DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/665644 filed May 16, 2024. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “where a temperature is locally low when the insulating hole is not present”, where “locally low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. When referring to a temperature, the term “low” is extremely broad and in this case unclear because there is no reference value or range provided to give one of ordinary skill in the art any frame of reference for this claim’s requirement. For the purposes of examination this claim requirement will be instead understood as requiring the temperature to be lower at the insulating hole location if the insulating hole was not present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawson et al. (US 2004/0187787).
Regarding claim 1: Dawson et al. discloses a substrate support (40) device having a ceramic dielectric plate (55) with a substrate (13) placement surface on its upper surface (57) (par. 27, 32; figure 2), a body (50) which is a cooling plate on the lower surface of the dielectric plate (55), where the body (50) includes a number of liquid flow passages (80, 82, 84) for circulating temperature control liquid to heat or cool the substrate support (40) (par. 29, 41-42; figure 2) such that they form a refrigerant flow path, and a plurality of thermal breaks (90) which are insulating holes located beside the liquid flow passages (80, 82, 84) and extending up from a lower surface of the body (50) to a height above each of the flow passages (80, 82, 84) such that it exceeds 2/3 of that height (par. 30, 39, 42-45; figure 2).
Regarding claim 3: Dawson et al. discloses that the thermal breaks (90) are placed between the various liquid flow passages (80-87) (see figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 6: Dawson et al. discloses that the thermal breaks (90) reduce heat transfer at their locations on the body (50) such that the position at which one is located would inherently have a lower temperature than when it is not present, when using a cooling fluid in the liquid flow passages (80-87) (par. 30).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above and further in view of Kanno et al. (US 6,677,167).
Regarding claim 2: Dawson et al. fails to give any specific sizes for the thermal breaks (90) or their extent relative to either end of the base (50), though does suggest that the thermal breaks (90) can have a number of different shapes, sizes and configurations (see par. 42-45). Further, Kanno et al. discloses a similar substrate support apparatus having a wafer stage (75) with temperature adjusting grooves (15) and heat insulating grooves (29) provided between them, further showing a size relationship between the dielectric film (55) said to be 1mm thick and the gap between the ceiling of the insulating grooves (29) and the top of the base (80) being greater than the thickness of the dielectric film (55), at least schematically (col. 15 lines 19-49; figures 16-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the thermal breaks (90) of Dawson et al. to end at a distance greater than 1mm from the upper surface of the body (50) because Kanno et al. suggests that particular size relationship (col. 15 lines 19-49; figures 16-18), because Dawson et al. suggests that the size and configuration can be modified (par. 42-45), because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because trying a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above and further in view of Benjaminson et al. (US 2017/0229328).
Regarding claim 4: Dawson et al. suggests that the thermal breaks (90) can have a number of different shapes, sizes and configurations (see par. 42-45) but fails to explicitly disclose that the ceiling formed at the thermal breaks (90) has a step or a slope. However, Benjaminson et al. discloses a similar wafer puck (200) which includes a number of similar thermal breaks (210) which are formed in a way that their ceilings have a curve, such that their ceilings have a slope as all curves have a slope (par. 27; figures 3 and 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a curved/sloped ceiling for the thermal breaks of Dawson et al. as taught by Benjaminson et al. because Benjaminson et al. shows that this is a functionally equivalent design for thermal breaks for the same type of wafer support puck (par. 27) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6 above and further in view of Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060).
Regarding claim 5: Dawson et al. fails to explicitly disclose any specific numbers for thermal conductivity, though does suggest that the thermal conductivity of the body (50) is high in order to necessitate the thermal breaks (90) to provide areas of lower thermal conductivity to help isolate each individual area (par. 39, 41-42, 44), suggesting the actual overall heat transfer is a result effective variable. Further, Parkhe et al. discloses a similar substrate support assembly (148) having a thermally conductive base (164) with thermal isolators (174), where the base has good thermal conductivity in several directions, clarifying that “good” thermal conductivity is on the level of 1500 Watts/m*K (pars. 17-19, 35-36; figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cooling body (50) for Dawson et al. that has a thermal conductivity of around 1500 Watts/m*K which is higher than 100 Watts/m*K because Parkhe et al. teaches that this is a good level of thermal conductivity for this type of device (par. 36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/25/2026
