Fushimi could be set to any values desired as a routine design expedient, as noted above it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 19, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dimensions of the first and second cooling gas channels 18a and 18d shown in figure 1 of Fushimi could be set to have different width-to-height ratios, the motivation for such being indicated in paragraph [0085] of Fushimi where this reference indicates that cooling plates 13 and 14 have different heat conductivities which would obviously suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different width-to-height ratios for the two cooling gas channels 18a and 18d, i.e., because the two cooling plates 13 and 14 have different heat conductivities, different amounts of coolant should be flowed into the cooling gas channels 18a and 18d in order to compensate for the different heat conductivities of the two cooling plates.
As to claim 20, official notice is taken by the examiner that He or N2 is typically used as the coolant which is flowed into the cooling channels in a plasma processing apparatus, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Fushimi's coolant could be helium gas or nitrogen gas.
As to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-14, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 15-20, i.e., the additional limitations recited in these claims all would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from figure 1 of Fushimi. Specifically, the one or more heating elements of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a heating element embedded within the body of a substrate support assembly in order to perform the well-known function of heating a substrate during processing thereof, the vacuum pump of claim 6 would have been obvious because it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a vacuum pump in a plasma processing apparatus, such a vacuum pump being fluidly coupled to the return line of a cooling gas channel, the electrostatic chuck assembly disposed on a hollow support shaft of claim 8 was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention, i.e., such was typically used in the substrate support assembly of a plasma processing apparatus for performing the well-known function of attracting a semiconductor wafer to the substrate support assembly, and using a channel bellows assembly configured in the manner recited in claims 10 and 11 was also old and well-known in the art of plasma processing apparatuses before the effective filing date of applicant's invention.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moriya et al, Noh et al and Parkhe, cited on the attached PTO-892 form, disclose the use of gas (such as helium or nitrogen) as the coolant in plasma processing apparatuses, note column 5, lines 38-39, of Moriya et al; column 3, lines 50-55, of Noh et al; and column 12, lines 62-66, of Parkhe.
Action is Final
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 February 17, 2026