DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 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 & 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkhe (US 2018/0190528).
With regard to claims 1, 3 & 8-12, Parkhe, in Figure 5, discloses a substrate support assembly, comprising: a ceramic puck (515 & 520) configured to support a substrate (144); a cooling plate (536) in thermal communication with the ceramic puck (via 525); a spring pressure plate (595) disposed beneath the cooling plate, the spring pressure plate comprising multiple spring elements (570) configured to each apply an approximately equal force to the cooling plate (paragraphs 0016 & 0017); and a plurality of fasteners (526) configured to removably couple the spring plate and the cooling plate to the ceramic puck (re claim 1), further comprising: a thermal interface stack (525) disposed between the cooling plate and the ceramic puck, wherein the thermal interface stack is configured to enable the thermal communication between the ceramic puck and the cooling plate (paragraph 0070) (re claim 3), wherein the ceramic puck comprises an upper puck plate (515) and a lower puck plate (520) bonded to the upper puck plate by a metal bond (550) or a diffusion bond (paragraph 0057) (re claim 8), wherein the upper puck plate comprises Al2O3 or AlN and the lower puck plate comprises Al2O3 or AlN (paragraph 0007) (re claim 9), wherein the cooling plate is comprised of aluminum (paragraph 0041) and the spring pressure plate is comprised of a metal (paragraph 0031 teaches that the base is a metal base) (re claim 10), wherein the spring pressure plate is configured to cause the cooling plate to be pushed against the ceramic puck with a substantially uniform pressure (paragraph 0017) (re claim 11), wherein the ceramic puck comprises one or more electrodes (529) configured to electrostatically secure a substrate to the ceramic puck (paragraph 0058) (re claim 12).
With regard to claim 7, Parkhe ‘528 in view of Parke ‘429 discloses the claimed invention except that each of the multiple spring elements has a spring constant between approximately 0.5 kilo-Newton per millimeter (kN/mm) and approximately 2 kN/mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set a specific spring constant based on the desired heat transfer of the assembly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe ‘528 in view of Parkhe (US 11,527,429).
With regard to claim 2, Parkhe ‘528 teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the spring pressure plate (595) comprises a first plurality of features (528) configured to receive a first end of the plurality of fasteners, wherein the ceramic puck (515 & 520) comprises a second plurality of features (524) configured to receive a second end of the plurality of fasteners.
Parkhe ‘528 does not teach that the cooling plate comprises a plurality of holes to connect the first plurality of features to the second plurality of features.
Parkhe ‘429, in Figure 5, teaches a substrate support assembly similar to Parke ‘528 wherein a spring plate (595) uses springs (570) to apply equal force to a cooling plate (536) and uses fasteners (528) to couple the spring plate to a ceramic puck (515). Like Parke ‘528 some of the fasteners are placed at the perimeter of the spring plate and the ceramic puck. Parke ‘429 further teaches that additional fasteners are place toward the center of the assembly in the area that houses the cooling plate such that the cooling plate comprises a plurality of holes to connect a first plurality of features to accommodate the fasteners in the spring plate to a second plurality of features which couples the fasteners to ceramic puck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Parkhe ‘528 with Parkhe ‘429, by including fasteners in the cooling plate area such that the fasteners pass through holes in the cooling plate, for the purpose of better coupling the entire heatsink structure to the ceramic puck to allow for better and more uniform heat transfer through the entire assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate support assembly comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the spring pressure plate further comprising a corresponding retaining element for each of the multiple spring elements.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a support assembly comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the spring pressure plate further comprises a corresponding plunger element for each of the multiple spring elements, wherein each of the corresponding plunger elements provide the approximately equal force to the cooling plate.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate support assembly comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with each of the multiple spring elements comprising one or more bevel washers.
Claims 13-20 are allowable.
Claim 13 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a spring pressure plate comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with multiple corresponding plungers, each of the multiple corresponding plungers corresponding to one of the multiple spring elements, wherein the multiple spring elements are configured to apply, by the multiple corresponding plungers, an approximately equal force to a bottom side of a cooling plate of the substrate support assembly.
Claims 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because they depend on claim 13 which would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with removing one or more spring retaining elements from the spring pressure plate, wherein one or more corresponding spring elements each apply an approximately equal force to the cooling plate responsive to the removing of the one or more spring retaining elements.
Claims 19 & 20 are allowable as they depend from claim 18, which is also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parkhe (US 2016/0343600), Parkhe (US 2017/0256431), Liu (US 0224/0071803) and Kuno (US 12,266,557) all teach substrate support assemblies of a workpiece with an electrostatic electrode with various spring assemblies that share similarities with Applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm 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, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838