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 .
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Note:
A silicon-containing (or silicone) mask is a flexible facial covering made from silicone rubber. It is used in medical care, reusable respirators, skincare, and special effects because it is soft, waterproof, and safe for the skin.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jayanti et al. (U.S. 2018/0151386).
As to claim 1, Jayanti discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC-308, para-0015), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
an ESC body (substrate 204);
an organic coating (208, 212) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body (204), wherein the organic coating comprises a polymer (silicon containing mask or silicone rubber material, which is a polymer, para-0014); and
an atomic layer deposition coating (216, para-0014) disposed on the organic coating (212), wherein the organic coating (212) is disposed between the atomic layer deposition coating (216) and the ESC body (204).
As to claim 7, Jayanti discloses the atomic layer deposition coating (216) encapsulates the organic coating (212).
As to claim 12, Jayanti discloses the organic coating (212) encapsulates the ESC body (204).
As to claim 19, Jayanti discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck (ESC-308, para-0015), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
providing an ESC body (204);
applying an organic coating (208, 212) on at least one surface of the ESC body (204), wherein the organic coating comprises a polymer (a silicon rubber); and
depositing an atomic layer deposition coating (216) on the organic coating (212), wherein the organic coating (212) is disposed between the atomic layer deposition coating (216) and the ESC body (204).
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) 3-6, 8, 10-11, 20, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayanti in view of Xu et al. (‘806) cited in the record.
Regarding to claims 3 and 20, Jayanti discloses all of the limitations of claimed invention except for the organic coating comprises a polymer and a metal oxide filler
Xu teaches the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer and a metal oxide filler, para-0003+.
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 employed in the ESC of Jayanti in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
As to claims 4-5, Jayanti as modified by Xu teaches 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, Jayanti as modified by Xu teaches 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+.
Regarding claim 8, Jayanti as modified by Xu clearly teaches 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 (AI₂O₃).
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 employed in the ESC of Jayanti in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 10, Jayanti as modified by Xu teaches the ALD coating comprises alumina (Al2O3), para-0018+.
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 employed in the ESC of Jayanti in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 11, Jayanti as modified by Xu teaches the organic coating (105) has a hydrophilic outer surface (the polymer adhesive can be acts as a hydrophilic outer surface).
Regarding claim 27, Jayanti as modified by Xu discloses the ESC body (108, 111) is electrically conductive.
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 employed in the ESC of Jayanti in order to provide excellent heat resistance and thermal conductivity.
As to claim 18, Jayanti discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC-308, para-0015), as shown in figures 1-3 comprising:
an ESC body (substrate 204);
an organic coating (208, 212) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body (204), wherein the organic coating comprises a polymer (silicon containing mask or silicone rubber material, which is a polymer, para-0014); and
an atomic layer deposition coating (ALD 216, para-0014) disposed on the organic coating (212), wherein the organic coating (212) is disposed between the atomic layer deposition coating (216) and the ESC body (204).
Jayanti does not specifically disclose the ALD made from aluminum oxide containing coating.
Xu teaches the ALD coating comprises alumina (Al2O3), para-0018+.
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 employed in the ESC of Jayanti 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 Jayanti in view of Xu, and further in view of Purobit et al. (U.S 2010/0142114) cited in the record.
Regarding claims 24-26, Jayanti as modified by 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 Jayanti and Xu in order to reduce friction coefficients and thermal expansion can be eliminated.
Claim(s) 13, 16, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Mirkanimi (U.S. 2001/0019803).
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.
Mirkanimi teaches the ESC (para-0059) having a body (20), as shown in figures 1-6 comprising a step of annealing the multilayer buffer or particle coating (10, para-0035), or annealing the buffer/particle layer coating (10).
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 Mirkanimi 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 Mirkanimi 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 Mirkanimi 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 Mirkanimi 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 Mirkanimi in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Mirkanimi, and further in view of Purobit et al. (U.S 2010/0142114) cited in the record.
Regarding claim 15, Xu as modified by Mirkanimi 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 and Mirkanimi in order to reduce friction coefficients and thermal expansion can be eliminated.
As to claim 17, Xu as modified by Mirkanimi 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 and Mirkanimi 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 8am-5pm, M-F.
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 2847
Prosecution Insights