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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 16, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 16 of co-pending Application No. 18/206,443 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. All of the claim limitations of the claims 1, 16, 23 are recited in claims of the co-pending application 18/206,443. The co-pending application discloses an electrostatic chuck comprising: a ceramic body comprising a first surface; two or more regions on the first surface, wherein the regions are arranged concentrically on the first surface; wherein each region comprising a retaining ring, a plurality of structures; plurality of gas conduits, one or more embedded electrodes.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-34 are allowed, pending the filing of the terminal disclaimer as indicated above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claims 1, 16, and 20:
The prior art does not disclose an electrostatic chuck (ESC) comprising;
a ceramic body [Fig. 3B, 114] comprising a first surface;
one region comprises: a retaining ring [Fig. 3A, ring assembly 112] arranged on the first surface and defining an outer edge of the region; and
a plurality of structures [Fig. 3B, supporting structures as shown] arranged on the first surface and within the region, the plurality of structures configured to support a surface of a substrate [Fig. 3B, wafer W] when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck;
one or more gas conduits [Fig. 2, gas supply 20, gas conduits 13a, 13b, 13c];
one or more embedded electrodes [Fig. 2, electrodes 116] within the ceramic body and arranged with respect to the first surface, wherein the one or more embedded electrodes are configured to generate a retaining force on the surface of the substrate when the substrate is retained by the ESC structure [col. 3 to col. 7].
However, the prior art does not disclose an electrostatic chuck (ESC) structure embodied in a machine-readable medium for designing, manufacturing, or testing a design, the ESC structure comprising:
two or more regions defined on the first surface, wherein the two or more regions are arranged concentrically with respect to each other on the first surface, wherein each region comprises:
a retaining ring arranged on the first surface and defining an outer edge of the region; and
a plurality of structures arranged on the first surface and within the region, the plurality of structures configured to support a surface of a substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck;
one or more gas conduits configured to introduce a gas into the two or more regions through the ceramic body and to the first surface, wherein the two or more regions are configured to retain a positive gas pressure within a respective region and the surface of a substrate when the substrate is retained by the electrostatic chuck.
These features in combination with the rest of the claim limitations is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHARTI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8659. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 AM - 5 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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
DHARTI PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/DHARTI H PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838