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) are pending and being examined.
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-19 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 13-15, 18-19 recite step of micro or nano structuring device. The specification states these terms but does not disclose any detail about what is meant by them. Therefore, their scope is indefinite. Fig 5 discloses mesa like structures on the electrostatic chuck. This is how these claims are being interpreted in this application.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-18 recite “preferably” for different claimed parameters. The term “preferably” is indefinite.
The term “preferably” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 12 pore inlet or pore outlet is unclear.
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, 6-9, 12, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ram Chandran et al (US 2007221132).
Ram Chandran et al disclose providing protective coating over a device which could be used in a plasma etching chamber. The device could be an electrostatic chuck (Para 4). Ram Chandran et al further teach applying a protective coat with first composition comprising a metal of the type Zr, V, Ta, Nb, Hf, Ti, Al, Cr, or a metal of the lanthanide series (Abstract) and a second composition which could be oxide, nitride, oxynitride, carbide, or nitride of one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Al, B, Si, Ga, refractory hard metals, and transition metals, and combinations thereof. (Para 14).
Regarding claim 6 coating could be applied using CVD (Para 3) or PVD (Para 66).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 claimed metals are included as above.
Regarding claims 8 and 17 second material as being oxide, nitride, oxynitride, carbide, or nitride is disclosed as above.
Claim 9 is rejected with claim 1.
Regarding claim 12 pores are disclosed as being common (Para 83-84).
Regarding claim 20 ESC is disclosed as above.
Claims 1 and 9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lubomirsky et al (US 20200185203).
Lubomirsky et al disclose a pedestal for supporting a substrate and disclose an electrically conductive layer of metal (Para 61) and a send coating of ceramic (222 and 224) of ceramic on top of it.
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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram Chandran et al (US 2007221132) 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 uneven layer thickness is disclosed in Bhatnagar at (Fig 2a-2c).
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram Chandran et al (US 2007221132) 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 disclosed in Ram Chandran et al.
Transitional layer being 100% metallic and 0% ceramic proximate metal layer and gradually changing to and 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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram Chandran et al (US 2007221132) 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 Ram Chandran et al (US 2007221132) 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 facts 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 skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have such non-uniformity as being common.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram Chandran et al (US 2007221132) in view of Boyd Jr et al (US 20170140970) and Ishida et al (JP 2008-135736).
Regarding claim 18 the dimensions of the microstructures were not disclosed in Boyd but were disclosed in Ishida et al.
Ishida et al disclose an electrostatic chuck with projections which are of height 50 nm and 15 µm spacing which is way more than 400nm. It is noted that large spacing would allow conformal coating to avoid the problem of not coating narrow spacings which occurs generally.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have widely spaced protrusions for proper coverage of protective layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al (US 20150311044) disclose pores in the ceramic layer and therefore in the intermediate layer too (Fig 2A and 2B).
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