DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (4/19/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were pending. In response to an election requirement the Applicant elected claims 1-2 and 7-20. Claims 1-2 and 7-20 were examined in a Non-Final on 2/24/2026.
This office action is in response to Applicants submission dated 5/26/2026. Claims were amended, so that claims 1-2 and 8-25 are being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant argues that the porous region 71 and 91 of Shiraishi cannot reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to any mesh structure.
In response it is noted that mesh is an alternative means to create porous structure as noted in Tomoyoshi used in this office action.
Additionally, Hyoungkyu Son (KR 102223766) disclose mesh members (Fig 6, 279a, 279b ) in heat transfer gas line 270 to control supply pressure which is known to cause abnormal discharge (See the description).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1and 18 recite the following:
wherein a maximum free flowing distance of the heat transfer gas within the gas supply flow path in a direction of an electric field formed by the high-frequency power is 5 mm or less,
wherein the gas supply flow path extends in the direction of the electric field, and
wherein an internal space of the gas supply flow path is partitioned by a plurality of mesh structures.
In this instance the term “maximum free flowing distance” is unclear. The specification appears to relate 5 mm to the vertical distance of helical gas tubing of Fig 4 and DY3 of Fig 7 between mesh structures. This is how this claim is interpreted.
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 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 1-2, 8-13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H J Kim (KR 10-0837625) in view of Shiraishi et al (US 20200286767), Tomoyoshi (US 20040085706) and Hyoungkyu Son (KR 102223766).
disclose mesh members (Fig 6, 279a, 279b ) in heat transfer gas line 270 to control supply pressure which is known to cause abnormal discharge (See the description).
Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
a process chamber (110) configured to accommodate a substrate processing;
an electrostatic chuck (132) in the process chamber and configured to support the substrate, the electrostatic chuck having a microcavity (132a) configured to store a heat transfer gas;
a lower electrode (134) in contact with a lower surface of the electrostatic chuck;
a high-frequency power supply (190) configured to applying high-frequency power to the lower electrode;
a conductive supporter spaced (138) apart from a lower portion of the lower electrode and grounded thereto;
a gas supply line (140) configured to supply the heat transfer gas being helium (See Technical -Solution); and
a discharge suppressor (150 and Fig 2) between the lower electrode and the conductive supporter, the discharge suppressor including a gas supply flow path (152a) that is part of the gas supply line and connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the discharge suppressor.
Regarding the limitation “a three-dimensionally printed discharge suppressor” it is noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding the limitation “the gas supply flow path having a space portion with a length of 5 mm or less in a direction of an electric field formed by the high-frequency power” Kim discloses the gas flow path configured for low acceleration of electrons (See the description) and indirectly proposes gas paths with small dimensions and low energy in order to prevent formation of discharge in gas lines.
Kim however do not explicitly disclose gas path space portion with a length of 5mm or less.
Shiraishi et al disclose an electrostatic chuck with cavity to store heat transfer gas (Fig 1, 14) and disclose plurality of porous structures (71 and 91) in the gas line (Fig 13) partitioned by plates 11 and 50a (Fig 1). The plates are joined by adhesive (60) to create a space which would be less than 5 mm (almost close to 0) considering the dimensions of holes 15b (0.05mm) and 15a (1mm).
It is noted that mesh structure is an obvious variation and equivalent of porous structure.
Tomoyoshi teaches porous dielectric or conductive member in an electrostatic chuck to allow heat transfer gas to pass through and prevent abnormal discharge (Para 18) and teaches that porous material allows heat transfer gas like mesh (Para 9).
Additionally, Hyoungkyu Son disclose mesh members (Fig 6, 279a, 279b ) in heat transfer gas line 270 to control supply pressure which is known to cause abnormal discharge (See the description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used plurality of mesh structures for prevention of abnormal discharge before the filing date of this application since such structure would allow better gas conductivity with narrow path for prevention of abnormal discharge.
Regarding claim 2 and 19 seamless inner wall is disclosed in Kim (Fig 1) and Ishikawa (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 8-10 and 23-25 the porous structures 71 and 91 are parallel and appear to be same size and have same central axis.
Regarding claim 11 and 20 heat transfer gas is disclosed to be helium (See above).
Regarding claim 12 overlapping cavity is disclosed in Kim (Fig 1) and Ishikawa (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13 insulating material is disclosed both Kim (ceramic or Teflon) and Ishikawa (ceramic).
Claims 15-18 are rejected with as claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claims 21-22 discharge suppressor in Kim modified by Shiraishi includes body and gas supply ports.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H J Kim (KR 10-0837625) in view of Shiraishi et al (JP 2020 150257), Tomoyoshi (US 20040085706) and Hyoungkyu Son (KR 102223766) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Yanai et al (US 20150371832).
Regarding claim 14, discharge suppressor includes insulator in Kim (ceramic or Teflon), but the insulator including polyether ether ketone is not explicitly disclosed.
Yanai et al disclose a plasma chamber where a gas guide of an insulating material is disclosed to be Teflon or polyether ether ketone (Para 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulator material, polyether ether ketone for a component for prevention of abnormal discharge before the filing date of this application as being usable for gas flow path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (KR 20210155121) discloses an electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas path including porous insert (Fig 3, 281).
Naoki Furukawa (US 20210391204) discloses an electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas path including porous insert (Fig 2, 5 and Para 27).
Horiuchi et al (US 20170358476) discloses an electrostatic chuck with heat transfer gas path including porous insert (Fig 5A-C, 20).
Himori et al (US 20050011456) discloses a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1) comprising: a process chamber configured to accommodate a substrate processing; an electrostatic chuck (112) in the process chamber and configured to support the substrate, the electrostatic chuck having a microcavity (168) configured to store a heat transfer gas; a lower electrode (110) in contact with a lower surface of the electrostatic chuck; a high-frequency power supply (118) configured to applying high-frequency power to the lower electrode; a conductive supporter spaced (107) apart from a lower portion of the lower electrode and grounded thereto; and a gas supply line (160) configured to supply the heat transfer gas being helium and a discharge suppressor (150 and Fig 2) between the lower electrode and the conductive supporter, the discharge suppressor including a gas supply flow path (164) that is part of the gas supply line and connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the discharge suppressor.
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights