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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 09/23/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY
REOPENED. A new ground rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the
following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply
under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed
by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and
appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth
in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant
must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by
signing below:
/Timothy J. Dole/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “placing an electrode within the feature in the ESC body, wherein the electrode does not contact the ESC body, claim 17” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3 depended on claim 1, the phrase of "the organic coating
comprises a polymer and a metal oxide filler" is not understood because the organic
coating as claimed in claim 1 recited "a polymer". Does the "a polymer" in claim 3
depended on claim 1 the same as in claim 1 or different. Please, clarify.
Regarding claim 8 depended on claim 1, the phrase of "the organic coating
comprises a polymer and aluminum oxide" is not understood because the organic
coating as claimed in claim 1 recited "a polymer". Does the "polymer" in claim 8
depended on claim 1 the same as in claim 1 or different. Please, clarify.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase of "placing an electrode within the feature in the
ESC body, wherein the electrode does not contact the ESC body" is not understood
Because first, none of the figures that show the limitations as above, and second, the electrode being in the ESC body and not contact the ESC body. It is contradiction. Please revise.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-12, 19-20, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (U.S. 2016/0379806), hereafter Xu cited in the record.
As to claim 1, Xu discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC 108, 109, 111, para-0005, 0033+), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
an ESC body (108, 111, para-0033);
an organic coating (para-0017+,105) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body (108), wherein the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer (adhesive polymer, para-0033+); and
an atomic layer deposition (ALD) coating (115, para-0035) disposed on the organic coating (105).
As to claim 3, Xu discloses the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer and a metal oxide filler, para-0003+.
As to claims 4-5, Xu discloses the atomic layer deposition (ALD, 115) coating comprises a ceramic coating, para-0018, or at least one of yttria, alumina, and YAG, para-0018+.
As to claim 6, Xu discloses the atomic layer deposition (ALD) coating is configured to operate under compressive force at temperatures less than 20° C (the even at room temperature having minimum about 18° C, para-0019+.
As to claim 7, Xu discloses the ALD coating (115) encapsulates the organic
coating (105), para-0007+, the ALD coating coated on the polymer/organic coating.
As to claim 10, Xu discloses the ALD coating (115) comprises alumina, para-0006+.
As to claim 11, Xu discloses the organic coating (105) has a hydrophilic
outer surface (the polyamides, which are nylons having excellent hydrophilic outer surface, para-0017+).
As to claim 12, Xu discloses the organic coating (105) encapsulates the
ESC body (108), the organic coating at least a portion encapsulates on the surface of the ESC body (108).
As to claim 27, Xu discloses the ESC body (108, 109, 111) is electrically conductive, para-0033+.
As to claim 19, Xu discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck
(ESC, 108, 109, 111), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
providing an ESC body (108);
applying an organic coating (105) on at least one surface of the ESC body (108),
wherein the organic coating comprises a polymer (adhesive polymer, para-0033+); and depositing an atomic layer deposition (ALD) coating (115) on the organic coating (105).
As to claim 20, Xu discloses the organic coating (105) includes a metal oxide filler, para-0003+.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (‘806).
Regarding claim 8, Xu clearly discloses the organic coating (105) comprises the polymer and the metallic oxide fillers or the plasma resistance metallic oxide fillers (para-0003+), but not specifically defined the metallic oxide fillers which is an aluminum oxide.
The plasma-resistant metallic oxide filler material is a high-performance, ceramic-based substance that contains aluminum oxide or alumina, used to strengthen polymers, sealants, or coatings, allowing them to withstand harsh, corrosive plasma environments, such as those found in semiconductor etching equipment. Furthermore, these fillers, typically oxides of metals like aluminum oxide or alumina (Al2O₃).
It would have been obvious to have the aluminum as the metal in the metal oxide filler in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have the aluminum as the metal in the metal oxide filler as taught by Xu in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
As to claim 18, Xu discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck
(ESC 108, 109, 111), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
providing an ESC body (108, 111);
applying an organic coating (105) on at least one surface of the ESC body (108),
wherein the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer (adhesive polymer, para-0033+); and
coating the organic coating (105) with a plasma-resistance metallic oxide fillers containing coating, para-0003+, but not specifically defined the metallic oxide fillers which is an aluminum oxide.
The plasma-resistant metallic oxide filler material is a high-performance, ceramic-based substance that contains aluminum oxide or alumina, used to strengthen polymers, sealants, or coatings, allowing them to withstand harsh, corrosive plasma environments, such as those found in semiconductor etching equipment. Furthermore, these fillers, typically oxides of metals like aluminum oxide or alumina (Al2O₃).
It would have been obvious to have the aluminum as the metal in the metal oxide filler in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have the aluminum as the metal in the metal oxide filler as taught by Xu in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Claim(s) 13, 16, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Ferwick et al. (678) cited in the record.
As to claim 13, Xu discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck
(ESC 108, 109, 111), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
providing an ESC body (108);
applying an organic coating (105) on at least one surface of the ESC body (108),
wherein the applying the organic coating (105) comprises:
exposing the ESC body (108) to an electrostatic potential, para-0005+;
exposing the ESC body to particles, wherein the particles are electrostatically
attracted to the at least one surface of the ESC body, forming a particle coating (105, para-0003, 0036), except for annealing (heat or thermal treatment) the particle coating (105).
Ferwick teaches the ESC (150) having a body (figure 1), and a body (610) as shown in figures 5-6 comprising a step of annealing the multilayer coating (136), or annealing the diffusion barrier layer (510) and annealing the erosion resistant layer (520) of the multilayer coating (136).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have the annealing process or heat treatment which is known in the technology, and further with a teaching of Ferwick employed in the method of forming the ESC of Xu in order to improve quality bonding, adhesion, durability, and reliability of the coating on the ESC.
As to claim 16, Xu as modified by Ferwick discloses the surface of the organic coating (105) has an organic coating hydrophilic (the polyamides, which are nylons having excellent hydrophilic outer surface, para-0017+).
As to claim 22, Xu as modified by Ferwick discloses the organic coating (105) encapsulates the ESC body (108), the organic coating at least a portion encapsulates on the surface of the ESC body (108).
As to claim 23, Xu as modified by Ferwick discloses the organic coating comprises a polymer and the plasma resistance metallic oxide fillers, para-0003+, but not specifically defined the metallic oxide fillers which is an aluminum oxide.
The plasma-resistant metallic oxide filler material is a high-performance, ceramic-based substance that contains aluminum oxide or alumina, used to strengthen polymers, sealants, or coatings, allowing them to withstand harsh, corrosive plasma environments, such as those found in semiconductor etching equipment. Furthermore, these fillers, typically oxides of metals like aluminum oxide or alumina (Al2O₃).
It would have been obvious to have the aluminum as the metal in the metal oxide filler in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have the aluminum as the metal in the metal oxide filler as taught by Xu and Ferwick in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Xu in view of Purobit et al. (U.S 2010/0142114) cited in the
record.
Regarding claims 24-26, Xu discloses all of the limitations of claimed
invention except for the polymer comprises at least one of: polyetherimide, fluorinated
polymer, perfluorinated polymer, chemical vapor deposited poly(p-xylylene).
Purobit teaches the polymer comprise at least one of polyetherimide, fluorinated
polymer, perfluorinated polymer, chemical vapor deposited poly(p-xylylene)
(fluoropolymer, para-0027+).
It would have been obvious to ne having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to have a teaching of Purobit employed in the method of Xu in
order to reduce friction coefficients and thermal expansion can be eliminated.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Xu in view of Ferwick, and further in view of Purobit et al. (U.S 2010/0142114) cited in the record.
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses all of the limitations of claimed invention
except for the particles/particle coating comprise at least one of fluoroplastic
(fluoropolymer) and fluoroelastomer.
Purobit teaches the particles or particle coating (106) comprise at least one of
fluoroplastic (fluoropolymer) and fluoroelastomer (para-0027+).
It would have been obvious to ne having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to have a teaching of Purobit employed in the method of Xu in
order to reduce friction coefficients and thermal expansion can be eliminated.
As best understood to claim 17, Xu discloses all of the limitations of claimed
invention except for the ESC body has a feature, and further comprising placing an
electrode within the feature in the ESC body, wherein the electrode does not contact the
ESC body.
Purobit teaches an ESC with compliant coat (500) as shown in figure 5
comprising the ESC body has a feature (548), and further comprising placing an
electrode (518) within the feature in the ESC body, wherein the electrode does not
contact the ESC body.
It would have been obvious to ne having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to have a teaching of Purobit employed in the method of Xu in
order to reduce friction coefficients, increases and ability to uniformly cool a surface of
the ESC, and improve electrostatic field for the ESC.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN T DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-1929. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/TUAN T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848