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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on January 30, 2026 and amended February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 17964684 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the bond layer. Motivation to optimize the bond layer is for greater adhesion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 17686324 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the bond layer. Motivation to optimize the bond layer is for greater adhesion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17-22 of copending Application No. 17700203 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the bond layer. Motivation to optimize the bond layer is for greater adhesion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11410869 B1 in view of Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1). Tran teaches a similar electrostatic chuck (170; Figure 2) including a metal shaft (222; Figure 2; [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use metallic material for a support shaft as taught by Tran. Motivation to use a metallic material for a shaft as taught by Tran is for “mechanical purposes” as taught by Tran ([0026]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1) in view of Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1) and Wu; Tsung-Cheng et al. (US 20210238741 A1). Parkhe teaches a substrate support assembly (Figure 2), comprising: a ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3); a ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina); a bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) between the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) and the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3), the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) in direct contact with the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil), and the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) in direct contact with the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3); and a shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3), the surface of the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) opposite the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) – claim 1.
Parkhe further teaches:
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 1, wherein the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) has heater elements (170; Figure 4; “temperature regulating fluid”; [0029]) therein, and the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) has an electrode (180; Figure 4) therein, as claimed by claim 2
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 1, wherein the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) has heater elements (176; Figure 4 [0029]) and an electrode (180; Figure 4) therein, as claimed by claim 3
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 1, wherein the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) includes gas grooves (212; Figure 4) (430; Figure 4; [0051]) in a top surface thereof, as claimed by claim 4
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 1, wherein the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) is an aluminum foil, as claimed by claim 8
A system, comprising: a chamber (102; Figure 1); a plasma source (180, 184, 186; Figure 4) within or coupled to the chamber (102; Figure 1); and an electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) within the chamber (102; Figure 1), the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) comprising: a ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3); a ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina); a bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) between the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) and the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3), the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) in direct contact with the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil), and the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) in direct contact with the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3); and a shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3), the surface of the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) opposite the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) – claim 11.
The system of claim 11, wherein the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) of the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) has heater elements (170; Figure 4; “temperature regulating fluid”; [0029]) therein, and the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) has an electrode (180; Figure 4) therein, as claimed by claim 12
The system of claim 11, wherein the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) of the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) has heater elements (170; Figure 4; “temperature regulating fluid”; [0029]) and an electrode (180; Figure 4) therein, as claimed by claim 13
The system of claim 11, wherein the bond layer (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) of the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) is an aluminum foil, as claimed by claim 19
Parkhe does not teach the material of construction for Parkhe’s shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) – claim 1. As a result, Parkhe does not teach Parkhe’s shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) is a metal shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3). Parkhe further does not teach Parkhe’s shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) in direct contact with a surface of Parkhe’s ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) – claim 1, 11.
Further, Parkhe and Tran do not teach a metal cover ring (Applicant’s 172; Figure 2A; 399; Figure 3) on Parkhe’s ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina).
Tran teaches a similar electrostatic chuck (170; Figure 2) including a metal shaft (222; Figure 2; [0026]) – claim 1. Tran further teaches Tran’s shaft (222; Figure 2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) in direct contact with a surface of Tran’s ceramic plate (205; Figure 2; [0019], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) – claim 1, 11.
Wu also teaches a plasma wafer processing system (Figure 1) including a metallic cover ring (170; Figure 1,2; [0020], [0037], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Parkhe to use Tran’s metal shaft (222; Figure 2; [0026]) in direct contact with a surface of Parkhe’s ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) as taught by Tran and for Parkhe to add Wu’s metallic cover ring (130,200; Figure 1,2; [0034]).
Motivation for Parkhe to use Tran’s metal shaft (222; Figure 2; [0026]) in direct contact with a surface of Parkhe’s ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) as taught by Tran is for “mechanical purposes” as taught by Tran ([0026]) and for conveynig “connectors” as taught by Tran ([0022]) that are prevented from “shorting or acring” as taught by Tran ([0021]).
Motivation for Parkhe to add Wu’s metallic cover ring (170; Figure 1,2; [0020], [0037], [0050]) is for “resistance to erosion by the sputtering plasma” as taught by Wu ([0020]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1), Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1), and Wu; Tsung-Cheng et al. (US 20210238741 A1) in view of Roy; Shambhu N. et al. (US 20120285658 A1). Parkhe, Tran, and Wu are discussed above. Parkhe, Tran, and Wu do not teach:
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 1, further comprising: an O-ring between the metal shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) and the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 6
The system of claim 11, the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) further comprising: an O-ring between the metal shaft (152; Figure 1,2-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) and the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 16
Roy teaches a similar electrostatic chuck (Figure 7) including an o-ring (532; Figure 7) fixed around Roy’s support column (502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Parkhe to add Roy’s o-ring to Parkhe’s support shaft.
Motivation for Parkhe to add Roy’s o-ring to Parkhe’s support shaft is for hermetic sealing as taught by Roy ([0070]).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over in Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1), Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1), and Wu; Tsung-Cheng et al. (US 20210238741 A1) view of Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 11410869 B1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1), Tran, and Wu do not teach:
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 8, wherein the aluminum foil (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) comprises silicon having an atomic concentration in the range of 2% - 20% of the aluminum foil (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil), as claimed by claim 9
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 8, wherein the aluminum foil (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) has a thickness in the range of 50 - 500 microns, as claimed by claim 10
The system of claim 18, wherein the aluminum foil (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) comprises silicon having an atomic concentration in the range of 2%- 20% of the aluminum foil (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil), as claimed by claim 19
The system of claim 18, wherein the aluminum foil (450; Figure 4; [0046]-aluminum foil) has a thickness in the range of 50 - 500 microns, as claimed by claim 20
Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 11410869 B1) teaches the claimed aluminum foil bond with the claimed composition and thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1) to use Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 11410869 B1) bonding composition.
Motivation for Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1) to use Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 11410869 B1) bonding composition is for “sustaining corrosive processes” as taught by Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 11410869 B1) (column 6; lines 3-34).
Claims 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over in Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1), Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1), Wu; Tsung-Cheng et al. (US 20210238741 A1) in view of Shepard, Jr.; Cecil B. et al. (US 5551983 A). Parkhe and Tran are discussed above. Parkhe, Tran, and Wu do not teach:
The substrate support assembly (Figure 2) of claim 1, wherein the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) includes gas grooves, as claimed by claim 5
The system of claim 11, wherein the ceramic bottom plate (232; Figure 1-4; [0036], AlN, alumina-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) of the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) includes gas grooves in a top surface thereof, as claimed by claim 14
The system of claim 11, wherein the ceramic top plate (230; Figure 1-4; [0035], AlN, alumina) of the electrostatic chuck (150; Figure 4) includes gas grooves (212; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 15
Shepard also teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Figure 2) including an intervening plate (120; Figure 2) including grooved top and bottom surfaces (Figures 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Parkhe to add grooved surfaces as taught by Shepard.
Motivation for Parkhe to add grooved surfaces as taught by Shepard is for increasing heat transfer by “higher thermal conductivity” as taught by Shepard (column 6; lines 29-48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed February 5, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 under Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1) in view of Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Parkhe; Vijay D. (US 20160111315 A1) in view of Tran; Toan Q. et al. (US 20160225651 A1) and Wu; Tsung-Cheng et al. (US 20210238741 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizuno; Shigeru et al. (US 6129046 A) and Kin; Rishun et al. (US 20180047606 A1) teach tiered chucks with burried electrodes in a similar manner to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716