DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (6/1/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were examined in a Non-Final on 4/22/2026. This office action is in response to the submission dated 8/24/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 17-23 are pending and being examined.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael Parker (WO 2019040794).
Michael Parker discloses a method for producing a electrostatic chuck (Abstract) to be used within a plasma etching chamber for the manufacturing of semiconductor components, comprising:
providing a body forming the substrate of the device, the body being ceramic (Abstract).
applying a first coating on the surface of the body, wherein the first coating comprises pure aluminum metal which could ne 99.99% by weight (Para 19).
applying a second coating on the metal aluminum-coated body, wherein the second coating comprises a ceramic coating layer (this would be second ceramic see para 15).
Regarding claim 6, application of aluminum could be done by PVD, CVD or other methods. CVD and PVD are known to be vacuum coating methods (para 24, 48, 55).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, second ceramic layer could be alumina, aluminum nitride, or other ceramic (Para 52).
Claim 9 is rejected with claim 1 as being of the same scope.
Regarding claim 20, the device is disclosed to be an electrostatic chuck.
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 2-3, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Parker (WO 2019040794) in view of Bhatnagar et al (US 7732056).
Regarding claim 2 and 3 directed to cleaning and polishing as a pre-process, Bhatnagar et al disclose cleaning and polishing including with an alkaline solution (Col 4 line 64- Col 5 line 18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have cleaned and polished the surface of the device before applying protective coating.
Regarding claim 19 and 23 uneven layer thickness is disclosed in Bhatnagar at (Fig 2a-2c).
Claims 4, 10-11, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Parker (WO 2019040794) in view of Marscher (US 4109031) or HP Dillon (US 3091548).
Regarding claims 4 and 10-11, Intermediate layer being a transitional layer between metal and ceramic is not explicitly disclosed in Michael Parker.
Transitional layer being 100% metallic and 0% ceramic proximate metal layer and gradually changing to 100% ceramic and 0% ceramic to provide strong and stable joint was disclosed by Marscher (Col 1 lines 11-29).
HP Dillon discloses similar intermediate layer explicitly in the Fig (1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have an intermediate layer for strong and stable joint between layers.
Claims 5, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Parker (WO 2019040794) in view of Boyd Jr et al (US 20170140970).
Regarding these claims microstructures on devices are understood as structures like mesa which help in protective coating to adhere strongly.
Boyd discloses such ESC device and microstructure in a range (Fig 4, 492 or Fig 2, 202) to help good adhesion.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have a microstructure for strong and stable joint between layers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Parker (WO 2019040794 in view of Boyd Jr et al (US 20170140970) and Bhatnagar et al (US 7732056).
Regarding claims 14-15, as best understood coating profile as claimed is due to the fact that narrow openings may not be filled all the way. This was well understood in the prior art before the filing date of this application. Fig 2c of Bhatnagar discloses this at 128.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the filing date of this application to have such non-uniformity as being common.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Parker (WO 2019040794) in view of Marscher (US 4109031) or HP Dillon (US 3091548) and Pakamanis et al (WO 2016053070).
Regarding claim 22 sputter deposition of aluminum-based layer is disclosed but not specifically that it could be magnetron sputtering.
Pakamanis et al disclose magnetron sputtering for aluminum-based layer as below.
“As an intermediate layer, metals such as aluminum, nickel and copper are often used, which, along with high ductility, have good adhesion to the metal and ceramic substrates, as well as high processability, which makes it possible to use existing processes for their application, such as thermal spraying ( plasma and flame), ion-plasma and magnetron sputtering, as well as electrolytic coating methods.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have sputter deposition using magnetron sputtering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elliot et al (US 20170263486) discloses aluminum brazing layer between two ceramic layers.
Sun et al (US 20150311044) discloses multilayer deposition on an electrostatic chuck using sputtered aluminum (para 39) over which ceramic with varying concentration of oxygen to make ceramic including intermediate layers.
Applicants’ 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