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 Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 3/28/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0035666).
Regarding claim 1, Lim et al. discloses an electrostatic chuck assembly comprising: an electrostatic chuck (130) comprising a body and an electrostatic electrode (135) at least partially embedded within the body (figure 1); an electrostatic chuck power supply (152) electrically coupled to the electrostatic electrode (135) (figure 1, paragraph 27); a filter (155) interposed between the electrostatic chuck (130) and the electrostatic chuck power supply (152) and electrically coupled to the electrostatic chuck (130) and the electrostatic chuck power supply (152); and a current detector (160) electrically coupled between the electrostatic chuck power supply (152)
and the filter (155) (figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Lim et al. discloses a heater (137) at least partially embedded in the body (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lim et al. discloses a current protection device (160) (figure 1 and paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 6, Lim et al. discloses a power management system (150) (figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lim et al. discloses a plasma-enhanced deposition system comprising the electrostatic chuck (abstract & paragraphs 2 and 3).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0035666) in view of Parkhe et al. (USP 5,886,865).
Lim et al. discloses the claimed subject matter as set forth in the rejection above. Lim et al. is silent about its current detector detecting current leakage. Parkhe discloses an electrostatic chuck assembly comprising: an electrostatic chuck (110) comprising a body and an electrostatic electrode (112/114) at least partially embedded within the body (figure 1); an electrostatic chuck power supply (108) electrically coupled to the electrostatic electrode (112/114) (figure 1, col. 3, lines 54-56); a current detector (120) electrically coupled to the electrostatic chuck power supply (108) and a current detector (122: col. 4, lines 11-20) and a controller to detect current leakage between the electrostatic electrode and the current detector prior to a process cycle (figures 1-4 and abstract & col. 2 lines 24-42). 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 the current detector measure current leakage using a controller, as taught by Parkhe for the purpose of having the tool to alert the operator when it was time to clean the chuck thus have the advantage of detecting contamination of the chuck and prevent chuck failure ) col. 2 lines 24-42 and col. 6, line 66 through col. 7, line 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0035666) and as evidenced by Milesi et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0262297) and Chen (US Pub. No. 2008/0136442).
Lim et al. discloses the claimed subject matter as set forth in the rejection above. Lim et al. is silent about the type of isolator used. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the electrostatic chucks art to employ a digital isolator/signal isolator between control circuitry and chuck related components to improve noise, to enhance system safety and improve overall system reliability. This is evidenced by Milesi et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0262297) which recites using digital isolator/signal isolator for the purpose of “transferring information without a physical connection” (paragraph 3) and Chen (US Pub. No. 2008/0136442) which discloses “This genus of digital isolators shows dramatic improvements over traditional opto-isolators in terms of speed, power, edge symmetry and cost” (paragraph 50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 6/7/26
Prosecution Insights