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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18-28 under United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2013/0105087 to Cho et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2013/0105087 to Cho et al and United States Patent Application No. 2005/0127037 to Tannous.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026, with respect to claims 11-17 and 29-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the second material is “configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation” and the combined teachings does not expressly Hanzlik in view of Atari is unrelated to radiative cooling. The Examiner notes that even if the anodized aluminum of Atari is not for cooling, the cooling is a functional limitation of the material as claimed, there being no other structure to define the cooling. Moreover, the structure of Hanzlik in view of Atari would only need to be capable of cooling, which is the case without further limitations as to how the cooling would be done in the structure. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structures that cause cooling) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As the structures claimed are substantially the same as the teachings of Hanzlik in view of Atari, this argument is not considered persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the if the teachings of Atari are applied to the apparatus of Hanzlik, it would result in the entirety of the electrostatic chuck being formed of anodized aluminum. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the electrostatic chuck of Hanzlik is formed with two bodies (168 and 124) stacked on each other and formed from aluminum that are separate from each other. The electrostatic chuck of Atari is also formed from two bodies (see 8 and 7 Fig. 7), but in the teachings of Atari, the bottom body is formed of aluminum and subjected to alumite/anodization. Thus it would be obvious to make the bottom portion of the electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum as a suitable material and leave the top portion of the body unanodized, as per the teachings of Atari because Atari teaches that only the bottom portion is anodized aluminum.
Furthermore, 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 bottom portion of the electrostatic chuck analogous to that of Hanzlik out of anodized aluminum, as taught by Atari, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
For these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
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) 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent No. 5413360 to Atari et al.
In regards to Claim 11, Hanzlik substrate holder 114 Fig. 1, 8 comprising: a chuck configured to immobilize a substrate 102 at a first side 168 of the chuck [0063] comprising a first material (aluminum, [0075]);
a heater 130 disposed in the chuck and configured to heat the substrate [0067]; and a second material 124 disposed at a second side of the chuck opposing the first side (as shown in Fig. 1), the second material comprising an exposed surface facing away from the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1 and 8), and is also made of aluminum [0069] [0050-0117].
Hanzlik does not expressly teach that the second material is configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, the emissivity of the first material being lower than the emissivity of the second material.
Atari teaches an electrostatic chuck 1 Fig. 7 that is supported by a base/pedestal or second material 7 that is made out of aluminum that has been anodized (Col. 14 lines 25-35).
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 bottom aluminum plate of an electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum to form an alumite layer analogous to that of Atari, 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 11, as the material of anodized aluminum cools the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, as supported in the instant application, and is an implicit function of the material chosen.
The Examiner notices that the cooling is a functional limitation of the material as claimed, there being no other structure to define the cooling. Moreover, the structure of Hanzlik in view of Atari would only need to be capable of cooling, which is the case without further limitations as to how the cooling would be done in the structure. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structures that cause cooling) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As the structures claimed are substantially the same as the teachings of Hanzlik in view of Atari, this argument is not considered persuasive.
In regards to Claim 12, Hanzlik teaches wherein the substrate 102 comprises a major surface (horizontal surface of 102), and wherein the first side of the chuck entirely overlaps the major surface of the substrate (as shown in the overlapping sizes of 120 and 168 and 102 in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 14, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the second material is a coating or film covering the second side of the chuck (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 15, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the coating or film is a dielectric layer of alumite, which is implicitly a hard anodized coating (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 16, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the coating or film is a high emissivity coating configured to also provide chemical resistance, as it is alumina formed by anodizing aluminum, which is supported in the instant application as suitable materials, (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 17, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the second material is a high emissivity ceramic, as it is alumina formed by anodizing aluminum, which is supported in the instant application as suitable materials (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In regards to Claim 29, Hanzlik substrate holder 114 Fig. 1, 8 comprising: a chuck configured to immobilize a substrate 102 at a first side 168 of the chuck [0063] comprising a first material (aluminum, [0075]); the substrate 102 comprising a major surface (horizontal surface), wherein the first side 120 of the chuck entirely overlaps the major surface of the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1), a heater 130 disposed on or in the chuck and configured to heat the substrate; and a second material 122 disposed at a second side of the chuck opposing the first side, the second material comprising an exposed surface facing away from the substrate (as shown in Fig. 8) (as shown in Fig. 1 and 8) [0050-0117].
Hanzlik does not expressly teach that the second material is configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, the emissivity of the first material being lower than the emissivity of the second material.
Atari teaches an electrostatic chuck 1 Fig. 7 that is supported by a base/pedestal or second material 7 that is made out of aluminum that has been anodized (Col. 14 lines 25-35).
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 bottom aluminum plate of an electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum to form an alumite layer analogous to that of Atari, 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 11.
In regards to Claim 30, Hanzlik in view of Atari teaches the coating or film is a dielectric layer of alumite, which is implicitly a hard anodized coating (anodized layer, as per the rejection of Claim 29 above).
Claims 18 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0127037to Tannous.
In regards to Claim 18, Hanzlik teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1 comprising: a vacuum chamber 108 [0056]; an electrostatic chuck (ESC) 114 disposed in the vacuum chamber and having no liquid cooling mechanism (as shown in Fig. 1), the ESC being configured to clamp a substrate 102 to an upper surface of the ESC facing a localized processing source 106, 112; a heater 130 integrated with the ESC and configured to heat the substrate while processing the substrate; and a mechanical
arm 194 attached to the ESC and configured to move the substrate laterally relative to the localized processing source 106, 112 to process the substrate [0050-0117].
Hanzlik teaches that the robotic arm can be used to move the substrate relative to a treatment spray 106 but does not expressly teach a localized plasma source.
Tannous teaches a vacuum robot with an extendable arm [0080] in a chamber 203 Fig. 14A-C with a plasma generation system 205/206 with a cryogenic spraying nozzle 207 within chamber 203 as shown in Fig. 14A-C, such that the robotic arm moves between a cryogenic spray nozzle and a plasma generation/localized plasma source [0080-0081; 0043-0093].
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. Thus as the plasma localized source is a processing treatment for a wafer, like the treatment spray 106 of Hanzlik, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to make the spray of Hanzlik a localized plasma source or add a localized plasma source to the cryogenic spray, as per the teachings of Tannous. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B. As Hanzlik teaches a cryogenic spray and Tannous teaches cyrogenic spray and plasma treatment in the same chamber, the substitution of having just cryogenic to having plasma and cyrogenic treatment in the same chamber would be obvious.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 21, Hanzlik teaches wherein the substrate 102 comprises a major surface (horizontal surface of 102), and wherein the first side of the chuck entirely overlaps the major surface of the substrate (as shown in the overlapping sizes of 120 and 168 and 102 in Fig. 1).
Claims 19 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0127037 to Tannous and United States Patent No. 5413360 to Atari et al.
The teachings of Hanzlik in view of Tannous are relied upon as set forth in the 103 rejection of Claim 18 above.
In regards to Claim 19, Hanzlik substrate holder 114 Fig. 1, 8 comprising: a chuck configured to immobilize a substrate 102 at a first side 168 of the chuck [0063] comprising a first material (aluminum, [0075]);
a heater 130 disposed in the chuck and configured to heat the substrate [0067]; and a second material 124 disposed at a second side of the chuck opposing the first side (as shown in Fig. 1), the second material comprising an exposed surface facing away from the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1 and 8) [0050-0117].
Hanzlik does not expressly teach that the second material is configured to cool the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, the emissivity of the first material being lower than the emissivity of the second material.
Atari teaches an electrostatic chuck 1 Fig. 7 that is supported by a base/pedestal or second material 7 that is made out of aluminum that has been anodized (Col. 14 lines 25-35).
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 bottom aluminum plate of an electrostatic chuck anodized aluminum to form an alumite layer analogous to that of Atari, 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 11, as the material of anodized aluminum cools the substrate by emitting thermal radiation, as supported in the instant application, and is an implicit function of the material chosen.
In regards to Claim 23, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari teaches the second material is a coating or film of anodized aluminum, which is placed on the entire surface of 7 of Atari, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above.
In regards to Claim 24, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari teaches the coating or film is a dielectric layer of alumina, which is implicitly a hard anodized coating, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above and the teachings of Atari.
In regards to Claim 25, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari teaches the coating or film is a high emissivity coating configured to also provide chemical resistance, as supported by the instant application of the anodized aluminum being a suitable material, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above and the teachings of Atari.
In regards to Claim 26, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari teaches the second material is a high emissivity ceramic, as supported by the instant application of the anodized aluminum being a suitable material, as per the rejection of Claim 19 above and the teachings of Atari.
Claims 20 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0151396 to Hanzlik et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0127037to Tannous, United States Patent No. 5413360 to Atari et al and United States Patent Application No. 2013/0105087 to Cho et al.
The teachings of Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection above.
In regards to Claim 20, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari does not expressly teach an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, the exposed upper surface also comprising the second material.
Cho teaches an overscan shield in the form of a protective ceramic frame 115 that is made out of alumina (the same material as anodized aluminum) that surrounds the aluminum body, the frame protecting the aluminum body and protects the chuck from corrosion [0026; 0021-0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari with the teachings of Cho, and have added an alumina/anodized aluminum material frame to the outer vertical aluminum surfaces of 120/170 of Hanzlik, which is aluminum. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of protecting the aluminum body from corrosion. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting structure would have an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, the exposed upper surface also comprising the second material, as the frame would be added to the pre-existing aluminum body and thus extend laterally outward, thus resulting in the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 27, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari does not expressly teach an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, and an exposed lower surface opposite the exposed upper surface, the exposed lower surface also comprising the second material.
Cho teaches an overscan shield in the form of a protective ceramic frame 115 that is made out of alumina (the same material as anodized aluminum) that surrounds the aluminum body, the frame protecting the aluminum body and protects the chuck from corrosion [0026; 0021-0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari with the teachings of Cho, and have added an alumina/anodized aluminum material frame to the outer vertical aluminum surfaces of 120/170 of Hanzlik, which is aluminum. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of protecting the aluminum body from corrosion. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting structure would have an overscan shield comprising an overscan shield comprising an exposed upper surface extending laterally from outer edges of the substrate, and an exposed lower surface opposite the exposed upper surface, as the frame would be added to the pre-existing aluminum body and thus extend laterally outward, having exposed lower and upper surfaces, thus resulting in the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 28, Hanzlik in view of Tannous and Atari and Cho teaches the exposed upper surface also comprises the second material, as per the teachings of Cho above.
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