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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-21 and 33-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the electrode region at the lateral edge of the substrate region, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2018/0144945 to Takahashi et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0370178 to Klomp et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0073349 to Aihara et al is presented below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17, 20, 21, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0144945 to Takahashi et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0370178 to Klomp et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0073349 to Aihara et al.
In regards to Claim 17, Takahashi teaches an electrostatic clamp Fig. 4, the electrostatic clamp comprising: a substrate region 18a, an electrode region 18b at a lateral edge of the substrate region and distinct from the substrate region (as it is stepped down from the upper portion of 18a); a support layer comprising a body, the body comprising first (bottom) and second (top) surfaces disposed on opposite sides of the body, wherein the first surface is substantially parallel with the second surface; at least one through-hole (for ET,EL) in the electrode region (as shown in Fig. 4), the through-hole configured to provide access between the first and second surfaces (as shown in Fig. 4), an electrically conductive layer EW disposed on the second surface of the support layer; a contact layer (in green) disposed on the electrically conductive layer, wherein the contact layer is uninterrupted in the electrode region and comprises burls in the substrate region, and wherein the burls are configured to contact the substrate when the electrostatic clamp is supporting the substrate; and an electrode EL disposed in the through-hole and electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 4 below [0020-0081].
PNG
media_image1.png
672
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takahashi does not expressly teach a further conductive layer disposed on the contact layer and burls, wherein the further conductive layer is coupled to an electrical ground potential.
Klomp teaches an electrostatic clamp Fig. 5, 7d the electrostatic clamp comprising: a substrate region (top of 28 and body of 28 as highlighted in yellow) and an electrode region (wires from 10 to 16 and 18 as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 5) at an edge of the substrate region; a support layer 24 comprising a body, the body comprising: first and second surfaces disposed on opposite sides of the body, wherein the first surface is substantially parallel with the second surface; an electrically conductive layer 22 disposed on the second surface of the support layer; a contact layer 28 disposed on the electrically conductive layer, wherein the contact layer is uninterrupted in the electrode region (as the electrode region is on the outer side and external of 10/30 as shown in Fig. 7d below and shown in the side terminal connection in Fig. 5) and comprises burls 30 in the substrate region [0005, 0006, 0101, 0124], and wherein the burls are configured to contact the substrate when the electrostatic clamp is supporting the substrate (see WT on W in Fig. 1); a further conductive layer disposed on the contact layer and burls, wherein the further conductive layer is coupled to an electrical ground potential [0125]; and an electrode disposed in the through-hole and electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer (as generally shown in Fig. 5 for Fig. 15 [0062-0187].
PNG
media_image2.png
289
931
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Klomp teaches the conductive material prevents the build up of charge on the burls and prevents the localized sticking of a wafer/substrate to the clamp when no voltage is applied, which is undesirable as it prevents a wafer from fully relaxing and creates distortion of the wafer [0107].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Takahashi, by adding the grounded conductive layer onto the burls as per the teachings of Klomp. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing build up of charge and localized sticking of the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Takahashi in view of Klomp does not expressly teach a width of the through-hole is different at the first and second surfaces.
Aihara teaches an electrostatic chuck Fig. 4A/4B that has a support body 12 with a through hole 21c that connects through the first and second surfaces, wherein a width of the through hole 21c has a different width at the first and second surfaces, and an electrode 26, 27 that is deposed in the through hole and electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer 25 [0086-0097].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Takahashi in view of Klomp by making the generic terminal of Takahashi in view of Klomp into a through hole in the electrode region that goes through the support to provide access between the first and second surfaces, wherein a width of the through-hole is different at the first and second surfaces, as per the teachings of Aihara. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 20, Takahashi teaches the electrode EL disposed in the through hole, has a width that is smaller away from the first surface and toward the second surface than at the first surface, as shown in Fig. 4, where a smaller diameter is formed at a distance farther away from the top of the hole.
In regards to Claim 21, Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara does expressly teach the electrode (see EL of Takahashi) disposed in the through hole, but does not expressly teach it has a width that is substantially constant in Aihara’s embodiment of Fig. 4a, 4b.
However, Aihara does expressly teach it can have a substantially constant width in Fig. 3A-3E.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the electrode that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a constant electrode shape, as either are acceptable in the teachings of Aihara. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 33, Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara teaches the width of the through-hole is smaller at the second surface than at the first surface, as shown in Fig. 4A, 4B of Aihara.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the electrode that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a constant electrode shape, as either are acceptable in the teachings of Aihara. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0144945 to Takahashi et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0370178 to Klomp et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0073349 to Aihara et al, as per the rejection of Claim 17 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0190364 to Mahon et al.
The teachings of Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 18, 19, 34 and 35, Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara do not expressly teach a sidewall of the through-hole comprises an electrically conductive coating, and the electrode is electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer through the electrically conductive coating, the through-hole is filled with an electrically conductive material, and the electrode is electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer through the electrically conductive material, an electrically conductive bonding agent layer and an electrically conductive coating disposed between the body and the electrode in the at least one through-hole or the bonding agent layer is disposed only adjacent the first and second surfaces in the through-hole.
Mahon teaches an electrostatic chuck electrode 114 Fig. 1B that has a through hole (hole of 122) in a support body 104, the hole having a sidewall of the through-hole comprises an electrically conductive coating 200a, and the electrode is electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer through the electrically conductive coating [0020], the through-hole is filled with an electrically conductive material (as it is a brazing compound or a foil [0020]), and the electrode is electrically coupled to the electrically conductive layer through the electrically conductive material, an electrically conductive bonding agent layer and an electrically conductive coating disposed between the body and the electrode in the at least one through-hole or the bonding agent layer is disposed only adjacent the first and second surfaces in the through-hole (as it is only present to the top level of 104 in Fig. 1B) [0020-0042]. Mahon teaches putting foil or brazing in the hole can directly connect the electrode to the electrically conductive layer such that the electrode and the terminal are improved by having a more uniform contact at the terminal [0029].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara, by adding an electrically conductive coating, as per the teachings of Mahon. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of having a more uniform contact at the terminal connection, as per the teachings of Mahon. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0144945 to Takahashi et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0370178 to Klomp et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0073349 to Aihara et al, as per the rejection of Claim 17 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0242345 to Lipson et al.
The teachings of Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 36, Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara does not expressly teach the body and the contact layer comprise a ULE material.
Lipson teaches that the body and contact layer of the substrate support (300 Fig. 3, 302, 304, 306) are made of ultra-low expansion material [0056] which reduces the thermal stress in the structure of the clamp during the manufacture [0053-0064].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a base and contact layer analogous to that of Takahashi in view of Klomp and Aihara out of ULE materials, as taught by Lipson, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 36.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights