DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1, 3, 10-11 and 19-20, was entered on 7/8/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 11 overcome the previous rejection. This is persuasive. However, a new rejection is presented below in response to this amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-4, 8, 10-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO2015/156530, machine translation) in light of Yudovsky et al. (US 6,146,463).
Claims 1, 3 and 10: Lee teaches a substrate support apparatus (p. 3, Fig. 1), comprising: a base plate (30) in a space for performing a semiconductor process (bottom of p. 2 through middle of p. 3); a substrate stage (10) disposed apart from the base plate and having a seating surface for a substrate on its upper surface (pp. 6-7; Fig. 1); and a plurality of supports (20) arranged in a circumferential direction on the base plate to support the substrate stage, the plurality of supports extending in a radial direction with one end bonded to the base plate (Fig. 1).
Lee fails to teach that the support pins are inclined with respect to the base plate. Yudovsky teaches a substrate support apparatus (Abst.) which utilizes support pins (14) that are inclined with respect to the base plate (24) in order to assist in aligning the substrate (Abst.; 7:32-50; Fig. 2). Yudovsky further teaches that the pins are inclined by up to 10 degrees from vertical (i.e. 80˚) (7:22-31). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized inclined support pins in Lee in order to have assisted in aligning the substrate.
Claim 2: Lee teaches that the top portion (i.e. first end) of the supports are bonded to the substrate stage (Figs. 1 and 3; pp. 6-7).
Claim 4: Lee teaches that the base plate and substrate stage have different thermal expansion coefficients, allowing the substrate stage to expand independently of the base plate (pp. 7, 11).
Claims 8 and 20: Lee teaches a guide structure (31) disposed on the base plate (Fig. 4, pp. 6-7) and a sealing member (22) between the guide and the substrate stage (Fig. 4).
Claims 11 and 19: Lee teaches a substrate support apparatus (p. 3, Fig. 1), comprising: a base plate (30) in a space for performing a semiconductor process (bottom of p. 2 through middle of p. 3); a substrate stage (10) disposed apart from the base plate and having a seating surface for a substrate on its upper surface (pp. 6-7; Fig. 1); and a plurality of supports (20) arranged in a circumferential direction on the base plate to support the substrate stage, the plurality of supports extending in a radial direction on the base plate (Fig. 1). With respect to the chamber, the Office takes Official Notice that semiconductor processing methods are conventionally performed in a chamber and it therefore is implicit in Lee that the support apparatus is in a chamber during processing.
Lee fails to teach that the support pins are inclined with respect to the base plate. Yudovsky teaches a substrate support apparatus (Abst.) which utilizes support pins (14) that are inclined with respect to the base plate (24) in order to assist in aligning the substrate (Abst.; 7:32-50; Fig. 2). Yudovsky further teaches that the pins are inclined by up to 10 degrees from vertical (i.e. 80˚) (7:22-31). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized inclined support pins in Lee in order to have assisted in aligning the substrate.
Claim 12: Lee teaches the supports are bonded using bolts (24, Fig. 6).
Claim 13: Lee teaches that the base plate and substrate stage have different thermal expansion coefficients, allowing the substrate stage to expand independently of the base plate (pp. 7, 11).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yudovsky in light of Goto et al. (US 7,126,093).
Claims 6 and 15: Lee fails to teach a particular material for the base plate. Goto teaches a substrate support apparatus comprising a stage (5) and a base (6) connected by pins (Fig. 1) and explains that suitable materials for the base include nickel (4:35-44). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Lee is silent regarding the material for the base and because Goto teaches that nickel is a suitable material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected nickel for the supports.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yudovsky in light of Parkhe (US 10,685,861).
Claims 7 and 16: Lee further teaches that the substrate stage is aluminum (p. 2), but is silent concerning the material of the supports. Parkhe teaches a substrate support spaced from a base using supports and explains that a suitable material is kovar (12:42-55). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Lee is silent regarding the material for the supports and because Parkhe teaches that kovar is a suitable material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected kovar for the supports.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yudovsky in light of Goto and Parkhe .
Claims 5 and 14: Lee, Goto and Parkhe teach the same materials as those which applicant discloses to have the claimed features, therefore the claimed thermal expansion is considered inherent in the combination.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yudovsky in light of Thompson et al. (US 5,224,503).
Claim 17: Lee teaches that the apparatus includes a bushing (23) as a sealing member (Fig. 6), but fails to teach that it is elastic. Thompson explains that bushings are elastic to accommodate vibration (7:58-8:7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected an elastic bushing in Lee in order to have accommodated vibration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 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.
Yudovsky teaches angles much less than the claimed 20-60˚.
Nishida et al. (US 2019/0244835) teaches supports which have an angled surface (Fig. 1; ¶ 0065), but this is different from the claimed support structures extending in a radial direction and having a predetermined inclination angle with respect to the surface of the base plate.
Atamny et al. (US 10,818,530) teaches support units having a predetermined angle (8:8-14), but these support the substrate directly and not the substrate stage.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights