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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 & 21-30 are pending on the application, of which claims 1-2 & 6-8 are amended, claims 11-20 are cancelled, and claims 21-30 are newly added.
In light of the amendments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous art rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Although the amendments have overcome the previous rejection, they do not fully incorporate the allowable subject matter identified in claim 6. The allowable subject matter was indicated due to the inherent structural requirements required by claim 5 along with those of the limitation(s) recited in claim 6. Accordingly, since the amended claim does not incorporate all the intervening subject matter it fails to include the combination of structural limitations which examiner indicated as allowable subject matter.
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 24 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.
In claim 24, applicant recites arranged on the rear surface of the wafer” when referring to the location of the heat transfer structures. However, based on the disclosure, it appears that the heat transfer structures are not arranged on the rear surface of the wafer. It is unclear as to what the limitation is meant to mean. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “arranged to heat the rear surface of the wafer”, as this is examiner best guess as to the intended desire of the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1), Morikawa (US20200312678A1), and Harumoto (US20190196335A1).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), capable of cleaning a wafer [0040], the apparatus comprising: an upper surface nozzle [0045] configured to spray a solution onto a front surface of the wafer; a spin chuck (ref 210 including ref 500) provided below the wafer and configured to rotate the wafer [0043] and heat a central region (see Fig.1) of the wafer [0044]; a plurality of lower nozzles (ref 300) provided below the wafer and configured to spray a fluid onto a rear surface of the wafer [0045]; the plurality of lower nozzles is capable of heating(see [0045] indicating the presence of a heater for the supply line and rear nozzles) an outer region of the wafer that surrounds the central region of the wafer. The limitations of the upper nozzle spraying a cleaning solution and the lower nozzles spraying a temperature control liquid are intended use of nozzles, and since the nozzles are capable of spraying solutions, from possible different lines [0045], then they read on the claim. Similarly, the limitation of a temperature gradient being defined by the spin check and the plurality of lower nozzles to cause the cleaning solution to flow in a cleaning solution layer on the front surface is also intended use of the spin chuck and the nozzles, and since both elements are capable of providing a temperature gradient they read on the claim. Further, such a limitation is also dependent upon the temperature control fluid ejected from the lower nozzle; however, such a fluid is not a positively recited limitation.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the heating device being a thermoelectric element or the presence of a heat transfer structure. However, such features are known in the art as seen by Shirley and Morikawa. It is further indicated that the use of nozzles for spraying and control temperature a rear surface of the wafer, are known by Shirley and Harumoto.
Shirley discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that temperature can affect the fluid properties applied to the substrate top surface [0004 & 0006] and its uniformity [0032]. To account for this fact, Shirley provides multiple lower surface nozzles (ref 55a) to supply fluid to the rear surface of the substrate to adjust a substrate temperature to impose a desired temperature distribution to the substrate for application of the fluid provided on the front surface [0013, 0017, & 0032]. The fluid temperature is adjusted via heat exchangers [0016]. Shirley also indicates that thermoelectric heating elements can also be utilized for their uniform heat transfer, while heating liquid can be utilized for its quicker heat transfer [0031].
Morikawa discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that a material connecting a heating element (ref 141) to a chuck element (ref 120) should be thermally conductive ([0096-0097], i.e., reading on a heat transfer member) in order to efficiently transfer heat. Since the transfer element is located above the heating element, it can be considered on an outer wall of the heating element.
Harumoto discloses an art related substrate processing device (abstract), wherein it is indicated that a temperature of a central portion of the wafer can be regulated by the spin chuck, while the remaining underside can be regulated by the lower nozzles for more efficient regulation [0086]. Harumoto utilizes temperature regulators in order to adjust a fluid temperature as desired [0045 & 0048]. Accordingly, Harumoto suggests the use of both heated fluid and a heating unit associated with the spin chuck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to utilize a thermoelectric heater (Shirley [0029]) as such is a known type of heater in the art for performing heating of the chuck. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one type of heating element in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would also deem it obvious to provide a spin chuck and center portion of the wafer with a heating element for efficient and uniform heating at the center of the substrate (Harumoto [0086]) while also allowing for heated fluid for the remaining back side portions of the wafer to regulate and impose a desired temperature distribution as needed (Shirley [0013, 0017, & 0032] & Harumoto [0086]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide a component or surface connecting the heating element to the chuck as a thermally conductive element in order to efficiently transfer heat (Morikawa [0096-0097]). The limitations directed towards the operation of the lower nozzles based on spraying the temperature control liquid or heating of the central portion of the spin chuck are merely intended use. Since Modified Lee discloses the corresponding claimed structure, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that it is capable of performing such functions.
As to claim 3, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 3 are intended use, and since a nozzle is capable of spraying a liquid having different temperatures, it reads on the claim. Further, Shirley also discloses the presence of heat exchangers [0016] to allow for different temperatures for each nozzle to obtain a desired temperature distribution of the substrate. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such heat exchangers for the lower nozzles in order to obtain a desired temperature distribution.
As to claim 4, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein it is indicated that multiple nozzles can be provided (Lee [0062], See Shirley refs 55a, & Harumoto [0042]). Thus, Modified Lee envisages a plurality of lower nozzles such that at least one nozzle is closer to the center than another nozzle. Further, the limitation of the nozzle closer to the center supplying the control liquid with a higher temperature than a nozzle further from the center is intended use. Since Modified Lee discloses the presence nozzles that are capable of providing heated fluid and at least one nozzle is closer to a center than another, it reads on the claim. Furthermore, Shirley also discloses the presence of heat exchangers [0016] to allow for different temperatures for each nozzle to obtain a desired temperature distribution of the substrate. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such heat exchangers for the lower nozzles in order to obtain a desired temperature distribution. Accordingly, such a modification would provide at least one nozzle closer to a center than another with the ability to provide a fluid with a different temperature than a nozzle disposed farther from the center.
As to claim 7, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 7 are intended use and drawn towards the cleaning solution, which is not a positively recited element. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claim so long as the structure is capable of performing such a feature. In this case, since the device of Modified Lee contains structures for adjusting a temperature of a substrate and consequently providing a temperature gradient of a fluid on a top surface of the substrate, it reads on the claim. The flow of the solution by thermophoresis and Marangoni convection is merely a result of the temperature gradient.
As to claim 8, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 8 are intended use and drawn towards the cleaning solution, which is not a positively recited element. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claim so long as the structure is capable of performing such a feature. In this case, since the device of Modified Lee contains structures for adjusting a temperature of a substrate, including in the central region, and consequently providing a temperature gradient of a fluid on a top surface of the substrate, it reads on the claim. The flow of the solution by thermophoresis and Marangoni convection is merely a result of the temperature gradient.
As to claim 9, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of the spin chuck heating the central region of the wafer to a higher temperature than a temperature of the control liquid is intended use. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claim so long as the structure is capable of performing such a feature. Further, Shirley discloses the presence of heat exchangers [0016] to allow for different temperatures for each nozzle to obtain a desired temperature distribution of the substrate. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such heat exchangers for the lower nozzles in order to obtain a desired temperature distribution. Accordingly, such a modification would provide the ability for the temperature of the nozzle to be less than a temperature of the spin chuck. Accordingly, since the device of Modified Lee contains structures for adjust a temperature of a nozzle fluid temperature and thus provide a temperature less than that provided by the spin chuck, it reads on the claim. It is also noted that such a limitation is codependent upon a control liquid temperature, which is not a positively cited limitation.
As to claim 10, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower nozzles surround the spin chuck and are symmetrical to each other about the spin chuck (see Lee Fig.1 or Shirley Fig.1 & Harumoto Fig.9).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1), Morikawa (US20200312678A1), and Harumoto (US20190196335A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inatomi (US20060237127A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that a thermoelectric heating element would be present with a power receiver in order to actuate the heating element and to render the heater operable. However, assuming arguendo that such a feature is not reasonably expected to be present, it is known in the art, as seen by Inatomi.
Inatomi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that a Peltier element (i.e., a thermoelectric heating device) is provided with a power supply and a temperature controller (refs 63 & 64) and associated electrical circuitry (i.e., dashed lines in Fig.4) to connect the power supply to the Peltier element. The temperature controller varies the power received by Peltier element in order to adjust the temperature [0075]. A skilled artisan understands that the electrical circuitry which receives power from the power supply and sends said power to the Peltier element reads on a power receiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to provide the thermoelectric element as a Peltier element with associated power supply, temperature controller, and connecting circuitry in order to adjust the temperature (Inatomi [0075]). It is in the purview one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known thermoelectric heating configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1), Morikawa (US20200312678A1), and Harumoto (US20190196335A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umotoy (US20070040265A1) and Jin (CN108120855B).
As to claim 5, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 1, wherein although Lee does not specify type of chuck, a known type of chuck for holding of a substrate is a vacuum chuck (Shirley [0021]). Modified Lee does not disclose the structure of the chuck having an upper plate and a lower plate, each with vacuum holes; however, such a vacuum chuck structure is well-known in the art, as seen by Umotoy and Jin.
Umotoy discloses an art related substrate handling device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a vacuum chuck (see Fig.2) is formed of upper and lower plates having disk/cylindrical shapes (see refs 110a/110b/110c) having vacuum holes (refs 174/150/129/130/132) and a heater can be provided within the vacuum chuck plates [0020].
Jin discloses an art related substrate handling device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a vacuum chuck comprises an upper plate having a disc shape (ref 310) with vacuum holes (ref 316) and a lower plate (ref 320) having a cylindrical shape with vacuum holes (ref 321) provided above a heater (ref 332).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Lee to utilize the vacuum chuck construction of Umotoy or Jin in order to support the substrate (Umotoy [0002] & Jin [0002 & 0006], as desired by Lee. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known vacuum chuck construction when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 21, & 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1), Morikawa (US20200312678A1), Harumoto (US20190196335A1), Umotoy (US20070040265A1) and Jin (CN108120855B).
As to claims 21 & 27, Lee discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), capable of cleaning a wafer [0040], the apparatus comprising: an upper surface nozzle [0045] configured to spray a solution onto a front surface of the wafer; a spin chuck (ref 210 including ref 500) provided below the wafer and configured to rotate the wafer [0043] and heat a central region (see Fig.1) of the wafer [0044]; a plurality of lower nozzles (ref 300) provided below the wafer and configured to spray a fluid onto a rear surface of the wafer [0045]; the plurality of lower nozzles is capable of heating(see [0045] indicating the presence of a heater for the supply line and rear nozzles) an outer region of the wafer that surrounds the central region of the wafer. The limitations of the upper nozzle spraying a cleaning solution and the lower nozzles spraying a temperature control liquid are intended use of nozzles, and since the nozzles are capable of spraying solutions, from possible different lines [0045], then they read on the claim. Similarly, the limitation of a temperature gradient being defined by the spin check and the plurality of lower nozzles to cause the cleaning solution to flow in a cleaning solution layer on the front surface is also intended use of the spin chuck and the nozzles, and since both elements are capable of providing a temperature gradient they read on the claim. Further, such a limitation is also dependent upon the temperature control fluid ejected from the lower nozzle; however, such a fluid is not a positively recited limitation.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the heating device being a thermoelectric element or the presence of a heat transfer structure. However, such features are known in the art as seen by Shirley and Morikawa. It is further indicated that the use of nozzles for spraying and control temperature a rear surface of the wafer, are known by Shirley and Harumoto.
Lee does not disclose the structure of the chuck having an upper plate and a lower plate, each with vacuum holes; however, such a vacuum chuck structure is well-known in the art, as seen by Umotoy and Jin.
Shirley discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that temperature can affect the fluid properties applied to the substrate top surface [0004 & 0006] and its uniformity [0032]. To account for this fact, Shirley provides multiple lower surface nozzles (ref 55a) to supply fluid to the rear surface of the substrate to adjust a substrate temperature to impose a desired temperature distribution to the substrate for application of the fluid provided on the front surface [0013, 0017, & 0032]. The fluid temperature is adjusted via heat exchangers [0016]. Shirley also indicates that thermoelectric heating elements can also be utilized for their uniform heat transfer, while heating liquid can be utilized for its quicker heat transfer [0031]. Furthermore, Shirley indicates that a vacuum chuck is a known type of chuck [0021].
Morikawa discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that a material connecting a heating element (ref 141) to a chuck element (ref 120) should be thermally conductive ([0096-0097], i.e., reading on a heat transfer member) in order to efficiently transfer heat. Since the transfer element is located above the heating element, it can be considered on an outer wall of the heating element.
Harumoto discloses an art related substrate processing device (abstract), wherein it is indicated that a temperature of a central portion of the wafer can be regulated by the spin chuck, while the remaining underside can be regulated by the lower nozzles for more efficient regulation [0086]. Harumoto utilizes temperature regulators in order to adjust a fluid temperature as desired [0045 & 0048]. Accordingly, Harumoto suggests the use of both heated fluid and a heating unit associated with the spin chuck.
Umotoy discloses an art related substrate handling device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a vacuum chuck (see Fig.2) is formed of upper and lower plates having disk/cylindrical shapes (see refs 110a/110b/110c) having vacuum holes (refs 174/150/129/130/132) and a heater can be provided within the vacuum chuck plates [0020].
Jin discloses an art related substrate handling device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a vacuum chuck comprises an upper plate having a disc shape (ref 310) with vacuum holes (ref 316) and a lower plate (ref 320) having a cylindrical shape with vacuum holes (ref 321) provided above a heater (ref 332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to utilize a thermoelectric heater (Shirley [0029]) as such is a known type of heater in the art for performing heating of the chuck. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one type of heating element in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would also deem it obvious to provide a spin chuck and center portion of the wafer with a heating element for efficient and uniform heating at the center of the substrate (Harumoto [0086]) while also allowing for heated fluid for the remaining back side portions of the wafer to regulate and impose a desired temperature distribution as needed (Shirley [0013, 0017, & 0032] & Harumoto [0086]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide a component or surface connecting the heating element to the chuck as a thermally conductive element in order to efficiently transfer heat (Morikawa [0096-0097]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize it obvious to modify Lee to utilize the vacuum chuck construction of Umotoy or Jin in order to support the substrate (Umotoy [0002] & Jin [0002 & 0006], as desired by Lee. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known vacuum chuck construction when one is not explicitly disclosed. The limitations directed towards the operation of the lower nozzles based on spraying the temperature control liquid or heating of the central portion of the spin chuck are merely intended use. Since Modified Lee discloses the corresponding claimed structure, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that it is capable of performing such functions.
As to claim 26, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 21, wherein all limitations of claim are directed towards the intended use of the device. Since Modified Lee has the claimed structure, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the device can perform the claimed function.
As to claim 28, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 27 wherein the upper plate comprises a support upper plate and an outer in and a plurality of inner pins protruding from the support upper plate to support the wafer such that the gap is defined between the wafer and the support upper plate, wherein the outer pin has a cylindrical shape surrounding the plurality of inner pins (Umotoy ref 134 & 0016-0018]).
As to claim 29, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 28 wherein the gap is fluidly connected to the vacuum hole, and an inner space of the outer pin is fluidly connected to the vacuum hole to maintain the gap in the vacuum state (Umotoy [0016-0018])
Claim(s) 23-24 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1), Morikawa (US20200312678A1), Harumoto (US20190196335A1), Umotoy (US20070040265A1) and Jin (CN108120855B) as applied to claims 21 & 27 above, and further in view of Kim (US20180122660A1) and Park (US20200066565A1).
As to claims 23-24, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 21, but does not disclose the presence of multiple thermoelectric elements or an insulated member located between them. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Kim and Park.
Kim discloses an art related substrate treating system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize multiple heaters, such as inner and outer heaters, (refs 1420 & 1440) in order to allow for controlled heating of different areas of a support plate [0068-0074]. Park further indicates that a buffer space (i.e., insulating element, see [0071 & 0079]) are provided between heating elements, to prevent heat of one zone from impacting the desired temperature control in an adjacent zone.
Park discloses an art related substrate treating system (abstract), wherein individual heaters may be utilized, and an insulating element is utilized to separate individual heaters [0049]. Park appears to showcase the heaters provided adjacent a lower plate (ref 16). The use of individual heating elements allows for better heat control via individual control of the heaters [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to incorporate multiple thermoelectric heating elements in order to allow for greater temperature control of various areas of the chuck (Kim [0068-0074] & Park [0052]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to include insulating member between the heating elements to ensure better heating control and prevent interference from adjacent heating elements (Park [0049] & Kim [0071 & 0079]). As the such a modification would allow for individual heaters for control of the temperature at different areas of the chuck, a skilled artisan would also find it logical to supply each heating element with its own conductive element so that desired temperature zones are not impacted via the use of a singular heat transfer element in order to heat the rear surface of the wafer (i.e., use of a single heat transfer element for all individual heaters would result in heat diffusion from nearby heating elements causing less temperature control; see also Park [0041-0043] & ref 15 which showcases individual heat transfer elements for each heater for such a desire). The driving of the thermoelectric elements individually is intended use, further since Modified Lee desires such independent temperature control a skilled artisan would find such a feature obvious.
As to claim 30, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 27 but does not disclose the presence of multiple heat transfer structures and corresponding thermoelectric elements. However, the use of multiple heating elements is known in the art, as seen by Kim and Park.
Kim discloses an art related substrate treating system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize multiple heaters, such as inner and outer heaters, (refs 1420 & 1440) in order to allow for controlled heating of different areas of a support plate [0068-0074]
Park discloses an art related substrate treating system (abstract), wherein individual heaters may be utilized, and an insulating element is utilized to separate individual heaters [0049]. The use of individual heating elements allows for better heat control via individual control of the heaters [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to incorporate multiple thermoelectric heating elements in order to allow for greater temperature control of various areas of the chuck (Kim [0068-0074] & Park [0052]). As the such a modification would allow for individual heaters for control of the temperature at different areas of the chuck, a skilled artisan would also find it logical to supply each heating element with its own conductive element so that desired temperature zones are not impacted via the use of a singular heat transfer element (i.e., use of a single heat transfer element for all individual heaters would result in heat diffusion from nearby heating elements causing less temperature control; see also Park [0041-0043] & ref 15 which showcases individual heat transfer elements for each heater for such a desire).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1), Morikawa (US20200312678A1), Harumoto (US20190196335A1), Umotoy (US20070040265A1) and Jin (CN108120855B) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kuo (US20170140969A1), Mariner (US20080066676A1), and Wheeler (US4609037A)
As to claim 25, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 21, but does not disclose the heat transfer structure comprising a heat pipe having aluminum or copper and fluid therein. However, the use of copper or aluminum elements with water channels therein to transfer heat is known in the art, as seen by Kuo, Mariner, and Wheeler.
Kuo discloses an art related chuck for substrate processing (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize an aluminum element having a water channel (i.e., reading on a heat pipe, see [0011 & 0023]) in order to control temperature of a wafer.
Mariner discloses an art related heating apparatus for a substrate (abstract), wherein a copper element having water passages (i.e., reading on a heat pipe, see [0043]) to control temperature.
Wheeler discloses an art related cooling and heating chuck for substrate processing (abstract & Col.1 lines 10-15), wherein it is known that copper tubing is utilized allow for water passage (Col.1 lines 21-23) in order to control temperature of a chuck (Col.2 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to incorporate a copper or aluminum element with water channels (i.e., a heat pipe in order to allow for temperature control (Kuo [0011 & 0023], Mariner [0043], and Wheeler (Col.1 lines 21-23 & Col.2 lines 5-10). Such a modification would also come with the added benefit of allowing cooling of the wafer chuck after a heating operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is that recited in the rejection above. Further the claim distinguishes an upper surface and lower surface from an outer wall. Thus, an outer wall is understood to not refer to a top or bottom surface of the thermoelectric element. Accordingly, the outer wall must be different from a top or bottom of the thermoelectric heating element. The following rationale further indicates why claim 6 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Umotoy, as utilized in the rejection above, indicates that the heater is present within the vacuum chuck [0020] and thus at least some inner wall exposed to the vacuum hole.
Inatomi, as utilized in the rejection of claim 2 above, also discloses the use of a thermoelectric heating element (Fig.4 refs 62-64) for a suction chuck [0074].
Morikawa, as utilized in the rejection of claim 2 above, discloses a chuck and heating element structure (refs 120 & 140) provides vacuum holes (refs 144) which expose at least some part of the heating element to the vacuum (see Fig.6 ref 152W extends through ref 142), and an insulating member [0100] is provided below the heater. However, Morikawa does not suggest the placement of an insulator above the heater, rather Morikawa indicates that a material connecting a heating element (ref 141) to a check element (ref 120) should be thermally conductive ([0096-0097], i.e., reading on a heat transfer member) in order to efficiently transfer heat.
Anderson (USH1145H) discloses the presence of top and bottom insulating member ref (13 & 14) above and below heater (ref 15) of chuck to provide insulation between the chuck and heater (Col.5 lines 55-60) so as to bring the temperature of the wafer to operating temperature quickly (abstract).
Kadotani (US6347521B1) discloses a thermoelectric heater having an insulating sheet (ref 17) above copper electrode (ref 5, e.g., a heat transferring member), however the heat transfer member is not provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Kobayashi (US20220005727A1) discloses a thermoelectric heater (abstract) having an insulating member (refs 21/22) provided above and below the thermoelectric heating element (ref 6). However, no heat transfer member is provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Ricci (US20140356985A1) discloses a thermoelectric heater (abstract) having an insulating member (refs 153a/153b) provided above and below the thermoelectric heating element (ref 140). However, no heat transfer member is provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Son (US20090071524A1) discloses a thermoelectric heater (abstract) having an insulating member (refs 216/218) provided above and below the thermoelectric heating element (see Fig.8). However, no heat transfer member is provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Accordingly, even though individual components of the claim are known within the art, a skilled artisan would not find it obvious to combine the elements in the manner recited by claim 6 based on the art of record. Thus, claim 6 is considered to contain allowable subject matter. Claim 22 is also considered to contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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 Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights