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 .
Claims 1-3, 17-18, 20, 26-31, 33-47 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 17, 26, 29 are currently amended. Claims 2, 27-28, 30 are original. Claims 3, 18, 20, 31 were previously presented. Claims 4-16, 19, 21-25, 32 are cancelled. Claims 33-47 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/05/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15-18, 29 and 22-31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Moriya (US 20210305918 A1). Please see rejection below for further details.
On page 8 of Remarks filed 06/23/2026, applicant argues
Furthermore, the Office Action incorrectly asserts that Kamitani teaches "substantially equal peripheral dimensions" by citing a passage stating the protrusions are "evenly distributed." The term "evenly distributed" refers to the spacing or pitch between the mesas, not their individual size.
Examiner disagrees respectfully. As seen in figures 2a and 4 of prior art Kamitani and specification paragraphs [0047]-[0049] of Kamitani, it is apparent that the protrusions 8b are of the same size.
Claim Objections
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 47, “a number of individual ones per unit area” should be -- a number of individual ones of the plurality of mesas per unit area--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 44-47 are 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 44 recites “wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a substantially equal diameter, wherein a diameter of the individual ones of the plurality of mesas increases with an increase in radial distance along the surface”. It is unclear how the mesas have equal diameter and increasing diameter at the same time. In the instant application, figs.6-7 have mesas with equal diameters, Fig. 8 has mesas with increasing diameter. It is unclear how these features are combined into one implementation according the recitation above of claim 44. For the purpose of examination, based on fig.8 of the instant application, the above limitation is interpreted as -- wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a substantially equal diameter at the same radial distance, wherein a diameter of the individual ones of the plurality of mesas increases with an increase in radial distance along the surface--.
Claims 45-47 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 44.
Claim 45 recites “wherein adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a substantially equal pitch between the adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas.” Since claim 44 is understood to refer to figure 8 of instant application and s8 is the pitch, it is unclear how the pitch is equal. According to specification [0058], pitch S8 increases logarithmically. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as -- wherein adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a logarithmically progressive pitch between the adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas.---. If applicant agrees with this interpretation, please ensure that the dependent claims are further narrowing.
Claims 46-47 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 45.
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.
Claims 1-3, 17, 26-31, 33, 36 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitani (US 20080037194 A1), and further in view of Moriya (US 20210305918 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamitani teaches a wafer chuck assembly (abstract, electrostatic chuck), comprising:
a wafer chuck (i.e. electrostatic chuck 1, figs.1a-4) comprising a surface (i.e. wafer mounting surface 8a, figs.1a-4) having a substantially circular geometry ([0062], diameter of the plate-like member 8), the surface having a center (e.g. center through hole 5, 16, figs.1a-4) and a first area (e.g. area comprising gas flow passage 8d, figs.1a-4) ([0062], diameter of the plate-like member 8 is from 180 to 500 mm, more preferably from 180 to 350 mm) (it is necessarily true that 8d has an area); and
a plurality of mesas (i.e. protrusion 8b, figs.1a-4) distributed over the surface of the wafer chuck ([0047], the protrusions 8b are evenly distributed on the mounting surface 8a) ([0049], arranged in a pattern symmetrical with respect to the center of the mounting surface 8a),
wherein individual ones of the plurality of mesas extend a height above the surface of the wafer chuck ([0019], the height of the protrusion from a bottom surface of the gas flow passage is from 10 to 100 .mu.m),
wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas comprise a contact surface (i.e. mounting surface 8a, figs.1a-4), and
wherein a second area (e.g. sum of area of 8a, figs.1a-4) substantially equals a sum of an area of the contact surface of the individual ones of the plurality of mesas is at least 3% of the first area ([0019], total area of the top surfaces of the protrusions and of the ring-shaped wall is from 50 to 80% of the area of the mounting surface).
Kamitani does not teach, wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas are line mesas that are distributed in a polar geometry on the surface, wherein the individual ones of the line mesas extend a radial distance along radial directions on the surface, and wherein the radial distance extends from substantially a center of the surface to substantially a periphery of the surface.
Moriya teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electrostatic chuck device, individual ones of the plurality of mesas are line mesas (e.g. protrusion 32, figs.2-6) that are distributed in a polar geometry on the surface (e.g. geometry of protrusions 32 along direction 21, figs.2-6), wherein the individual ones of the line mesas extend a radial distance along radial directions on the surface (e.g. direction 21, figs.2-6), and wherein the radial distance extends from substantially a center of the surface to substantially a periphery of the surface (e.g. 32 extends from center to periphery along 21, figs.2-6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the individual ones of the plurality of mesas are line mesas that are distributed in a polar geometry on the surface, wherein the individual ones of the line mesas extend a radial distance along radial directions on the surface, and wherein the radial distance extends from substantially a center of the surface to substantially a periphery of the surface in Kamitani, as taught by Moriya, as it provides the advantage of uniform cooling or heating.
Regarding claim 2, Kamitani and Moriya teach the wafer chuck assembly of claim 1, wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas comprise at least one leading edge that is rounded or sloped (Kamitani, [0013], forming the protrusions in rectangular shape having rounded corners).
Regarding claim 3, Kamitani and Moriya teach the wafer chuck assembly of claim 1, wherein the second area is between 3% and 90% of the first area (Kamitani, [0019], total area of the top surfaces of the protrusions and of the ring-shaped wall is from 50 to 80% of the area of the mounting surface), and wherein the height is between 0.01 mm and 0.25 mm (Kamitani, [0019], the height of the protrusion from a bottom surface of the gas flow passage is from 10 to 100 .mu.m).
Regarding claim 17, Kamitani and Moriya teach the wafer chuck assembly of claim 1, wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas are first individual ones of the plurality of mesas (Moriya, e.g. protrusions 32p, figs.2-6), wherein the line mesas are first line mesas (Moriya, e.g. lines of 32p, figs.2-6), wherein the polar geometry is a first polar geometry (Moriya, e.g. geometry of protrusions 32p along direction 21, figs.2-6), wherein the radial distance is a first radial distance (Moriya, e.g. distance of 32p, fig.2-6), wherein the radial directions are first radial directions (Moriya, e.g. direction 21, figs.2-6),
wherein second individual ones of the plurality of mesas are second line mesas (Moriya, e.g. protrusions 32q, figs.2-6) that are distributed in a second polar geometry on the surface (Moriya, e.g. geometry of protrusions 32q along direction 21, figs.2-6), wherein individual ones of the second line mesas extend a second radial distance (Moriya, e.g. distance of 32q, fig.2-6 along second radial directions on the surface (Moriya, e.g. direction 21, figs.2-6), and wherein the second radial distance extends between substantially the first radial distance and substantially the periphery of the surface (Moriya, e.g. 32q are between 32p, figs.2-6), and wherein the second radial distance is less than the first radial distance (Moriya, [0060], A length of the protrusions 32q is smaller than a length of the protrusions 32p).
Regarding claim 26, Kamitani and Moriya substantially teach the claim limitations as stated above for claim 1. Kamitani and Moriya further teach a wafer processing apparatus (Kamitani, abstract, electrostatic chuck having a good soaking feature), comprising: a wafer processing chamber (Kamitani, abstract, allowing a wafer to reach a saturation temperature in a short time).
Regarding claim 27, Kamitani and Moriya teach the wafer processing apparatus of claim 26, wherein the wafer chuck comprises one or more electrodes operable to electrostatically clamp a wafer substrate to the wafer chuck (Kamitani, [0001], support semiconductor wafers by electrostatic force in semiconductor manufacturing process).
Regarding claim 28, Kamitani and Moriya teach the wafer processing apparatus of claim 26, wherein the wafer chuck comprises one or more vacuum ports operable to vacuum clamp a wafer substrate to the wafer chuck (Kamitani, [0073], particularly holding the wafer by means of Johnson Rahbeck effect or Coulomb force in vacuum environment).
Regarding claim 29, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 26.
Regarding claim 30, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 31, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claims 27 and 28.
Regarding claim 33, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 17.
Regarding claim 36, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 17.
Regarding claim 39, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claims 1 and 17.
Regarding claim 40, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 41, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 42, Kamitani and Moriya teach The wafer chuck assembly of claim 39, wherein the first plurality of mesas comprises a third plurality of mesas which comprises a third subset of the plurality of mesas (Moriya, e.g. the line mesas on either side of 32p (unmarked as 32p), also the same length of 32p, fig.3), wherein individual ones of the third plurality of mesas comprise a fifth sidewall and a sixth sidewall (Moriya, e.g. wall with height 32h, fig.5), wherein the fifth sidewall extends along a fifth radial direction on the surface (Moriya, e.g. direction of one side of wall, fig.5), wherein the sixth sidewall extends along a sixth radial direction on the surface Moriya, e.g. direction of other side of wall, fig.5), and wherein the fifth sidewall and the sixth sidewall extend between the second radial distance and a third radial distance (Moriya, e.g. the walls comprising 32h of the unmarked 32p are between radial distances of 32p and 32q, figs. 5-6).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitani (US 20080037194 A1), and further in view of Woytowitz (US 20180033672 A1) and Panavalappil (US 20220005723 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Kamitani substantially teaches the limitations as stated above in claim 1. Kamitani further teaches, wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas comprise a substantially circular or polygonal cross section (Kamitani, [0047], The protrusions 8b have more preferably substantially square shape), wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a substantially equal diameter at the same radial distance (Kamitani, [0047], the protrusions 8b are evenly distributed on the mounting surface 8a), wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas comprise a substantially polygonal plan view cross section (Kamitani, [0047], The protrusions 8b have more preferably substantially square shape).
Kamitani does not teach, wherein a diameter of the individual ones of the plurality of mesas increases with an increase in radial distance along the surface, and wherein the substantially polygonal plan view cross section is substantially hexagonal.
Woytowitz teaches in a similar field of endeavor of mesas on substrate support, wherein a diameter of the individual ones of the plurality of mesas increases with an increase in radial distance along the surface ([0034], diameters of the mesas 224 increase in size from a center 226 to the peripheral edge 228).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the diameter of the individual ones of the plurality of mesas increases with an increase in radial distance along the surface in Kamitani, as taught by Woytowitz, as it provides the advantage of minimal and uniform backside wear in high power substrate processing systems.
Kamitani and Woytowitz do not teach, and wherein the substantially polygonal plan view cross section is substantially hexagonal.
Panavalappil teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electrostatic chuck, a substantially polygonal plan view cross section is substantially hexagonal ([0036], substrate support mesas 115 have a shape selected from … hexagonal).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the substantially polygonal plan view cross section is substantially hexagonal in Kamitani and Woytowitz, as taught by Panavalappil, as it provides the advantage of improved temperature control of electrostatic chuck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 20, 34-35, 37-38, 43 and 45-47 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:
Regarding claim 18, Kamitani (US 20080037194 A1) and Moriya (US 20210305918 A1) teach the wafer chuck assembly of claim 17, wherein third individual ones of the plurality of mesas are third line mesas (Moriya, e.g. the line mesas on either side of 32p, also the same length of 32p, fig.3) that are distributed in a third polar geometry on the surface (Moriya, e.g. geometry of the unmarked 32p, fig.4), wherein individual ones of the third line mesas extend a third radial distance along third radial directions on the surface (Moriya, e.g. distance of unmarked 32p, fig.3), wherein the third radial distance extends between substantially the second radial distance and substantially the periphery of the surface (Moriya, e.g. unmarked 32p is between 32q and periphery, fig.3), and wherein the third line mesas are between the first line mesas and the second line mesas (Moriya, e.g. unmarked 32p is between 32p and 32q, fig.3).
Kamitani and Moriya do not teach, wherein the third radial distance is less than the first radial distance and the second radial distance.
Prior art Boyd (US 9558981 B2), Chia (US 20200185247 A1) and Fukumoto (US 20070222131 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the third radial distance is less than the first radial distance and the second radial distance.”
Claim 20 is allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 18.
Regarding claim 34, the method is allowable for the same reasons as stated above for claim 18.
Claim 35 is allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 34.
Regarding claim 37, the method is allowable for the same reasons as stated above for claim 18.
Claim 38 is allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 37.
Regarding claim 43, Kamitani (US 20080037194 A1) and Moriya (US 20210305918 A1) teach the wafer chuck assembly of claim 42.
Kamitani and Moriya do not teach, wherein the first plurality of mesas comprises a fourth plurality of mesas which comprises a fourth subset of the plurality of mesas, wherein: a first individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas comprising: a seventh sidewall that extends along a seventh radial direction; and an eighth sidewall that extends along a first non-diametric chord of the surface, wherein the first non-diametric chord extends at a first oblique angle relative to the seventh radial direction, and wherein the seventh sidewall and the eighth sidewall extend between the third radial distance and a fourth radial distance; a second individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas comprising: a ninth sidewall that extends along an eighth radial direction; and a tenth sidewall that extends along a second non-diametric chord of the surface, wherein the second non-diametric chord extends at a second oblique angle relative to the eighth radial direction, and wherein the ninth sidewall and the tenth sidewall extend between the third radial distance and the fourth radial distance; and a third individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas between the first individual ones and the second individual ones of mesas, wherein the third individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas comprise: an eleventh sidewall, wherein the eleventh sidewall is adjacent and parallel to the eighth sidewall; and a twelfth sidewall, wherein the twelfth sidewall is adjacent and parallel to the tenth sidewall, wherein the eleventh sidewall and the twelfth sidewall intersect at the third radial distance and extend to the fourth radial distance.
Prior art Boyd (US 9558981 B2), Chia (US 20200185247 A1) and Fukumoto (US 20070222131 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the first plurality of mesas comprises a fourth plurality of mesas which comprises a fourth subset of the plurality of mesas, wherein: a first individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas comprising: a seventh sidewall that extends along a seventh radial direction; and an eighth sidewall that extends along a first non-diametric chord of the surface, wherein the first non-diametric chord extends at a first oblique angle relative to the seventh radial direction, and wherein the seventh sidewall and the eighth sidewall extend between the third radial distance and a fourth radial distance; a second individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas comprising: a ninth sidewall that extends along an eighth radial direction; and a tenth sidewall that extends along a second non-diametric chord of the surface, wherein the second non-diametric chord extends at a second oblique angle relative to the eighth radial direction, and wherein the ninth sidewall and the tenth sidewall extend between the third radial distance and the fourth radial distance; and a third individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas between the first individual ones and the second individual ones of mesas, wherein the third individual ones of the fourth subset of the plurality of mesas comprise: an eleventh sidewall, wherein the eleventh sidewall is adjacent and parallel to the eighth sidewall; and a twelfth sidewall, wherein the twelfth sidewall is adjacent and parallel to the tenth sidewall, wherein the eleventh sidewall and the twelfth sidewall intersect at the third radial distance and extend to the fourth radial distance.”
Regarding claim 45, Kamitani (US 20080037194 A1), Woytowitz (US 20180033672 A1) and Panavalappil (US 20220005723 A1) teach the wafer chuck assembly of claim 44, wherein the individual ones of the plurality of mesas are arranged in a close-packed distribution over the surface (Kamitani, [0055], 50 to 80% of the area of the wafer mounting surface).
Kamitani, Woytowitz and Panavalappil do not teach, wherein adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a logarithmically progressive pitch between the adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas.
Prior art Boyd (US 9558981 B2), Chia (US 20200185247 A1) and Fukumoto (US 20070222131 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas have a logarithmically progressive pitch between the adjacent individual ones of the plurality of mesas.”
Claims 46-47 are allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 45.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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 V 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 08/21/2026
Prosecution Insights