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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 3 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 14, line 6, “of of” should be replaced with “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 22-23, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 14 now recite that the electrostatic chuck is formed of a single sintered electrically nonconductive ceramic body. However, the original description does not state that the chuck body was formed by sintering, making this new limitation a new matter situation.
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 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, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itonaga et al. (KR 20050040114 A).
Regarding claim 1, Itonaga et al. discloses a substrate support assembly 1, comprising: an electrostatic chuck 2 having a workpiece supporting surface 7a and a bottom surface (not labeled, see figure 1) wherein the electrostatic chuck is formed of a single sintered electrically nonconductive ceramic body 7 (aluminum nitride sintered body) extending from the workpiece supporting surface to the bottom surface; a cooling base 4 having a body formed from a single metal material (may be formed from aluminum or silicon) with a top surface (not labeled, see figure 1); and a first bonding layer 3 securing the bottom surface of the electrostatic chuck and the top surface of the cooling base, wherein the first bonding layer comprises a metal (may be nickel, gold, or silver) diffused to the top surface of the cooling base (“Although the plate-shaped base 7 and the plate 4 are bonded together by the metal bonding material 3 after this is provided, after joining, the Ni, Au, Ag metal layers will necessarily diffuse in the metal bonding material 3” and “The metal components of Ni, Au, and Ag not only improve the wettability of the metal bonding material 3 at the time of joining, but also diffuse into the metal bonding material until the end of the joining, and the metal bonding material 3 and the plate-shaped substrate 7 or plate 4”).
Regarding claim 4, Itonaga et al. discloses wherein the first layer 3 has an operating temperature that includes temperatures between about 150 degrees Celsius and about 200 degrees Celsius (the apparatus was evaluated for 10000 cycles of temperatures of -40 degrees C to 150 degrees C, therefore an operating temperature that is between about 150 and 200 degrees C was obtained).
Regarding claim 14, Itonaga et al. discloses a processing chamber (vacuum chamber) comprising: a body having walls and a lid defining an interior processing region (a vacuum chamber inherently has walls and a lid so that a vacuum may be formed); a substrate support assembly 1 disposed in the interior processing region, the substrate support assembly comprising: an electrostatic chuck 2 having a workpiece supporting surface 7a and a bottom surface (not labeled, see figure 1) wherein the electrostatic chuck is formed of a single sintered electrically nonconductive ceramic body 7 (aluminum nitride sintered body) extending from the workpiece supporting surface to the bottom surface is ceramic; a cooling base 4 having a body formed from a single metal material (may be formed from aluminum or silicon) with a top surface (not labeled, see figure 1); and a first bonding layer 3 securing the bottom surface of the electrostatic chuck and the top surface of the cooling base, wherein the first bonding layer comprises a metal-containing layer (may be nickel, gold, or silver) diffused to the top surface of the cooling base (“Although the plate-shaped base 7 and the plate 4 are bonded together by the metal bonding material 3 after this is provided, after joining, the Ni, Au, Ag metal layers will necessarily diffuse in the metal bonding material 3” and “The metal components of Ni, Au, and Ag not only improve the wettability of the metal bonding material 3 at the time of joining, but also diffuse into the metal bonding material until the end of the joining, and the metal bonding material 3 and the plate-shaped substrate 7 or plate 4”).
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 of this title, 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 22-23 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itonaga et al.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Itonaga et al. discloses wherein the cooling base 4 has a plurality of gas channels 4a for supplying a gas for thermally controlling the electrostatic chuck. Itonaga et al. does not disclose wherein the plurality of gas channels are provided on a top surface of the cooling base adjacent to the electrostatic chuck. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have relocated the gas channels to the top surface of the cooling base for the purpose of providing more direct cooling to the electrostatic chuck, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding claims 26 and 29, Itonaga et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Itonaga et al. does not disclose wherein the first bonding layer is formed from AISiC or A1203. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used AISiC or A1203 as the material for the first bonding layer for the purpose of providing a desired bonding strength between the electrostatic chuck and the cooling base, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claims 27 and 30, Itonaga et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Itonaga et al. does not disclose wherein the first bonding layer may have a thickness of between about 0.10 mm and about 0.50 mm. However, this thickness is a result-effective variable because Itonaga et al. teaches that if the bonding layer thickness is too thin, the plate may not be covered by the bonding layer to every corner, and thus the variation in bonding strength may increase, and if the bonding layer is too thick, minute cracks may occur in the bonding layer due to the difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the bonding layer, the electrostatic chuck, and the cooling base. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the thickness to be above 0.10 mm and below 0.50 mm as determined by experimentation, because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Itonaga et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Itonaga et al. does not disclose wherein the first bonding layer has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 4.8 x10-6/C and a coefficient of thermal conductivity of about 138 W/mK. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a material for the bonding layer having these material properties for the purpose of providing a desired bonding strength while maintaining a desired heat transfer rate between the electrostatic chuck and cooling base, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 24 March 2026