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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 22-28) in the reply filed on February 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-4, 8, 10, 22-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkhe et al. (U.S. 9,666,466).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and 4-5 and column 2, line 9-column 7, line 30, Parkhe et al. disclose an electrostatic chuck system, comprising: a plate 166 with gas apertures (Fig. 2, col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 10, col. 3, lines 33-42); and a body 164 formed by an additive process on a first side of the plate (Fig. 2, col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 32), wherein the body 164 comprises: gas channels in fluid connection with the gas apertures 410 (Fig. 4, column 7, lines 57-62); coolant channels 226, 228, 230, 232 (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 49-60); and support structure 164 for supporting the gas channels and the coolant channels (Fig. 2).
With respect to claims 2 and 23, the electrostatic chuck system of Parkhe et al. further includes wherein the plate 166 is a metal containing plate and wherein the body 164 is formed from a metal containing material (col. 3, lines 2-4, col. 3, lines 22-34, i.e. aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide).
With respect to claims 3 and 24, the electrostatic chuck system of Parkhe et al. further comprising an oxide layer 238 on at least one of a surface of the plate or a surface of the body (col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 41).
With respect to claims 4 and 25, the electrostatic chuck system of Parkhe et al. further includes wherein the oxide layer is a plasma electrolytic oxidation layer (col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 41).
With respect to claims 8 and 28, the electrostatic chuck system of Parkhe et al. further comprising an intermediate layer 212 between the plate and the body (col. 3, line 62-col. 4, line 8).
With respect to claim 10, the electrostatic chuck system of Parkhe et al. further comprising a replaceable dielectric side sleeve 118 surrounding the plate and the body (col. 2, lines 56-63).
With respect to claim 22, referring to Figures 1-2 and 4-5 and column 2, line 9-column 7, line 30, Parkhe et al. disclose an apparatus for plasma processing substrates, comprising: a plasma processing chamber 102 (col. 2, lines 11-15); an electrostatic chuck 150 within the plasma processing chamber (Fig. 1), wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises: a plate 166 with gas apertures (Fig. 2, col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 10, col. 3, lines 33-42); and a body 164 formed by an additive process on a first side of the plate (Fig. 2, col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 32), wherein the body 164 comprises: gas channels in fluid connection with the gas apertures 410 (Fig. 4, column 7, lines 57-62); coolant channels 226, 228, 230, 232 (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 49-60); and support structure 164 for supporting the gas channels and the coolant channels (Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (U.S. 9,666,466) in view of Parkhe et al. (U.S. 2002/0050246).
The teachings of Parkhe et al. have been discussed above.
Parkhe et al. is silent on the wherein the plate is made of Al-SiC.
Referring to paragraph [0050], Parkhe et al.’246 teach an electrostatic chuck system wherein the plate is made of molybdenum, aluminum nitride, or Al-SiC since it is a suitable material to manufacture components of an electrostatic chuck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plate of Parkhe et al. to be made of Al-SiC as taught by Parkhe et al.’246 since it is an alternate and a suitable material used to manufacture components of an electrostatic chuck. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The resulting apparatus of Parkhe et al. in view of Parkhe et al.’246 would yield the plate is made of Al-SiC.
With respect to claims 6 and 27, the electrostatic chuck system of Parkhe et al. further includes wherein the body is formed from a material comprising aluminum, silicon, and magnesium (Parkhe et al.-col. 4, lines 22-34).
With respect to claim 7, Parkhe et al. is silent on wherein the body further comprises a circumferential flange extending around the gas channels and the coolant channels.
Referring to Figure 2A and paragraph [0036], Parkhe et al.’246 teach an electrostatic chuck system wherein the body further comprises a circumferential flange 204 extending around the gas channels and the coolant channels in order to help prevent deposit material from accumulating below the surface of the chuck. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Parkhe et al. with the body further comprising a circumferential flange extending around the gas channels and the coolant channels as taught by Parkhe et al.’246 in order to help prevent deposit material from accumulating below the surface of the chuck. The resulting apparatus of Parkhe et al. in view of Parkhe et al.’246 would yield the body further comprises a circumferential flange extending around the gas channels and the coolant channels. .
With respect to claim 9, Parkhe et al. is silent on the wherein the plate has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the body has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the intermediate layer has a coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the intermediate layer is between the coefficient of thermal expansion of the plate and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the body.
Referring to paragraph [0060], Parkhe et al.’246 teach an electrostatic chuck system wherein the plate has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the body has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the intermediate layer 233 has a coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the intermediate layer is between the coefficient of thermal expansion of the plate and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the body in order to assist in controlling the thermal expansion coefficients between the plate and the body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Parkhe et al. with the plate has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the body has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the intermediate layer 233 has a coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the intermediate layer is between the coefficient of thermal expansion of the plate and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the body as taught by Parkhe et al.’246 in order to assist in controlling the thermal expansion coefficients between the plate and the body. The resulting apparatus of Parkhe et al. in view of Parkhe et al.’246 would yield wherein the plate has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the body has a coefficient of thermal expansion and the intermediate layer has a coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the intermediate layer is between the coefficient of thermal expansion of the plate and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the body.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (U.S. 9,666,466) in view of Firouzdor et al. (U.S. 2018/0019104)
The teachings of Parkhe et al. have been discussed above.
Parkhe et al. is silent on the wherein the replaceable dielectric side sleeve comprises polytetrafluoroethylene.
Referring to paragraphs [0019],[0027], Firouzdor et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for an electrostatic chuck component exposed to the process environment to be made of polytetrafluoroethylene because of its protective properties. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the replaceable dielectric side sleeve of Parkhe et al. to be made of polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Firouzdor et al. since it is a known and suitable material used for its protective properties. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The resulting apparatus of Parkhe et al. in view of Firouzdor et al. would yield the replaceable dielectric side sleeve comprises polytetrafluoroethylene.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wetzel et al.’255, Itakura et al.’284, Kamimura et al.’561, and Haas et al.’581 disclose a plate, a body, and an intermediate layer. Nangoy et al.’910 and Parkhe et al.’255 teach body with gas and cooling channels and plate with apertures. Knyazik et al.’244 and Kellogg’749 teach 3D printing of an electrostatic chuck.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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 on 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716