DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/24/25. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended; claims 8 and 11 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-15 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0377852) in view of Choi (KR 20110099974), Nishimoto et al. (US 2005/0042881), and Kuno (US 20230420230).
With regard to claim 1, Park teaches a susceptor (FIG. 1) comprising: a base member (400) comprising a first cooling gas flow path (402) configured to introduce a cooling gas (“The cooling passage 402 may provide a space in which a cooling fluid circulates. The cooling passage 402 may be provided inside the base plate 400 in a radially symmetrical form.”, para. [0048]); a thermal insulation member (200), wherein the thermal insulation member (200) being stacked on the base member (400); and an insulating plate (100) stacked on the thermal insulation member (200), wherein the insulating plate (100) includes a plurality of gas holes (110), wherein the susceptor comprises a stacked structure of the base member (400), the thermal insulation member (200) and the insulating plate (100).
Park does not teach an insulating plate with a second cooling gas flow path in communication with the first cooling gas flow path and gas supply holes in fluid communication with the second cooling gas flow path and configured to discharge the cooling gas to cool a substrate; however, Choi teaches the aforementioned limitation (an insulating plate (120) with a second cooling gas flow path (122) in communication with the first cooling gas flow path (112) and gas supply holes (122b) in communication with the second cooling gas flow path (122) and configured to discharge the cooling gas to cool a substrate): “The ceramic plate 120 has a second gas passage 122 connected to the first gas passage 112 of the base substrate 110. Gas (eg, helium gas) of the first gas flow path 112 is supplied to the second gas flow path 122. The second gas flow passage 122 is formed to penetrate the top and bottom of the ceramic plate 120. That is, the second gas flow passage 122 has openings in the lower and upper surfaces of the ceramic plate 120, respectively. The second gas flow path 122 has a structure in which the gas can be distributed so that the gas can be uniformly supplied to the entire lower surface of the substrate. For example, the second gas flow passage 122 may include a plurality of horizontal passages 122a and a plurality of vertical passages 122b connected to the horizontal passages 122a. For example, the horizontal paths 122a may be formed in the form of concentric circles on the lower surface of the ceramic plate 120, and may be formed in a wide space structure having a vacancy shape. The horizontal paths 122a may be formed in the shape of concentric circles having different diameters, and may be separated from each other to form a channel. Alternatively, the horizontal paths 122a may be interconnected. The first gas passage 112 is connected to each of the horizontal paths 122a to supply a gas for temperature control. That is, the gas supplied from the first gas flow path 112 is distributed in the concentric direction along the horizontal path 122a. The vertical passages 122b extend from the horizontal passage 122a to the upper surface of the ceramic plate 120 and form an opening in the upper surface. The plurality of vertical paths 122b are connected to each of the horizontal paths 122a, and are arranged along concentric circles of the horizontal paths 122a. Therefore, the gas distributed in the concentric direction by the horizontal path 122a is supplied to the upper layer through the vertical paths 122b. ….” (emphasis added) pg. 4, ln. 57 to pg. 5, ln. 1-7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, to include an insulating plate with a second cooling gas flow path in fluid communication with the first cooling gas flow path, as suggested and taught by Choi, for the purpose of providing cooling to the respective stacked members (Choi: pg. 4, ln. 57 to pg. 5, ln. 1-7).
Park does not teach the thermal insulation member a thermal conductivity of 20 W/mK or less; however, Nishimoto teaches the aforementioned limitation: “Based on the fact that the thermal conductivity of the electrostatic chuck layer 3 formed of the above-described sintered body ranges from 20 W/mK to 40 W/m·K, it is preferable that the thermal conductivity of the junction layer 4 ranges from 20 W/m·K to 40 W/m·K.”, para. [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, to include the thermal insulation member a thermal conductivity of 20 W/mK or less, as suggested and taught by Nishimoto, for the purpose of providing controlling the temperature of a wafer W placed on the subject device (para. [0051]).
Park does not teach a first surface of the thermal insulation member in contact with the base member includes a first outer O-ring and a second surface of the thermal insulation member in contact with the insulating plate includes a second outer O-ring in which the first outer O-ring and the second outer O-ring conform to a contour shape of the insulating plate; however, Kuno teaches the aforementioned limitation: seal members 42 and 80 are situated at an outer periphery of the stacked structure in between respective surfaces of Kuno’s base member 96 and thermal insulation member 30 as illustrated at FIG. 1 (“The seal member 42 is a metal or resin ring having an outer diameter slightly smaller than the diameter of the lower substrate 30.”, para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, to include a first surface of the thermal insulation member in contact with the base member includes a first outer O-ring and a second surface of the thermal insulation member in contact with the insulating plate includes a second outer O-ring in which the first outer O-ring and the second outer O-ring conform to a contour shape of the insulating plate, as suggested and taught by Kuno, for the purpose of providing a sealing function and ensuring that refrigerant does not leak out from a respective refrigerant flow path (para. [0037]).
With regard to the limitation of the thermal conductivity of the thermal insulation member is less than a thermal conductivity of the insulating plate, it is submitted that the correlated limitations of the instant claim with Park include the thermal insulation member (200) and the insulating plate (100) as detailed above, and Park explicitly teaches: “The thermal insulation layer 200 may include a material having lower thermal conductivity than the support plate 100 and the base plate 400.”, Park: para. [0051]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is submitted that the thermal insulation member (200) of Park is taught as including cordierite (“for example, the thermal insulation layer 200 may include cordierite”, Park: para. [0051]). It is respectfully submitted that it is known in the art that the thermal conductivity of corderite is 1.5 to 3 W/(m * K) at room temperature, making it a good thermal insulator. Accordingly, it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the amount of corderite to have a lower thermal conductivity of another structural element (e.g., the insulating plate) as a matter of routine experimentation and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, although Park does not explicitly teach the limitation of the thermal insulation member is made of quartz, it is submitted that this limitation is not critical to the subject invention as claim 3 recites that the thermal insulation member comprises a material selected from a group consisting of Kovar, Ti, and Hastelloy, notwithstanding the foregoing, Park teaches “The thermal insulation layer 200 may include a material having lower thermal conductivity than the support plate 100 and the base plate 400. For example, the thermal insulation layer 200 may include cordierite.”, para. [0051].
With regard to claim 3, although Park does not explicitly teach the limitation of the thermal insulation member comprises a material selected from a group consisting of Kovar, Ti, and Hastelloy, it is submitted that this limitation is not critical to the subject invention as claim 2 recites that the thermal insulation member is made of quartz, notwithstanding the foregoing, Park teaches “The thermal insulation layer 200 may include a material having lower thermal conductivity than the support plate 100 and the base plate 400. For example, the thermal insulation layer 200 may include cordierite.”, para. [0051].
With regard to claim 4, Park teaches the thermal insulation member (200) is a solid plate (see FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 5, Park teaches the base member (400) is made of a metal matrix composite (MMC) or aluminum (“the base plate 400 may include an aluminum alloy.”, para. [0049]).
With regard to claim 6, Nishimoto teaches the insulating plate has a thermal conductivity of 50 W/mK or less at 300°C (“the thermal conductivity of the electrostatic chuck layer 3 formed of the above-described sintered body ranges from 20 W/mK to 40 W/m·K, it is preferable that the thermal conductivity of the junction layer 4 ranges from 20 W/m·K to 40 W/m·K.”, para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, such that the insulating plate has a thermal conductivity of 50 W/mK or less at 300°C, as suggested and taught by Nishimoto, for the purpose of providing thermal control of the wafer W (Nishimoto: para. [0051]).
With regard to claim 7, Park teaches the insulating plate (100) is made of aluminum nitride (“A portion of the support plate 100 surrounding the DC electrode 122 may include a dielectric material. The dielectric material may include a ceramic material. Examples of the ceramic material may include aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium oxide (TiO), and silicon carbide (SiC).”, para. [0043]).
With regard to claim 9, Nishimoto teaches the thermal insulation member has a thermal conductivity of 20 W/mK or less at 300°C (“the thermal conductivity of the electrostatic chuck layer 3 formed of the above-described sintered body ranges from 20 W/mK to 40 W/m·K, it is preferable that the thermal conductivity of the junction layer 4 ranges from 20 W/m·K to 40 W/m·K.”, para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, such that the thermal insulation member has a thermal conductivity of 20 W/mK or less at 300°C, as suggested and taught by Nishimoto, for the purpose of providing thermal control of the wafer W (Nishimoto: para. [0051]).
With regard to claim 10, Nishimito teaches the thermal insulation member has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 10 um/mK or less at 300°C (“the thermal conductivity of the electrostatic chuck layer 3 formed of the above-described sintered body ranges from 20 W/mK to 40 W/m·K, it is preferable that the thermal conductivity of the junction layer 4 ranges from 20 W/m·K to 40 W/m·K.”, para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, such that the thermal insulation member has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 10 um/mK or less at 300°C, as suggested and taught by Nishimoto, for the purpose of providing thermal control of the wafer W (Nishimoto: para. [0051]).
With regard to claim 12, Park teaches a plurality of fasteners (500), each fastener coupling the stacked structure by penetrating through the stacked structure in a stacking direction at an outer periphery of the stacked structure (FIG. 1), in which Kuno teaches the outer O-rings as detailed above.
With regard to claim 13, Park does not teach a third O-ring to seal the second cooling gas flow path is disposed on the first surface and the second surface of the thermal insulation member; however, Kuno teaches the aforementioned limitation: seal members 44 (“The seal member 44 is a metal or resin ring inserted on the outer side of the insulating tube 55. The seal member 44 exerts sealing performance by being compressed in the up-down direction.”, para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Park reference, to include a third O-ring to seal the second cooling gas flow path is disposed on the first surface and the second surface of the thermal insulation member, as suggested and taught by Kuno, for the purpose of providing a sealing function and ensuring that refrigerant does not leak out from a respective refrigerant flow path (para. [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The following comments are presented to Applicant’s arguments filed 12/24/25. It is respectfully submitted that newly presented prior art rejections are herein presented in response to the newly presented claim amendments. With regard to Applicant’s arguments over Nishimoto, it is submitted that Nishimoto is only cited for its teachings related to a singular limitation, namely the thermal insulation member having a specific thermal conductivity value of less than 20 W/mK as detailed above (Nishimoto: para. [0051]). It is respectfully submitted that if it was determined that Nishimoto is incompatible with the primary prior art citation, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the primary prior art citation (Park) to include the claimed thermal conductivity as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an optimum range 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. Furthermore, it must be stressed that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex stated that ““A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396….”, MPEP 2141 – Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103. Additionally, it should be stressed (as indicated in MPEP 2141) that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex particularly emphasized: "’the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are ‘[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) ‘In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (2) ‘In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) ‘[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396…..”
The following comments were presented to Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/25 and are reproduced hereafter as they are considered relevant to the instant office action. The Applicant at pg. 10 of their response of 09/23/25 contends: “Replacing Nishimoto’s adhesive junction layer with Applicant’s non-adhesive O-ring sealing system would defeat Nishimoto’s stated purpose of rapid conductive coupling. Because the substitution would render Nishimoto’s design inoperative for its intended purpose, Nishimito teaches away from the claimed non-adhesive and O-ring based sealing configuration….” The Applicant’s contention is respectfully traversed for at least the reason that Nishimoto is cited as a secondary citation for remedying a deficiency of the primary prior art citation of Park (i.e., pg. 5 of Office Action of 05/28/25: “Park does not teach the thermal insulation member a thermal conductivity of 20 W/mK or less; however, Nishimoto teaches the aforementioned limitation….” Accordingly, the Applicant’s related to Nishimoto being modified is not proper as the primary prior art citation is being adapted by the Examiner. Furthermore, pg. 11 of Applicant’s response of 09/23/25 contends: “In view of the above, cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or teach the thermal insulation member having a thermal conductivity of 20 W/mK or less and a non-adhesive O-ring sealing system….” It is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1 of the instant patent application does not recite the term “non-adhesive”, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that the aforementioned features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761