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, Species II (claims 1-2 and 5-9) in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4 and 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-2, 5-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (U.S. 2021/0006182) in view of Mase et al. (U.S. 2019/0283212).
Referring to Figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0063]-[0070],[0096]-[0102], Maeta discloses an electrostatic chuck 1 for electrostatically attracting a substrate, comprising: a chuck body 2 formed of first ceramic particles and having a substrate-facing surface facing the substrate attracted to the electrostatic chuck (par. [0061]); and a plurality of convex portions 22 formed on the substrate-facing surface of the chuck body (par.[0069]), wherein each of the plurality of convex portions is formed of second ceramic particles.
Maeta is silent on ceramic particles having a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less.
Referring to Figure 6 and paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0061], Mase et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art for the ceramic particles of an electrostatic chuck to have a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less since it’s a conventionally known property used for a substrate suction surface of electrostatic chucks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the convex portion of Maeta to have ceramic particles having a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less as taught by Mase et al. since it’s a conventionally known property used for a substrate suction surface of electrostatic chucks.
Maeta is silent on convex portions having a porosity of 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less.
Referring to column 13, lines 51-55 and column 14, lines 1-14, Kamitani et al. teach an electrostatic chuck wherein the chuck body has a porosity of 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less in order to prevent insulation breakdown from repetitive voltage impression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the convex portion of Maeta to have a porosity of 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less as taught by Kamitani et al. in order to prevent insulation breakdown from repetitive voltage impression.
With respect to claim 2, the electrostatic chuck of Maeta further includes wherein a surface roughness of an endmost surface 22a of each of the plurality of convex portions 22 is 0.01 mm or less in terms of an arithmetic mean roughness (pars.[0096]-[0097]).
With respect to claim 5, the electrostatic chuck of Maeta in view of Mase et al. and Kamitani et al., wherein each of the plurality of convex portions, including the tip-side layer, is entirely formed of the second ceramic particles having the major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less, and has the porosity of 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less (Mase et al.-par.[0061]), Kamitani et al.- col. 13, lines 51-55 and col. 14, lines 1-14).
With respect to claim 6, the electrostatic chuck of Maeta further includes wherein a surface roughness of the substrate-facing surface 11d of the chuck body is 0.01 mm or less in terms of an arithmetic mean roughness (par.[0202]).
With respect to claim 7, a substrate support comprising: the electrostatic chuck of Maeta; and further includes a base 3 having an upper surface on which the electrostatic chuck is provided (par.[0061]).
With respect to claim 9, referring to Figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0063]-[0070],[0096]-[0102], Maeta discloses an electrostatic chuck 1 for electrostatically attracting a substrate, comprising: a chuck body 2 formed of first ceramic particles and having a substrate-facing surface facing the substrate attracted to the electrostatic chuck (par.[0061]); and a plurality of convex portions 22 formed on the substrate-facing surface of the chuck body (par.[0069]), wherein the plurality of convex portions are formed by forming a layer of second ceramic particles on the substrate-facing surface of the chuck body, selectively irradiating portions of the layer of the second ceramic particles corresponding to the plurality of convex portions with light (par.[0192], i.e. laser) and subsequently removing unirradiated portions in the layer of the second ceramic particles (par.[0101]-[0102]).
Maeta is silent on ceramic particles having a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less.
Referring to Figure 6 and paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0061], Mase et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art for the ceramic particles of an electrostatic chuck to have a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less since it’s a conventionally known property used for a substrate suction surface of electrostatic chucks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the irradiated portions of Maeta to have ceramic particles having a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less as taught by Mase et al. since it’s a conventionally known property used for a substrate suction surface of electrostatic chucks.
Maeta is silent on a porosity of the irradiated portions is set to 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less.
Referring to column 13, lines 51-55 and column 14, lines 1-14, Kamitani et al. teach an electrostatic chuck wherein the chuck body has a porosity of 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less in order to prevent insulation breakdown from repetitive voltage impression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the irradiated portion of Maeta to have a porosity of 0.1% or more and 1.0% or less as taught by Kamitani et al. in order to prevent insulation breakdown from repetitive voltage impression.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeta (U.S. 2021/0006182) in view of Mase et al. (U.S. 2019/0283212) and Kamitani et al. (U.S. 7,586,734) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9 above, and further in view of Hayashi (U.S. 2015/0243541).
The teachings of Maeta in view of Mase et al. and Kamitani et al. have been discussed above. Specifically, Maeta discloses a substrate support. Maeta in view of Mase et al. and Kamitani et al. is silent on a processing chamber configured to be depressurized and accommodate the substrate support.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0034], Hayashi teaches that it is conventionally known in the art during substrate processing for a processing chamber to be configured to be depressurized and accommodate the substrate support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Maeta in view of Mase et al. and Kamitani et al. to include a processing chamber configured to be depressurized and accommodate the substrate support as taught by Hayashi since it is a conventionally known component used in substrate processing under vacuum conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new reference Mase et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of convex portions is formed of second ceramic particles having a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Venkatraman et al.’592, Ito et al.’515, and Hiramatsu et al.’607 teach ceramic particles having a major axis diameter of 50 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less.
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 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 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights