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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 1 was amended to recited an edge ring and an insulator ring each having a recess. See Figs. 4-7 of Sugawa (US 2021/0210369) which illustrated a protective member 70/80 and edge ring 33 and insulator ring 27b. The prior art of Sugawa fails to teach magnetic field generator as recited in claim 1. Note protective member 32 of JP 2020-047746A (using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant with the IDS filed July 16, 2026). See [0035] of JP 2020-047746A which recites that fiber containing portion 32 contains hard magnetic fibers 322. See [0031] of JP 2020-047746A which recites that the fibers 322 are made of metals such as ferritic materials.
Claims 17-20 were also introduced in the amendment filed July 20, 2026 and address in this action. See the location of the recesses in the prior art of Sugawa and combine those teachings with the illustrations of JP 2020-047746 in Figures 2-8 to consider that the combined teachings of the Sugawa and JP 2020-047746 obviate the present invention.
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 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawa (US 2021/0210369) in view of JP 2020-047746A (henceforth known as JP’746 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant with the IDS filed July 16, 2026).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Sugawa teachesa substrate support comprising: a base 28; an electrostatic chuck 25 (having mounting part 27 which comprises 27a and 27b) provided on the base and having a substrate support surface sized to support a substrate thereon ; an adhesive layer 50 provided between the base and the electrostatic chuck to bond the base to the electrostatic chuck; an edge ring 33 having a first recess formed in a corner portion at a lower inner periphery of the edge ring facing the electrostatic chuck; an insulator ring 27b (material of construction of 27 is a dielectric such as ceramics in [0020]) having a second recess formed in a corner portion at an upper inner periphery of the insulator ring facing the base; and a protective member 70/80 including a main body surrounding an outer periphery of the adhesive layer to protect the adhesive layer. See Figs. 5 and 7 of Sugawa.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
527
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Sugawa fails to teach that the protective member includes a magnetic field generator provided in the main body to generate a magnetic field in an outer peripheral portion of the substrate and around the substrate.
JP’746 teaches a substrate support with a base 20, an electrostatic chuck 100 made of plate-shaped member 10, an adhesive layer 31 and a protective member 32 which is made of magnetic materials such that each fiber 322 is a magnetic field generator see [0029] – [0037] of JP’746 and Figs. 1-4 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
472
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
446
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The motivation to construct the protective members to include a magnetic field generator is that the magnetic material provides both the clamp function and sealing function for the protective members thus enhancing the protective members of Sugawa. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to construct the protective members of Sugawa with magnetic material that generates magnetic field as suggested by JP’746 in order to provide both the clamp function and sealing function for the protective members thus enhancing the protective member of Sugawa.
Regarding claim 2: Recall the prior art of Sugawa fails to teach a magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field by a solid magnet embedded in the main body. Note that each fiber 322 of JP 2020-047746A is a solid magnet see [0031] where it is recited that the fiber materials are made of permanent magnets and a suggested material of construction is iron or ferritic materials. The material of construction and whether the material is solid or not is a matter of design choice and optimization such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would ensure that the material used to construct the protective member would enhance plasma distribution by correcting the magnetic field while suppressing the occurrence of separation between the base and electrostatic chuck (see the problem to be solved). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Sugawa to provide a magnetic field with the protective member as suggested by the prior art of JP 2020-047746A.
Regarding claim 3: Recall the prior art of Sugawa fails to teach a magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field by a solid magnet embedded in the main body. Likewise, the prior art of Sugawa fails to teach the magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field by a magnetic powder in the main body. See the discussion of powders/fibers 322 in JP 2020-047746A.
Regarding claim 4: Recall the prior art of Sugawa fails to teach a magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field by a solid magnet embedded in the main body. Likewise, the prior art of Sugawa fails The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field perpendicularly to or in parallel to a radial direction of the substrate in the outer peripheral portion of the substrate and around the substrate when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support surface. See Figs. 2, 7, and 8 of JP 2020-047746A.
Regarding claim 5: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the main body is formed in an annular shape, and a cross section of the main body in a radial direction is formed in a rectangular shape or an L shape. See Fig. 4 of Sugawa.
PNG
media_image5.png
343
304
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6: The prior art of Sugawa also teaches the main body is formed in an annular shape, a cross section of the main body in a radial direction is formed in a wedge shape, a triangle shape, or a Y shape, See Fig. 6 of Sugawa especially surface 82 which illustrates a wedge or triangle shape.
PNG
media_image6.png
383
373
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Sugawa fails to teach that the main body is embedding in the adhesive layer.
See Figs. 2 and 3 of the JP ‘746 above where the main body is embedded or a part of the adhesive layer. See [0025] of JP’746 which teaches that the joint portion 30 is made of an adhesive layer. See [0029] of JP’746 which teaches that the joint portion is made of normal portion 31 and fiber container portion 32. The motivation to modify the protective member of Sugawa to ensure that the main body is embedded in the adhesive layer is that the integration enhances the protection of the adhesive. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to design the main body of Sugawa such that it is embedded in the adhesive layer as suggested by JP’746 as integration/embedding is a known way to ensure that layers are approximate one another.
Regarding claim 7: The substrate support according to claim 6, wherein the main body is formed in a wedge shape that tapers inward, and an inner peripheral side of the main body is embedded in the adhesive layer. See Fig. 6 of Sugawa especially surface 82 which illustrates a wedge or triangle shape.
Regarding claim 8: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the main body is formed of an elastic material, and the elastic material has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer. Main bodies 70/80 of Sugawa are made of an elastic material that has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer 50. See [0031] of Sugawa states that bonding layer 50 is made of an epoxy-based or silicone-based based bonding agents while the seal members 70/80 (protective members) are made of FFKM. Claim 8 recites that the elastic material has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer. According to the paragraph that joins page 24 and 25, radical resistance ( plasma resistance) can be accomplished by constructing the elastic material (rubber such as silicone rubber) of or using a covering material or composite material with radical resistance. The covering material refers to a material obtained by covering a rubber material such as a silicone rubber with a plastic having radical resistance or a resin having radical resistance. The composite material is a composite material obtained by joining a plastic having radical resistance with a resin having radical resistance. Examples of the resin having radical resistance include a perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) material or a fluoroelastomer (ternary FKM) material. Examples of the plastic having radical resistance include a PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) material. The term "radical resistance" means that an amount of consumption by plasma is smaller than that of the adhesive layer 114 when exposed to plasma.
Regarding claim 13: The substrate support according to claim 8, wherein the elastic material is a perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) material or a fluoroelastomer (ternary FKM) material. See [0035] and [0038] of Sugawa.
Regarding claim 14: Recall the teachings of Sugawa. The prior art of Sugawa fails to teach that the protective member includes a magnetic field generator. See in JP ‘746 [0031] wherein the magnetic field generator is a ferromagnetic material. The material of construction of the magnetic material of JP ‘746 is a matter of optimization and design choice such that one of ordinary skill in the art would choose a material that provide an ample magnet to enhance the seal and protection of the adhesive layer. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to design the material of construction of the magnetic material as suggested by JP ‘746 that provide an ample magnet to enhance the seal and protection of the adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 15: Recall the teachings of Sugawa. The prior art of Sugawa fails to teach that the protective member includes a magnetic field generator. See in JP ‘746 [0031] wherein the magnetic field generator is a ferromagnetic material, wherein the ferromagnetic material is at least one selected from the group consisting of neodymium, iron, mild steel, nickel, cobalt, and a Heusler alloy. The material of construction of the magnetic material of JP ‘746 is a matter of optimization and design choice such that one of ordinary skill in the art would choose a material that provide an ample magnet to enhance the seal and protection of the adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 16: See the prior art of Sugawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing chamber 10; a substrate support provided in the processing chamber and sized to support the substrate; a gas supply 43 to supply a gas into the processing chamber; and a plasma generator configured to supply RF power (via elements 21, 22) into the processing chamber and generate plasma from the gas, wherein the substrate support includes a base 28, an electrostatic chuck25 provided on the base and having a substrate support surface, an adhesive layer 50 provided between the base and the electrostatic chuck and to bond the base to the electrostatic chuck, and a protective member 70/80 including a main body surrounding an outer periphery of the adhesive layer to protect the adhesive layer.
PNG
media_image7.png
742
521
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See also Figs. 5 and 7 of Sugawa above in the rejection of claim 1.
The prior art of Sugawa fails to teach that the protective member includes a magnetic field generator provided in the main body to generate a magnetic field in an outer peripheral portion of the substrate and around the substrate.
JP’746 teaches a substrate support with a base 20, an electrostatic chuck 100 made of plate-shaped member 10, an adhesive layer 31 and a protective member 32 which is made of magnetic materials such that each fiber 322 is a magnetic field generator see [0029] – [0037] of JP’746
The motivation to construct the protective members to include a magnetic field generator is that the magnetic material provides both the clamp function and sealing function for the protective members thus enhancing the protective members of Sugawa. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to construct the protective members of magnetic material that generates magnetic field as suggested by JP’746 in order to provide both the clamp function and sealing function for the protective members thus enhancing the protective member of Sugawa.
Regarding claim 17: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field perpendicularly to a radial direction of the substrate in the outer peripheral portion of the substrate and around the substrate when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support surface. See Figs. 2, 7, and 8 of JP ‘746.
Regarding claim 18:The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field generator is configured to generate the magnetic field in parallel to a radial direction of the substrate in the outer peripheral portion of the substrate and around the substrate when the substrate is mounted on the substrate support surface. See Figs. 2, 7, and 8 of JP ‘746.
Regarding claim 19: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the protective member is sandwiched between the first recess and the second recess. See Figs. 5 and 7 of Sugawa.
Regarding claim 20:The substrate support according to claim 19, wherein the protective member is disposed at a position where the protective member is not exposed above the edge ring. See Figs. 5 and 7 of Sugawa.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawa (US 2021/0210369) in view of JP 2020-047746A (henceforth known as JP’746) using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant with the IDS filed July 16, 2026) as applied to claims 1-8 and 13-20 above, and in further view of Nishimoto et al (US 2005/0042881).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Sugawa and JP’746 were discussed above.
The combined teachings of Suguwa and JP’746 fail to teach:
Regarding claim 9: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the main body is formed of an elastic material, and the elastic material is entirely covered with a covering material having more radical resistance than the adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 10: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the main body is formed of an elastic material, the elastic material has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer, and a surface of the elastic material is partially or entirely covered with a covering material having more radical resistance than the adhesive layer.
The prior art of Nishimoto et al teaches substrate support (susceptor 2) comprising: a base (support 21); an electrostatic chuck 3 provided on the base and having a substrate support surface for supporting a substrate W; an adhesive layer (junction layer 4/70) provided between the base and the electrostatic chuck and configured to bond the base to the electrostatic chuck; and a protective member (5/71) including a main body surrounding an outer periphery of the adhesive layer and configured to protect the adhesive layer. See Figs. 1, 6A, and 8A Nishimoto et al below.
Regarding claim 11: The substrate support according to claim 1, wherein the main body is formed in an annular shape, a cross section of the main body in a radial direction is formed in a circular shape, the main body is formed of an elastic material, the elastic material has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer, and a core member is provided at a center of the main body in a circumferential direction. See [0035] of Sugawa teaches the seal member 70 is made of FFKM and [0038] where the seal member 80 is made of FFKM. Claim 11 recites that the elastic material has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer. According to the paragraph that joins page 24 and 25, radical resistance ( plasma resistance) can be accomplished by constructing the elastic material (rubber such as silicone rubber) of or using a covering material or composite material with radical resistance. The covering material refers to a material obtained by covering a rubber material such as a silicone rubber with a plastic having radical resistance or a resin having radical resistance. The composite material is a composite material obtained by joining a plastic having radical resistance with a resin having radical resistance. Examples of the resin having radical resistance include a perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) material or a fluoroelastomer (ternary FKM) material. Examples of the plastic having radical resistance include a PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) material. The term "radical resistance" means that an amount of consumption by plasma is smaller than that of the adhesive layer 114 when exposed to plasma.
Note the combined teachings of Sugawa and JP’784 fails to teach a core member.
See Fig. 2 of Nagayama et al and [0037] where the magnetic O-rings 60. 61 include O-rings 60a, 61a which are made of rubber and a core at the center of the main body in the circumferential direction see magnetic 60b and 61b. According to Nagayama et al constructing the O-rings with a core is an alternate type of O-ring where Nagayama et al suggests the O-rings enhance the conventional O-rings by functioning as a magnets and sealing members. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the protective member resulting from the combined teachings of Sugawa and JP ‘784 with magnetic O-rings of Nagayama et al which have a core at the center of the main body in the circumferential direction to enhance the conventional O-rings by functioning as a magnets and sealing members.
PNG
media_image8.png
740
606
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12: Recall the combined teachings of Sugawa and JP’784 above wherein the main body is formed in an annular shape, a cross section of the main body in a radial direction is formed in a circular shape, the main body is formed of an elastic material, the elastic material has more radical resistance than the adhesive layer.
Recall the combined teachings of Sugawa and JP’784 fail to teach a covering material and thus fail the combined teachings fails to teach the surface of the elastic material is partially or entirely covered with a covering material having an elastic modulus of 300 MPa or more. Note the elastic modulus is an inherent property of the material of construction and that the material of construction is a design choice that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Choosing a material with an elastic modules of 300MPA or more to ensure that the protective member including the covering material is deformable within the recesses and thus endure the wear and tear and maintain its seal despite the harsh chemical and physical environment of semiconductor manufacturing. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the protective member resulting from the combined teachings of Sugawa and JP ‘784 with the covering material having an elastic modules of 300MPA or more to ensure that the protective member including the covering material is deformable within the recesses and thus endure the wear and tear and maintain its seal despite the harsh chemical and physical environment of semiconductor manufacturing.
PNG
media_image9.png
595
676
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
400
560
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
468
637
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1, 6A, and 8A of Nishimoto et al above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chhatre et al (US 10,804,081) teaches adhesive layers 330, 340, 350 and protective member 325 which is the outer periphery of the elastomer seal assembly 320.
Hayashi (US 2014/0202618) teaches sealing member 22 (protective member), adhesive layer 31 see [0051].
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on July 16, 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights