Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/606,627

MODELING SUBSTRATE TEMPERATURES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 15, 2024
Examiner
FAUBERT, SAMANTHA LYNETTE
Art Unit
2838
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
33 granted / 38 resolved
+18.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -8% lift
Without
With
+-7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
62
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 38 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjaminson et al., US20190371577 (hereinafter referred to as Benjaminson), in view of Koshimizu et al., US8425791 (hereinafter referred to as Koshimizu). In regards to claim 1, Benjaminson teaches a method of processing (processed on; [0019]) a substrate (substrate; [0019]) on a substrate support (body of substrate support assembly; [0007] & [0019]) disposed on a cooling base (cooling base of substrate support assembly; [0019] & [0031]), the method comprising: obtaining (is measured; [0010]) a temperature value (temperature; [0010]) at a bottom of the substrate support (bottom surface of the ESC; [0010]) (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the temperature sensors are across the bottom of the ESC where the resistive heaters are.); obtaining (is measured; [0010]) a temperature value (temperature value from temperature sensor in the fluid distributor; [0032]) (Examiner’s Note: It is inherent that the temperature controlled cooling base would have a temperature sensor. The information from the transfer fluid source is tied to the controller 148 as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it is understood that the temperature sensor is within the fluid distributor for temperature controlling the cooling base.) associated with the cooling base; determining a substrate temperature based on: the temperature value (temperature; [0010]) of the bottom of the substrate support (Examiner’s Note: Fig. 3 provides steps for creating temperature uniformity. Therefore, the collection of the temperatures near the heaters is part of the determining the substrate temperature.), and the temperature value (temperature value from temperature sensor in the fluid distributor; [0031-0032]) associated with the cooling base (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the temperature sensor in the fluid distributor is part of the substrate temperature calculation because the fluid distributor “assists in controlling the lateral temperature profile” [0031]); and processing (etching; [0019]) the substrate while disposed on (processed on; [0019]) the substrate support. Benjaminson does not teach determining the substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity characteristic of the substrate support. Koshimizu teaches determining the substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity (resistivity of a heated object; [Abstract] & [Col. 9, Ln. 48-54]) characteristic of the substrate support (in-chamber member or semiconductor; [Abstract] & [Col. 9, Ln. 48-54]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson in order to incorporate determining a substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity characteristic of the substrate support as taught by Koshimizu. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the estimation of the temperature of the substrate support. In regards to claim 3, Benjaminson teaches wherein obtaining the temperature value at a bottom of the substrate support is obtained from a temperature probe (resistance thermometers; [Fig. 3]) disposed on (formed on; [0010]) a backside of an electrostatic chuck (bottom surface of the ESC; [0010]). In regards to claim 4, Benjaminson teaches wherein the temperature value associated with the cooling base is obtained from a temperature measurement device (temperature sensor in the fluid distributor which is temperature controlled; [0032]) coupled to a temperature regulating (temperature controlled; [0032]) fluid (fluidly coupled; [0032]) configured to flow through the cooling base (implicit since the cooling channels are through the cooling base). In regards to claim 7, Benjaminson teaches wherein the substrate temperature is accurate (uniformity; [0039]) within 2.8 degrees Celsius (about 0.3C and about 0.7C; [0039]). In regards to claim 8, Benjaminson teaches wherein the substrate support is disposed in an etch or deposition (etching; [0050]) semiconductor chamber (closed loop chamber; [0054]). In regards to claim 9, Benjaminson teaches wherein the determined substrate temperature is used in a closed loop control (closed loop chamber temperature controller; [0054]) to process the substrate (across the substrate; [0054]). In regards to claim 10, Benjaminson teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium has stored instructions, which, when executed by a processor (controller 148; [Fig. 1]), causes the processor to perform a method of processing (processed on; [0019]) a substrate (substrate; [0019]) on a substrate support (body of substrate support assembly; [0007] & [0019]) disposed on a cooling base (cooling base of substrate support assembly; [0019] & [0031]), the method comprising: obtaining (is measured; [0010]) a temperature value (temperature; [0010]) at a bottom of the substrate support (bottom surface of the ESC; [0010]) (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the temperature sensors are across the bottom of the ESC where the resistive heaters are.); obtaining (is measured; [0010]) a temperature value (temperature value from temperature sensor in the fluid distributor; [0032]) (Examiner’s Note: It is inherent that the temperature controlled cooling base would have a temperature sensor. The information from the transfer fluid source is tied to the controller 148 as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it is understood that the temperature sensor is within the fluid distributor for temperature controlling the cooling base.) associated with the cooling base; determining a substrate temperature based on: the temperature value (temperature; [0010]) of the bottom of the substrate support (Examiner’s Note: Fig. 3 provides steps for creating temperature uniformity. Therefore, the collection of the temperatures near the heaters is part of the determining the substrate temperature.), and the temperature value (temperature value from temperature sensor in the fluid distributor; [0031-0032]) associated with the cooling base (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the temperature sensor in the fluid distributor is part of the substrate temperature calculation because the fluid distributor “assists in controlling the lateral temperature profile” [0031]); and processing (etching; [0019]) the substrate while disposed on (processed on; [0019]) the substrate support. Benjaminson does not teach determining the substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity characteristic of the substrate support. Koshimizu teaches determining the substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity (resistivity of a heated object; [Abstract] & [Col. 9, Ln. 48-54]) characteristic of the substrate support (in-chamber member or semiconductor; [Abstract] & [Col. 9, Ln. 48-54]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson in order to incorporate determining a substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity characteristic of the substrate support as taught by Koshimizu. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the estimation of the temperature of the substrate support. In regards to claim 12, Benjaminson teaches wherein obtaining the temperature value at a bottom of the substrate support is obtained from a temperature probe (resistance thermometers; [Fig. 3]) disposed on (formed on; [0010]) a backside of an electrostatic chuck (bottom surface of the ESC; [0010]). In regards to claim 14, Benjaminson teaches wherein the substrate support is disposed in an etch or deposition (etching; [0050]) semiconductor chamber (closed loop chamber; [0054]). In regards to claim 15, Benjaminson teaches wherein the determined substrate temperature is used in a closed loop control (closed loop chamber temperature controller; [0054]) to process the substrate (across the substrate; [0054]). In regards to claim 16, Benjaminson teaches a controller (controller 148; [Fig. 1]) that stores a non-transitory computer readable medium has stored instructions, which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method of processing (processed on; [0019]) a substrate (substrate; [0019]) on a substrate support (body of substrate support assembly; [0007] & [0019]) disposed on a cooling base (cooling base of substrate support assembly; [0019] & [0031]), the method comprising: obtaining (is measured; [0010]) a temperature value (temperature; [0010]) at a bottom of the substrate support (bottom surface of the ESC; [0010]) (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the temperature sensors are across the bottom of the ESC where the resistive heaters are.); obtaining (is measured; [0010]) a temperature value (temperature value from temperature sensor in the fluid distributor; [0032]) (Examiner’s Note: It is inherent that the temperature controlled cooling base would have a temperature sensor. The information from the transfer fluid source is tied to the controller 148 as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it is understood that the temperature sensor is within the fluid distributor for temperature controlling the cooling base.) associated with the cooling base; determining a substrate temperature based on: the temperature value (temperature; [0010]) of the bottom of the substrate support (Examiner’s Note: Fig. 3 provides steps for creating temperature uniformity. Therefore, the collection of the temperatures near the heaters is part of the determining the substrate temperature.), and the temperature value (temperature value from temperature sensor in the fluid distributor; [0031-0032]) associated with the cooling base (Examiner’s Note: It is understood that the temperature sensor in the fluid distributor is part of the substrate temperature calculation because the fluid distributor “assists in controlling the lateral temperature profile” [0031]); and processing (etching; [0019]) the substrate while disposed on (processed on; [0019]) the substrate support. Benjaminson does not teach determining the substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity characteristic of the substrate support. Koshimizu teaches determining the substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity (resistivity of a heated object; [Abstract] & [Col. 9, Ln. 48-54]) characteristic of the substrate support (in-chamber member or semiconductor; [Abstract] & [Col. 9, Ln. 48-54]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson in order to incorporate determining a substrate temperature based on: a thermal resistivity characteristic of the substrate support as taught by Koshimizu. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the estimation of the temperature of the substrate support. In regards to claim 18, Benjaminson teaches wherein obtaining the temperature value at a bottom of the substrate support is obtained from a temperature probe (resistance thermometers; [Fig. 3]) disposed on (formed on; [0010]) a backside of an electrostatic chuck (bottom surface of the ESC; [0010]). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjaminson et al., US20190371577 (hereinafter referred to as Benjaminson), in view of Koshimizu et al., US8425791 (hereinafter referred to as Koshimizu), and in further view of Yamada et al., US20170372928 (hereinafter referred to as Yamada). In regards to claim 2, 11, & 17, Benjaminson and Koshimizu do not teach wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value of a backside gas configured to flow under a backside of the substrate. Yamada teaches wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value (Examiner’s Note: One ordinarily skilled in the art would know there is at least one temperature sensor in a mass flow controller. Therefore, the temperature value comes from the temperature in the MFC.) of a backside gas (gas supply source 15; [0046]) configured to flow under a backside of the substrate (mass flow controller (MFC) 15a; [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson and Koshimizu in order to incorporate wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value of a backside gas configured to flow under a backside of the substrate as taught by Yamada. The motivation for doing so would be an engineering design choice to use a gas cooling substance over a fluid one as taught by Benjaminson. In regards to claim 11, Benjaminson and Koshimizu do not teach wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value of a backside gas configured to flow under a backside of the substrate. Yamada teaches wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value (Examiner’s Note: One ordinarily skilled in the art would know there is at least one temperature sensor in a mass flow controller. Therefore, the temperature value comes from the temperature in the MFC.) of a backside gas (gas supply source 15; [0046]) configured to flow under a backside of the substrate (mass flow controller (MFC) 15a; [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson and Koshimizu in order to incorporate wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value of a backside gas configured to flow under a backside of the substrate as taught by Yamada. The motivation for doing so would be an engineering design choice to use a gas cooling substance over a fluid one as taught by Benjaminson. In regards to claim 17, Benjaminson and Koshimizu do not teach wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value of a backside gas configured to flow under a backside of the substrate. Yamada teaches wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value (Examiner’s Note: One ordinarily skilled in the art would know there is at least one temperature sensor in a mass flow controller. Therefore, the temperature value comes from the temperature in the MFC.) of a backside gas (gas supply source 15; [0046]) configured to flow under a backside of the substrate (mass flow controller (MFC) 15a; [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson and Koshimizu in order to incorporate wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a temperature value of a backside gas configured to flow under a backside of the substrate as taught by Yamada. The motivation for doing so would be an engineering design choice to use a gas cooling substance over a fluid one as taught by Benjaminson. Claim(s) 5 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjaminson et al., US20190371577 (hereinafter referred to as Benjaminson), in view of Koshimizu et al., US8425791 (hereinafter referred to as Koshimizu), and in further view of Irie et al., JP2003239074 (hereinafter referred to as Irie). In regards to claim 5, Benjaminson and Koshimizu do not teach wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a rate of heat transfer of a substrate support heater. Irie teaches wherein determining the substrate temperature (temperature of the substrate; [0003]) is further based on (controlled; [0003]) a rate of heat transfer (perform heat transfer; [0003]) of a substrate support heater (support base; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson and Koshimizu in order to incorporate wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a rate of heat transfer of a substrate support heater as taught by Irie. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the efficiency of controlling the temperature of the substrate. In regards to claim 19, Benjaminson and Koshimizu do not teach wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a rate of heat transfer of a substrate support heater. Irie teaches wherein determining the substrate temperature (temperature of the substrate; [0003]) is further based on (controlled; [0003]) a rate of heat transfer (perform heat transfer; [0003]) of a substrate support heater (support base; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson and Koshimizu in order to incorporate wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a rate of heat transfer of a substrate support heater as taught by Irie. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the efficiency of controlling the temperature of the substrate. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjaminson et al., US20190371577 (hereinafter referred to as Benjaminson), in view of Koshimizu et al., US8425791 (hereinafter referred to as Koshimizu), and in further view of Parkhe et al., US20170215230 (hereinafter referred to as Parkhe). In regards to claim 13, Benjaminson and Koshimizu do not teach wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a duty value of a substrate support heater. Parkhe teaches wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on (temperature sensor may be independently coupled to the tuning heater controller; [0077]) a duty value (duty cycle; [0077]) of a substrate support heater (heater controller; [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjaminson and Koshimizu in order to incorporate wherein determining the substrate temperature is further based on a duty value of a substrate support heater as taught by Parkhe. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the efficiency of controlling the temperature of the substrate. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 & 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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. SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT Examiner Art Unit 2836 /CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599448
OPERATION ENABLING CONTROL SYSTEM AND ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL DEVICE HAVING THE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597764
SAFETY TEST CIRCUIT AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12573597
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574026
DRIVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567732
POWER CORD LEAKAGE DETECTION AND PROTECTION CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (-7.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 38 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month