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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to Communication filed 07/09/2026
Claims 1-16 are pending
Claims 4-6 have been withdrawn
Claims 1-3 and 7-16 are rejected
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein a top of the dielectric multilumen plug is bonded to the top of the T-shaped cavity.” However, the applicant has not explicitly disclosed that there is an adhesive or bonding agent specifically bonding the plug to the top of the cavity. As such, the examiner is interpreting “bonded” to mean that the cavity and plug are at least mechanically restrained relative to each other.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D, drawn to claims 1-3 and 7-16 in the
reply filed on 07/09/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election
was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 3 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.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of lumens surround the solid core.” This limitation is unclear in light of the disclosure as a whole because the specification discloses that the plurality of lumens 628 are formed to pass through the multilumen core 640, not surround it [IA – 0040]. As such, it is unclear what the applicant means by “surround the solid core.” Therefore, for the purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the plurality of lumens go through
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.
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(s) 1, 3, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20170352568) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 2017135351), with Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Cho teaches a spark suppression apparatus for a wafer backside cooling line in an electrostatic chuck in a plasma processing chamber, the spark suppression apparatus comprising a dielectric multilumen plug (solid aperture-reducing plug 262 and solid cover 260) in the wafer backside cooling line, wherein the dielectric multilumen plug has a plurality of lumens (vertical tubes 266 and central tube 264), wherein the wafer backside cooling line has a first portion on a first side of the dielectric multilumen plug and a second portion on a second side of the dielectric multilumen plug, and wherein the lumens of the plurality of lumens are not placed along a direct line of sight between the first portion of the wafer backside cooling line and the second portion of the wafer backside cooling line (portions of the hole 258 and opening 254 can be arbitrarily chosen such that the vertical tubes 266 and central tube 264 are not placed along a direct line of sight between the portions), and wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is mounted in a T-shaped cavity, and wherein the dielectric multilumen plug does not extend to a bottom of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the solid cover 260 is mounted in a T-shaped cavity and does not extend to a bottom of the T-shaped cavity) [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Cho does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is T-shaped.
Suzuki teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is T-shaped (press-fitted body 20 is T-shaped, as evidenced by Fig. 3) [Fig. 1, 3 & Page 4 lines 12-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plug of Cho to be T-shaped, as in Suzuki, to improve fitting and control over conductance [Suzuki - Page 2 lines 1-8, Page 4 lines 12-17, Page 6 lines 11-15]. Furthermore, Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) disclose T-shaped gas plugs a well-known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing a T-shape would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D) [Jun - Figs. 9-10; Weldon - Fig. 8b]. Jun further discloses that its plug embodiments (of which, include T-shaped plugs) help prevent damage from arcing [Jun - 0077].
Regarding Claim 3:
Cho teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug further comprises a solid core (plug 262) between the first portion of the wafer backside cooling line and the second portion of the wafer backside cooling line, and wherein the plurality of lumens go through the solid core (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the central tube 264 and the vertical tubes 266 go through the plug 262) [Fig, 5 & 0033].
Regarding Claim 7:
Cho teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is a dielectric ceramic plug (the cover 260 plug 262 may be a solid alumina plug) [Fig. 5 & 0033].
Regarding Claim 8:
Cho teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is bonded to the electrostatic chuck (adhesive 252 bonds the cover 260 to the top layer 208) [Fig. 5 & 0034].
Regarding Claim 9:
Cho teaches wherein a top of the dielectric multilumen plug is bonded to the top of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the cover 260 is bonded to a top of its cavity), and further comprising a gap between the T-shaped cavity and the dielectric multilumen plug below the top of the T-shaped cavity, wherein the dielectric multilumen plug does not contact the T-shaped cavity below the top of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas channel 240 constitutes a gap between the cover 260 and the bottom of the cavity that cover 260 is disposed in) [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Regarding Claim 10:
Cho teaches wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises a base plate (base plate 220), a ceramic plate (top layer 208; the top layer 208 may be comprised of a ceramic), a bond layer (adhesive 252) between the base plate and the ceramic plate, wherein the spark suppression apparatus, further comprises a first plenum (opening 254) between the base plate and the ceramic plate, wherein the first plenum is adjacent to the dielectric multilumen plug (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the openings 254 is adjacent to the cover 260), and wherein the plurality of lumens extend to the first plenum (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the central tube 264 and the vertical tubes 266 go through the plug 262 to extend to the opening 254) [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Regarding Claim 11:
Cho teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is bonded to the base plate or the ceramic plate (adhesive 252 bonds the cover 260 to the top layer 208) [Fig. 5 & 0034].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20170352568) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 2017135351) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, with Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 7-11 above, and further in view of Ota (JP 2004296553), with Weldon et al. (US 6108189), Watanabe et al. (JP 2006344766), and Dhindsa et al. (US 6245192) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 7-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Cho teaches a first plenum (opening 254) on the first side of the dielectric multilumen plug [Cho - Fig. 5 & 0030].
Modified Cho does not specifically disclose a second plenum on the second side of the dielectric multilumen plug, the second side being opposite the first side.
Although Ota does not specifically disclose "and a second plenum on the second side of the dielectric multilumen plug, the second side being opposite the first side," Ota does disclose that providing gaps between components in a processing chamber helps prevent arcing [Ota - Page 2 lines 8-12]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solid core of Modified Cho to include a plenum/gap below it to suppress arcing.
Furthermore, utilizing plenums below plugs is a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Weldon et al. (US 6108189) and Watanabe et al. (JP 2006344766) [Weldon - Fig. 7; Watanabe - Fig. 6B]. Dhindsa et al. (US 6245192) further discloses that utilizing plenums between structures would be beneficial so as to uniformize pressure [Dhindsa - Col. 4 lines 41-60].
It’s further noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein the plurality of lumens extend from the first plenum to the second plenum," as modifying the cover 262 of Cho to include a plenum/gap beneath it would result in the central tube 264 and the vertical tubes 266 extending to that gap [Cho - Fig, 5 & 0033].
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20170352568) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 2017135351), with Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 12:
Cho teaches a spark suppression apparatus for a wafer backside cooling line in an electrostatic chuck in a plasma processing chamber, the spark suppression apparatus comprising a T-shaped dielectric plug in the wafer backside cooling line, the spark suppression apparatus comprising a dielectric plug (solid aperture-reducing plug 262 and solid cover 260) in the wafer backside cooling line, wherein the dielectric plug is mounted in a T-shaped cavity, and wherein the dielectric plug does not extend to a bottom of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the solid cover 260 is mounted in a T-shaped cavity and does not extend to a bottom of the T-shaped cavity) [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Cho does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric plug is T-shaped.
Suzuki teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is T-shaped (press-fitted body 20 is T-shaped, as evidenced by Fig. 3) [Fig. 1, 3 & Page 4 lines 12-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plug of Cho to be T-shaped, as in Suzuki, to improve fitting and control over conductance [Suzuki - Page 2 lines 1-8, Page 4 lines 12-17, Page 6 lines 11-15]. Furthermore, Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) disclose T-shaped gas plugs a well-known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing a T-shape would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D) [Jun - Figs. 9-10; Weldon - Fig. 8b]. Jun further discloses that its plug embodiments (of which, include T-shaped plugs) help prevent damage from arcing [Jun - 0077].
Regarding Claim 13:
Cho teaches wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises a base plate (base plate 220), a ceramic plate (top layer 208; the top layer 208 may be comprised of a ceramic), a bond layer (adhesive 252) between the base plate and the ceramic plate, wherein the spark suppression apparatus, wherein the dielectric plug extends from the bond layer into the base plate (as evidenced by Cho, the cover 326 extends from the adhesive 252 to the base plate 220), wherein the T-shaped dielectric plug has a first end (upper surface of cover 326) adjacent to the bond layer [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Cho does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric plug is T-shaped and a second end spaced apart from the first end, wherein the second end does not contact the base plate.
Suzuki teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is T-shaped (press-fitted body 20 is T-shaped, as evidenced by Fig. 3) and a second end (lower end of the press-fitted body 20) spaced apart from the first end, wherein the second end does not contact the base plate (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the lower end of the press-fitted body 20 does not contact the base material 10) [Fig. 1, 3 & Page 3 lines 52-59, Page 4 lines 12-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plug of Cho to be T-shaped, as in Suzuki, to improve fitting and control over conductance [Suzuki - Page 2 lines 1-8, Page 4 lines 12-17, Page 6 lines 11-15]. Furthermore, Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) disclose T-shaped gas plugs a well-known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing a T-shape would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D) [Jun - Figs. 9-10; Weldon - Fig. 8b]. Jun further discloses that its plug embodiments (of which, include T-shaped plugs) help prevent damage from arcing [Jun - 0077].
Regarding Claim 14:
Cho teaches wherein a top of the dielectric plug is bonded to the top of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the cover 260 is bonded to a top of its cavity) [Fig. 5 & 0033].
Cho does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric plug is T-shaped.
Suzuki teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is T-shaped (press-fitted body 20 is T-shaped, as evidenced by Fig. 3) [Fig. 1, 3 & Page 4 lines 12-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plug of Cho to be T-shaped, as in Suzuki, to improve fitting and control over conductance [Suzuki - Page 2 lines 1-8, Page 4 lines 12-17, Page 6 lines 11-15]. Furthermore, Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) disclose T-shaped gas plugs a well-known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing a T-shape would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D) [Jun - Figs. 9-10; Weldon - Fig. 8b]. Jun further discloses that its plug embodiments (of which, include T-shaped plugs) help prevent damage from arcing [Jun - 0077].
Regarding Claim 15:
Cho teaches a gap between the T-shaped cavity and the dielectric plug below a top of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas channel 240 constitutes a gap between the cover 260 and the bottom of the cavity that cover 260 is disposed in) [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Cho does not specifically disclose a gap between the T-shaped cavity and the T-shaped dielectric plug below a top of the T-shaped cavity.
Suzuki teaches a gap between the T-shaped cavity and the T-shaped dielectric plug below a top of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig.1, the press-fitted body 20 has a gap below a top of the press-fitted hole 11) [Fig. 1, 3 & Page 4 lines 12-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plug of Cho to be T-shaped, as in Suzuki, to improve fitting and control over conductance [Suzuki - Page 2 lines 1-8, Page 4 lines 12-17, Page 6 lines 11-15]. Furthermore, Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) disclose T-shaped gas plugs a well-known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing a T-shape would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D) [Jun - Figs. 9-10; Weldon - Fig. 8b]. Jun further discloses that its plug embodiments (of which, include T-shaped plugs) help prevent damage from arcing [Jun - 0077].
Regarding Claim 16:
Cho teaches wherein the dielectric plug does not contact the T-shaped cavity below the top of the T-shaped cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas channel 240 constitutes a gap between the cover 260 and the bottom of the cavity that cover 260 is disposed in) [Fig, 1, 5 & 0021, 0024, 0033-0034].
Cho does not specifically disclose wherein the T-shaped dielectric plug does not contact the T-shaped cavity below the top of the T-shaped cavity.
Suzuki teaches wherein the dielectric multilumen plug is T-shaped (as evidenced by Fig.1, the press-fitted body 20 has a gap below a top of the press-fitted hole 11) [Fig. 1, 3 & Page 4 lines 12-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plug of Cho to be T-shaped, as in Suzuki, to improve fitting and control over conductance [Suzuki - Page 2 lines 1-8, Page 4 lines 12-17, Page 6 lines 11-15]. Furthermore, Jun et al. (US 20100109263) and Weldon et al. (US 6108189) disclose T-shaped gas plugs a well-known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing a T-shape would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D) [Jun - Figs. 9-10; Weldon - Fig. 8b]. Jun further discloses that its plug embodiments (of which, include T-shaped plugs) help prevent damage from arcing [Jun - 0077].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. teach gas plugs Sasaki et al. (US 20150090692) and Denpoh et al. (US 20090218212) [Sasaki – Fig. 4; Denpoh – Fig. 3A].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights