DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/28/26 has been entered.
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 10-21 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 claim 21, note that the first cooling plate 13 of Fushima is coupled to the supply line 18b at a supply port (inherently supply line 18b includes a supply port) within the body of the substrate support assembly 12, and note further that the second cooling plate 14 of Fushima is coupled to the return line 18c at a return port (inherently return line 18c includes a return port) within the body of the substrate support assembly 12.
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 PTO-892 form mailed with the previous office action, 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 04/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues "Fushimi does not disclose a first cooling plate embedded within a body of a substrate support assembly and a second cooling plate embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly, as recited in claim 15. Instead, Fushimi teaches first and second electrodes provided on the base 12a, with coolant flow paths formed inside the electrodes. Therefore, Fushimi fails to teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claim 15 and claims dependent thereon." This argument is not persuasive because figure 1 of Fushimi clearly shows a first cooling plate, i.e., cooling plate 13, embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly, i.e., substrate support assembly 12, and also clearly shows a second cooling plate, i.e., cooling plate 14, embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly. Applicant should note that the first and second cooling plates 13 and 14 are sandwiched between layers 12a and 15b which form Fushimi's substrate support assembly 12 and therefore these two cooling plates can be interpreted as being “embedded within" the body of substrate support assembly 12, using the test of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant also argues "Fushimi does not disclose fluidly coupled to the first cooling plate by a connecting line, as recited in claim 15. There is no mention in Fushimi of any connecting line between coolant flow path 18a and coolant flow path 18d. Rather, Fushimi discloses only that coolant is supplied into the coolant flow path 18a and the coolant flow path 18d and circulated through a coolant entrance piping 18b and the coolant exit piping 18c. Further, Figure 1 of Fushimi depicts coolant exit piping 18c as piping associated with coolant flow path 18a, not as a line interconnecting coolant flow path 18a and coolant flow path 18d. Fushimi further states that coolant flow path 18a and coolant flow path 18d may be each connected to corresponding chiller units and may be enabled to control the temperatures, independently." This argument is not persuasive because, as indicated in the rejection above, if a single chiller unit 19 is used for supplying coolant to the two coolant flow paths 18a and 18d, then by necessity the second cooling gas channel will be fluidly coupled to the first cooling gas channel by a connecting line, and therefore the second cooling gas channel will also by necessity be coupled to the first cooling plate by such a connecting line. As indicated in the rejection above, 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.
Applicant also argues that "[t]he deficiencies of Fushimi discussed above with respect to claim 15 apply equally to independent claims 1 and 8. Claims 1 and 8 each recite a cooling plate assembly embedded within the body, including a first cooling plate embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly and a second cooling plate embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly, the second cooling gas channel being fluidly coupled to the first cooling plate by a connecting line. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 15, Fushimi fails to teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claims 1 and 8." This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, figure 1 of Fushimi clearly shows a first cooling plate, i.e., cooling plate 13, embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly, i.e., substrate support assembly 12, and also clearly shows a second cooling plate, i.e., cooling plate 14, embedded within the body of the substrate support assembly. Moreover, as also noted above, if a single chiller unit 19 is used for supplying coolant to the two coolant flow paths 18a and 18d, then by necessity the second cooling gas channel will be fluidly coupled to the first cooling gas channel by a connecting line, and therefore the second cooling gas channel will also by necessity be coupled to the first cooling plate by such a connecting line. As indicated in the rejection above, 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.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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 2836 May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights