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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the atomic layer deposition coating" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please, revise.
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) 1, 3-8, 10-12, 18-20, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferwick et al. (‘678) in view of Xu et al. (‘806) both references cited in the record.
Regarding claim 1, Ferwick discloses an electrostatic chuck (ESC-150, para-0018+) as shown in figures 1-2, comprising:
an ESC body (210);
a coating (215) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body, and
an atomic layer deposition coating (220) disposed on the coating (215), wherein the coating is disposed between the atomic layer deposition coating and the ESC body.
Ferwick does not specifically disclose the coating is an organic or a polymer.
Xu teaches 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 (105, para-0017+) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body (108), wherein the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer (adhesive polymer, para-0033.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have a teaching of Xu employed in the ESC of Ferwick in order to protect the underlying base material from environment damage while improving its physical or aesthetic properties.
As to claim 3, Ferwick as modified by Xu teaches the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer and a metal oxide filler, para-0003+.
As to claims 4-5, Ferwick 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, Ferwick 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 7, Ferwick as modified by Xu discloses the ALD coating (220) encapsulates the coating (215).
Regarding claim 8, Ferwick 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 (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 employed in the ESC of Ferwick in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 10, Ferwick as modified by Xu discloses the ALD coating (220) comprises alumina (Al2O3).
Regarding claim 11, Ferwick 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 12, Ferwick as modified by Xu teaches the organic coating (105) encapsulates (at least on a portion) the ESC body (108).
Regarding claim 27, Ferwick as modified by Xu discloses the ESC body (108, 111) is electrically conductive.
As best understood to claim 18, Ferwick discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck (ESC-150) as shown in figures 1-2, comprising:
providing an ESC body (210);
applying a coating (215) on at least one surface of the ESC body (210), and
coating the coating (215) with an aluminum oxide containing coating or an atomic layer deposition coating (220), wherein the organic coating is disposed between the atomic layer deposition coating and the ESC body.
Ferwick does not specifically disclose the coating is an organic or a polymer.
Xu teaches 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 (105, para-0017+) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body (108), wherein the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer (adhesive polymer, para-0033.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have a teaching of Xu employed in the ESC of Ferwick in order to protect the underlying base material from environment damage while improving its physical or aesthetic properties.
Ferwick 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 (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 employed in the ESC of Ferwick in order to enhance durability, reduce plasma erosion, and prevent contamination.
As to claim 19, Ferwick discloses a method of forming an electrostatic chuck (ESC-150) as shown in figures 1-2, comprising:
providing an ESC body (210);
applying a coating (215) on at least one surface of the ESC body (210); and
depositing an atomic layer deposition coating (220) on the coating, wherein the coating (215) is disposed between the atomic layer deposition (220) coating and the ESC body (210).
Ferwick does not specifically disclose the coating is an organic or a polymer.
Xu teaches 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 (105, para-0017+) disposed on at least a surface of the ESC body (108), wherein the organic coating (105) comprises a polymer (adhesive polymer, para-0033.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have a teaching of Xu employed in the ESC of Ferwick in order to protect the underlying base material from environment damage while improving its physical or aesthetic properties.
As to claim 20, Ferwick as modified by Xu teaches the organic coating (105) includes a metal oxide filler, para-0003+.
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 Ferwick in view of Xu, and further in view of Purobit et al. (U.S 2010/0142114) cited in the record.
Regarding claims 24-26, Ferwick 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 Ferwick and 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 as modified by Ferwick 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 Ferwick in order to reduce friction coefficients and thermal expansion can be eliminated.
As to claim 17, Xu as modified by Ferwick 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 Ferwick 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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