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, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the ratio of magnesium oxide to alumina in the second layer is 200:10.” It is unclear if this is a mass or volume ratio.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Parkhe teaches a substrate support assembly that includes a ceramic puck and a thermally conductive base having an upper surface that is bonded to a lower surface of the ceramic puck (Abstract). With reference to FIGS. 1-2, the electrostatic puck 166 may be fabricated by a ceramic material such as aluminum nitride (AlN) or aluminum oxide (Al2O3) ([0018]). With respect to FIG. 2, the electrostatic puck 166 is bonded to the thermally conductive base 164 by a bond 212 ([0023]). The bond 212 (a first layer) may be a silicone bond, or may include another bonding material ([0023]). For example, the bond 212 may include a thermal conductive paste or tape having at least one of an acrylic based compound and silicone based compound ([0023]). Example bonding materials include a thermal conductive paste or tape having at least one of an acrylic based compound and silicone based compound with metal or ceramic fillers mixed or added thereto ([0023]). The metal filler may be at least one of Al, Mg, Ta, Ti, or combination thereof and the ceramic filler may be at least one of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium diboride (TiB2) or combination thereof ([0023]). An outer perimeter 216 of the thermally conductive base 164 may be coated with a plasma resistant layer 238 (a second layer) ([0032]). In some embodiments, a surface of the electrostatic puck 166 is also coated with the plasma resistant layer 238 ([0032]). The plasma resistant layer 238 may be a deposited or sprayed ceramic such as Y2O3 (yttria or yttrium oxide), Y4Al2O9 (YAM), Al2O3 (alumina) Y3Al5O12 (YAG), YAlO3 (YAP), SiC (silicon carbide), Si3N4 (silicon nitride), Sialon, AlN (aluminum nitride), AlON (aluminum oxynitride), TiO2 (titania), ZrO2 (zirconia), TiC (titanium carbide), ZrC (zirconium carbide), TiN (titanium nitride), TiCN (titanium carbon nitride) Y2O3 stabilized ZrO2 (YSZ), and so on ([0032]). The plasma resistant layer may also be a ceramic composite such as Y3Al5O12 distributed in Al2O3 matrix, a Y2O3—ZrO2 solid solution or a SiC—Si3N4 solid solution ([0032] and [0033]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Aikawa et al. (US 2013/0235507 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Parkhe remains as applied above.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer further comprises magnesium oxide.
However, Aikawa teaches a surface corrosion-resistant layer (2) that is made from a ceramic material having magnesium, aluminum, oxygen and nitrogen as main components, the ceramic material having, as a main phase, an MgO—AlN solid solution crystal phase obtained by dissolving aluminum nitride in magnesium oxide (Abstract). The ceramic material includes the magnesium-aluminum oxynitride phase as the main phase, and more superior in corrosion resistance against a strongly corrosive gas such as a halogen based gas or the like compared with alumina, for example ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included MgO in the plasma resistant layer of Parkhe in order to obtain a composition that is more superior in corrosion resistance against a strongly corrosive gas such as a halogen based gas or the like compared with alumina, as taught by Aikawa ([0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Aikawa teaches that, on the viewpoint of corrosion resistance, in a composition of powder mixture, it is preferably mixed 70 mass percent or more and 99 mass percent or less of magnesium oxide, 0.5 mass percent and more and 25 mass percent or less of aluminum nitride, and 0.5 mass percent or more and 25 mass percent or less of aluminum oxide, and it is more preferably mixed 70 mass percent or more and 90 mass percent or less of magnesium oxide, 5 mass percent and more and 25 mass percent or less of aluminum nitride and 5 mass percent or more and 25 mass percent or less of aluminum oxide ([0033]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ito et al. (US 10,192,766 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Parkhe remains as applied above.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnesium in the first layer has a concentration in a range of 1-500 ppm.
However, Ito teaches an electrostatic chuck device 80 that includes a silicone adhesive layer 24 having a thickness in a range of 2 μm to 30 μm (Abstract). Silicone resin is contained as a main component (70% by mass or more of the total mass of the silicone adhesive layer) (col. 9, lines 56-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the magnesium in an amount of less than 30 wt% in order to obtain an adhesive layer that has high thermal conductivity (Ito: col. 9, lines 56-64).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Firouzdor et al. (US 10,745,805 B2), further in view of Halm et al. (US 2020/0013660 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Parkhe remains as applied above.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose wherein the protective coating (the combination of the bonding layer and the plasma resistant layer of Parkhe) has a thickness in a range of 130nm to 170nm.
However, Firouzdor teaches a plasma resistant coating that may comprise a solid solution of Y2O3—ZrO2 and may have a thickness of about 5 nm to about 3 μm, and may protect pore walls from erosion (Abstract). The plasma resistant coating may be a high purity metal oxide layer (e.g., high purity aluminum oxide) or a rare earth metal-containing oxide layer (e.g., a yttrium-containing oxide layer) (col. 3, lines 10-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the plasma resistant layer of Parkhe with a thickness of about 5 nm to about 3 μm in order to obtain a plasma resistant coating that remains permeable to gas (Firouzdor: Abstract).
Parkhe in view of Firouzdor does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the bonding layer of Parkhe (a first layer as claimed).
However, Halm teaches an adhesion-promoter layer that comprises, e.g. SiO2 or Si3N4, in particular with a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 1 μm ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the bonding layer of Parkhe in view of Firouzdor with a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 1 μm because Halm suggests that this is a suitable thickness range for an adhesive layer in an electrostatic holding apparatus (Abstract and [0059]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Halm et al. (US 2020/0013660 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Parkhe remains as applied above.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 10nm to 50nm.
However, Halm teaches an adhesion-promoter layer that comprises, e.g. SiO2 or Si3N4, in particular with a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 1 μm ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the bonding layer of Parkhe with a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 1 μm because Halm suggests that this is a suitable thickness range for an adhesive layer in an electrostatic holding apparatus (Abstract and [0059]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Firouzdor et al. (US 10,745,805 B2), further in view of Iwasawa et al. (US 10,221,105 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Parkhe remains as applied above.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer has a thickness in a range of 50nm to 170nm.
However, Firouzdor teaches a plasma resistant coating that may comprise a solid solution of Y2O3—ZrO2 and may have a thickness of about 5 nm to about 3 μm, and may protect pore walls from erosion (Abstract). The plasma resistant coating may be a high purity metal oxide layer (e.g., high purity aluminum oxide) or a rare earth metal-containing oxide layer (e.g., a yttrium-containing oxide layer) (col. 3, lines 10-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the plasma resistant layer of Parkhe with a thickness of about 5 nm to about 3 μm in order to obtain a plasma resistant coating that remains permeable to gas (Firouzdor: Abstract).
Parkhe in view of Firouzdor does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer comprises nanocrystals having a diameter in a range of 30nm to 40nm.
However, Iwasawa teaches a plasma-resistant member including: a base member; and a layer structural component formed at a surface of the base member, the layer structural component including an yttria polycrystalline body and being plasma resistant (Abstract). Iwasawa teaches that “polycrystal” refers to a structural body in which crystal particles are bonded/integrated (col. 8, lines 7-19). Normally, the diameter of the average crystal particle is not less than 5 nanometers (nm) and not more than 50 nm (col. 8, lines 7-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included polycrystalline yttria having an average crystal particle size of not less than 5 nanometers (nm) and not more than 50 nm in the plasma resistant layer of Parkhe in order to obtain a plasma-resistant member that can provide increased adhesion strength or adhesion force (Iwasawa: col. 2, lines 8-11).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe et al. (US 2014/0334060 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Anada et al. (US 9,960,067 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Parkhe remains as applied above.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose wherein the protective coating has a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and the article has a second CTE; wherein the first CTE differs from the second CTE by a range of 25-50%.
However, Anada teaches that, preferably, the ratio of the difference between a thermal expansion coefficient of a ceramic porous body 71 and a thermal expansion coefficient of a ceramic insulating film 72 is 50% or less (col. 15, lines 46-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the ceramic body and the film layers in the substrate support assembly of Parkhe with a difference in thermal expansion coefficient of 100% or less and, more preferably 50% or less, in order to prevent the ceramic body from being destroyed (Anada: col. 15, lines 34-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Banda et al. (US 2014/0203526 A1) is similar to Parkhe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights