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 § 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.
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2023/0249306 A1) in view of Morooka (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0002355 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a processing chamber (Fig. 1); a placing table (20) disposed in the processing chamber and having a first contact surface, the placing table being configured to be rotatable (Paragraph 0032); a freezing device having a second contact surface and configured to be raised and lowered (Figs. 2A-2D; Paragraph 0029); a rotation device configured to rotate the placing table (Paragraph 0032); and a lifting device configured to raise and lower the freezing device to thermally connect or separate the second contact surface and the first contact surface (Figs. 2A-2D; Paragraph 0044), wherein the freezing device includes: a refrigerator (43; Paragraph 0029); a cold link (44, 42) having one end thermally connected to the refrigerator (43) and the other end having the second contact surface (42).
The difference between Kikuchi et al. and claim 1 is that wherein a volume of the cold link is greater than a volume of the placing table is not discussed.
Regarding wherein a volume of the cold link is greater than a volume of the placing table (Claim 1):
Initially from Figure 1 the volume of the cold link appears greater than the volume of the placing table. (See Fig. 1 Kikuchi et al.)
Morooka teaches a wafer support device including an electrostatic chuck; a wafer mount surface 24, a cooling plate 40 underneath the chuck; refrigerant conduit 46 inside the cooling plate. (See Fig. 1; Paragraph 0033) In the working example the cooling plate has a diameter of 376 mm and a total thickness of 8 mm. The cold plate body has a diameter of 36 mm, a thickness of 20 mm and an overall diameter of 416 mm. (See working example) Using just the cylindrical portions the cold plate body has a Volume that is 2.5 times the volume of the chuck.
Therefore, Morooka teaches that a cooling member thermally coupled to the substrate support should have a volume greater than the substate-supporting member by 2.5 times.
One of ordinary skill in the art would then know to modify the cold link and associated structures of Kikuchi et al. to have a volume greater than the support table/chuck in order to provide cooling.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cold link has a head portion having the second contact surface and a shaft portion that thermally connects the head portion and the refrigerator, wherein a volume of the head portion of the cold link is greater than a volume of the shaft portion of the cold link.
Regarding claim 2, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have configured the cold link with a radially enlarged head portion having a greater volume than its shaft portion because Morooka teaches that increasing the volume of the cooling member relative to the thermally cooled support provides greater thermal mass. Applying that to the cold link arrangement of Kikuchi et al. would result in an enlarged head portion having a greater volume than the shaft portion.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cold link has a head portion having the second contact surface and a shaft portion that thermally connects the head portion and the refrigerator, wherein a volume of the head portion of the cold link is greater than a volume of the placing table.
Regarding claim 3, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the portion of the cold link actually contacting the placing table should have sufficient volume to provide cooling. In view of Morooka’s teaching that the cooling member has a volume substantially greater than the wafer supporting electrostatic chuck, it would have been obvious to provide the head portion of the cold link of Kikuchi et al. with a volume greater than the placing table. This would increase the thermal capacity of the portion directly contacting the placing table and thereby reduce temperature variation during contact.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first contact surface and the second contact surface are flat surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi et al. teach wherein the first contact surface and the second contact surface are flat surfaces. (Figs. 2A-2D)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein in the contact area where the first contact surface and the second contact surface are in contact with each other, the contact is made over the entire surface without a portion where the first contact surface and the second contact surface are not in contact.
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi et al. teach wherein in the contact area where the first contact surface and the second contact surface are in contact with each other, the contact is made over the entire surface without a portion where the first contact surface and the second contact surface are not in contact. (Figs. 2A-2D)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Morooka is that it allows for cooling. (Paragraphs 0033-0036)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kikuchi et al. by utilizing the features of Morooka is that it allows for cooling the workpiece.
Claim(s) 6, 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. in view of Morooka as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Shiraiwa et al.(U.S. Pat. 7,483,256).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the placing table includes an electrostatic chuck having a chuck electrode and an electrode introducing part configured to introduce a power to the chuck electrode, wherein the electrode introducing part is disposed on a side surface of the placing table.
Regarding claim 6, Shiraiwa et al. teach providing an electrode introducing part disposed on a side surface of a placing table for a substrate. (Claim 1 – “disposed on a side surface of the base plate”; Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate processing apparatus is a substrate processing apparatus that generates plasma in the processing chamber to process the substrate, wherein a conductive member of the electrode introducing part is covered with an insulating member.
Regarding claim 7, Shiraiwa et al. teach wherein the conductive member of the electrode introducing part is covered with an insulating member. (Claim 1 – “dielectric layer”)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shiraiwa et al. is that it allows for reliably connecting the chuck. (Column 3 line 28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Shiraiwa et al. because it allows for reliably connecting the chuck.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. in view of Morooka as applied to claim 1-5 above, and further in view of Nakagawasai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0135434 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a reflecting member configured to reflect radiant heat incident on the cold link.
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawasai et al. teach a reflecting member configured to reflect radiant heat incident on the cold link. (Paragraph 0090)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nakagawasai et al. is that it allows for improving cooling. (Paragraph 0090)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Nakagawasai et al. because it allows for improving cooling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
September 29, 2026
