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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the cold-water tank” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 6 nor claim 1 from which it depends recites “a cold-water tank”. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is being construed as depending from claim 4 which recites “a cold-water tank”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0180968 A1, cited in IDS submitted July 16, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a rotary device (FIG. 1 of Kim, semiconductor manufacturing apparatus) comprising: a rotary stage (FIG. 1 of Kim, stacked plates #14b #14c of chuck #14) detachably supporting a base material (FIG. 1 of Kim, stacked plate #14a of chuck #14) having an inlet (FIG. 1 of Kim, inlet #41a), an outlet (FIG. 1 of Kim, outlet #41b), and a flow path connecting the inlet and the outlet of a liquid at a predetermined temperature (FIG. 1 of Kim, coolant circulation path #41), the rotary stage having a liquid supply port supplying the liquid to the base material (FIG. 1 of Kim, connection between pipe #45 and inlet #41a) and a liquid discharge port discharging the liquid from the base material (FIG. 1 of Kim, connection between pipe #45 and outlet #41b); a rotary support supporting the rotary stage (FIG. 1 of Kim, rotating member #31), the rotary support having a first pipe connected to the liquid supply port (FIG. 1 of Kim, path connecting member #44 which is inside rotating member #31 includes pipe #45 connected to inlet #41a) and a second pipe connected to the liquid discharge port inside (FIG. 1 of Kim, path connecting member #44 includes pipe #45 connected to outlet #41b); a rotary mechanism rotating the rotary stage around the rotary support (FIG. 1 of Kim, rotating member #31); and a liquid supply part supplying the liquid to the base material ([0044] of Kim, device includes a coolant supplying path #42 connected to the inlet #41a; coolant supplying path #42 necessarily connected to a coolant/liquid supply part).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that: the rotary support is connected to the rotary stage at one end and supports an opposite side of a surface of the rotary stage on which the base material to be placed (FIG. 1 of Kim, top of rotating member #31 connected to stacked plates #14b #14c and opposite face of stacked plate #14b supports stacked plate #14a); and when the base material is placed on the rotary stage, the rotary stage and the base material rotate together with the rotary support (FIG. 1 of Kim, stacked plates #14a #14b #14c and rotating member #31 rotate together).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses that, when the base material is placed on the rotary stage, the liquid supply port is connected to the inlet, and the liquid discharge port is connected to the outlet (FIG. 1 of Kim, stacked plate #14a of chuck #14 placed on stacked plates #14b #14c and coolant pipes #45 connected to inlet #41a and outlet #41b).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses that the liquid supply part supplies the liquid to the base material via the first pipe and collects the liquid from the base material via the second pipe while the rotary stage is rotating (FIG. 2 of Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses that the liquid supply port is arranged to be aligned with the inlet and the liquid discharge port is arranged to be aligned with the outlet (FIG. 1 of Kim, cooling inlets and outlet necessarily aligned corresponding ports).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the rotary device further comprising: a chuck mechanism holding the base material on the rotary stage ([0039] of Kim, chuck #14 holds wafer by electrostatic force).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Silveira et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0323813 A1, cited in IDS submitted September 26, 2024).
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not specifically disclose that the liquid supply part comprises: a hot-water tank supplying hot-water at a relatively high temperature; a cold-water tank supplying cold-water at a relatively low temperature; and a supply unit mixing the hot-water supplied from the hot-water tank and the cold-water supplied from the cold-water tank, adjusting the mixed water to a predetermined temperature, and supplying the water to the base material. Silveira, however, discloses a temperature control system for a wafer carrier in a plasma processing chamber (Abstract of Silveira) comprising a hot fluid supply and a cold fluid supply provided to a three-way valve for proportional mixing and temperature control ([0048] of Silveira). According to Silveira, the heat transfer fluid may be water ([0094] of Silveira). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a temperature control system comprising a hot fluid supply and a cold fluid supply provided to a three-way valve for proportional mixing and temperature control in the apparatus of Kim since Silveira establishes that it was known to use such systems for controlling the temperature of a wafer carrier in a semiconductor processing apparatus ([0048] of Silveira). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Silveira discloses that the liquid supply part further comprises a pressurizing device pressurizing the water adjusted to the predetermined temperature ([0030] of Silveira, system may include pressure adjustment and distribution components for the coolant lines).
Regarding claim 6, Silveira does not specifically disclose that the liquid supply part further comprises a heat exchanger providing room temperature water to the cold-water tank. Moreover, Silveira discloses a heat exchanger for heating the hot fluid supply and a second heat exchanger for cooling the cooled fluid supply ([0047] of Silveira) but does not specifically disclose supplying room temperature water to the cooled fluid supply. Silveira, however, that the temperature of the supplied hot and cold fluids determines the temperature of the coolant circulated through the substrate carrier ([0047] of Silveira). Silveira therefore establishes that the temperature of the cooled fluid supply is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., achieving the desired coolant temperature supplied to the substrate carrier) ([0047] of Silveira). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the cooled fluid temperature in the modified apparatus, including providing a cooled fluid temperature as recited in claim 6. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kim does not specifically disclose that the predetermined temperature is in a range of 85 °C or higher and 120 °C or lower as recited in claim 7 or that the predetermined temperature is in a range of 25 °C or higher and 270 °C or lower as recited in claim 8. Silveira, however, discloses that the temperature of the cooling fluid determines the amount of cooling during semiconductor processing ([0006] of Silveira). Silveira therefore establishes that the temperature of the coolant is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., achieving the desired degree of cooling during semiconductor processing) ([0006] of Silveira). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature of the coolant in the apparatus of Kim, including providing a coolant temperature as recited in claims 7 and 8. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Claims 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yagi et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2017-69429 A, cited in IDS submitted September 26, 2024, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 10, Kim does not specifically disclose that the first pipe is connected to the liquid supply part via a rotary joint. Yagi, however, discloses a chuck for processing a semiconductor wafer (Abstract of Yagi) wherein cooling fluid is supplied to a rotating stage via a rotary joint (FIG. 3, [0037] of Yagi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the coolant pipe in the apparatus of Kim to the coolant supply via a rotary joint since Yagi establishes that it was known to use rotary joints to connect cooling fluid lines to a rotating stage (FIG. 3, [0037] of Yagi). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not specifically disclose that the chuck mechanism is a vacuum chuck mechanism, and the vacuum chuck mechanism comprises: a through hole arranged in the rotary stage, a suction pipe arranged in the rotary support and connected to the through hole; and a vacuum pump connected to the suction pipe. Yagi, however, discloses a chuck for processing a semiconductor wafer (Abstract of Yagi) comprising a vacuum suction plate connected to a vacuum pump via a pipe passing through an opening in a rotating stage (FIG. 3, [0037] of Yagi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vacuum chuck of Yagi for the electrostatic chuck of Kim since Yagi establishes that it was known to use vacuum chucks in semiconductor processing devices. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I B). As evidenced by Kim the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. In addition, as also evidenced by Yagi, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could also have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Yagi discloses that at least a portion of the base material contains a porous material ([0034] of Yagi, suction plate constituted by a porous material).
Regarding claim 15, Yagi discloses that the suction pipe is connected to the vacuum pump via a rotary joint (FIG. 1 of Yagi, rotary joint #20).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. KR 10-2062652 B1, machine language translation provided and cited below) in view of Greuner et al. (“Vacuum plasma-sprayed tungsten on EUROFER and 316L:Results of characterisation and thermal loading tests”, Fusion Engineering and Design, 75–79, pp. 333–338, August 2005) and Kim.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a thermal spraying apparatus (Abstract, FIG. 2, [0055] of Lee, apparatus for forming plasma spray coating on a substrate) comprising: a rotary device (FIG. 2, [0055] of Lee, turntable #200) and a thermal spray gun (FIG. 2, [0055] of Lee, spray gun #100).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the rotary device is a rotary device according to claim 1. Greuner, however, discloses actively cooling a substrate using water circulating through a base support contacting the substrate during a plasma spraying process (Abstract, FIG. 2, pg. 335 of Gruener). According to Greuner, by actively cooling the substrate adhesion of the coating to the substrate can be improved (¶ spanning pp. 333-334 of Greuner). As set forth above, Kim discloses the rotary device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the circulating coolant in the rotating chuck prevents the temperature of the substrate from being raised during processing ([0043] of Kim). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Kim as the rotating substrate support (i.e., turntable) in the apparatus of Lee. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to actively cool the substrate being coated during the plasma spray process thereby allowing for better adhesion of the coating as taught by Greuner (¶ spanning pp. 333-334 of Greuner).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses that the thermal spray gun sprays a thermal spray material onto a surface of the base material supported by the rotary stage ([0055]-[0056] of Lee); and Greuner and Kim suggest that the liquid supply part supplies the liquid to the base material while the thermal spray material is sprayed from the thermal spray gun (see analysis of claim 16 above). Moreover, Greuner provides motivation to actively cool the substrate using circulating water (¶ spanning pp. 333-334 of Greuner) and Kim discloses a rotary base for controlling the temperature of a substrate during plasma processing ([0043] of Kim see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, lee discloses that the rotary device further comprises a gas supply unit supplying a pressurized gas to the base material ([0042] of Kim, Argon gas at 30 mbar supplied to chamber of plasma spray equipment during a preheating process prior to plasma spraying; apparatus would necessarily include a pressurized argon gas supply), and the gas supply unit supplies the pressurized gas to the base material before the thermal spray material is sprayed from the thermal spray gun ([0042] of Kim, preheating process occurs prior to plasma spraying).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights