Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/349,006

ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK COVER PIECE TO ENABLE PROCESSING OF DIELECTRIC SUBSTRATES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 07, 2023
Examiner
SNYDER, ALAN W
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
561 granted / 679 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
715
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are similar enough to examine together. This is not found persuasive because as pointed out in the Restriction Requirement of 11/10/2025, the two inventions have a proper combination/subcombination relationship, which results in an Examination burden, per MPEP 806.05(c). Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelov et al. (US 20120264051, hereinafter ‘Angelov’) in view of Koelmel et al. (US 20090209112, hereinafter ‘Koelmel’), Raj et al. (US 20160329230, hereinafter ‘Raj’) and Boyd Jr. et al. (US 20190111541, hereinafter ‘Boyd’). Regarding claim 1, Angelov discloses a substrate support assembly 202 configured for use in a semiconductor processing chamber. The substrate support assembly comprises a substrate support 204 and a cover plate 206 disposed over the support surface. The substrate support comprises a support surface 220 and an outer lip 416 surrounding the support surface. The support surface further comprises a plurality of grooves (Paragraph [0054]) and a central opening (see Fig. 3B). The cover plate comprises a top surface 502 and a bottom surface 510. An alignment protrusion 514 extends from the bottom surface and into the central opening. Angelov does not disclose the claimed center tap, plurality of dimples, plurality of lift pin openings and the edge ring as claimed. Koelmel discloses a similar apparatus, wherein the substrate support is provided with a plurality of lift pin openings 302 passing through the entirety of the substrate support, and an edge ring 226 disposed around the top surface of the substrate support. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the lift pin openings through the substrate support and cover plate of Angelov, as taught by Koelmel in order to easily lift the substrate from the support when needed. Additionally, providing the edge ring of Koelmel to the apparatus of Angelov would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made in order to direct energy to only the desired part of the substrate if desired (Paragraph [0028]). Neither Angelov nor Koelmel disclose the claimed center tap or dimples in the substrate support. Raj discloses another similar device, wherein the substrate support is provided with a center tap 305. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a center tap as taught by Raj to the substrate support of Angelov in view of Koelmel to electrostatically hold a workpiece in place. Finally, Boyd discloses yet another similar device, wherein the support surface of a substrate support is provided with a plurality of dimples 217. As outlined in Paragraph [0054] of Angelov, various embodiments of the contact between the substrate support and cover plate are contemplated, ranging from polished surfaces and complete contact to a gap, or supports/spacers if desired. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of dimples between the support surface and cover plate of the device of Angelov in view of Koelmel and Raj, as taught by Angelov/Boyd, in order to achieve the proper balance of support and heat transfer resistance between the two pieces of the substrate support assembly. Regarding claim 2, Angelov does not explicitly disclose a spacer on top of the outer lip, supporting the edge ring. However, forming the outer lip in two pieces, such that one part of the outer lip is provided on the cover plate in the form of a spacer 406 would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to simplify the construction of the substrate support (Paragraph [0059]). Regarding claim 3, Angelov discloses the top surface of the cover plate comprising a support ring 504 centered around a central axis of the top surface. Regarding claim 4, Angelov discloses a support 506 extending from the top surface. Angelov does not explicitly disclose this support lying at the central axis, but contemplates various configurations (Paragraphs [0064-0066]). Providing a central support to ensure the substrate does not sag in the center would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made. Regarding claim 5, Angelov discloses the cover plate comprising an aluminum material (e.g. aluminum oxide, Paragraphs [0067-0068]). Regarding claims 6 and 7, Angelov does not disclose the outer surface of the cover plate and inner surface of the edge ring interlocking. Koelmel discloses the edge ring and outer surface of the substrate support being provided with a respective plurality of protrusions 406 and plurality of notches 312, so as to facilitate interlocking the two pieces together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the interlocking features of Koelmel to the modified device of claim 1 in order to ensure the edge ring is installed in the desired position. Regarding claim 8, Angelov discloses that the top surface of the cover plate is planar and unbroken from a radial distance of about 3 mm to about 80 mm from a central axis of the cover plate (Paragraph [0066]). Regarding claim 9, Angelov does not disclose the edge ring and substrate support comprising ceramic materials. Koelmel discloses the edge ring comprising ceramic materials (Paragraph [0035]) but is silent as to the material(s) of the substrate support. Boyd discloses the substrate support being formed from a ceramic material (Paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the edge ring and substrate support of the modified device of claim 1 from ceramic materials, as taught by Koelmel and Boyd, in order to allow them to function as desired during operation. See also MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583036
Conduit Reamer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576453
MACHINING SYSTEM AND CUTTING INSERT AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569953
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12544838
CUTTING ELEMENT AND THE USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539544
BORING TOOL AND CUTTING INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month