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 without traverse of the first species (i – A first species of the electrostatic chuck (100) as shown in Figures 1-3) from Category A (regarding the species of an electrostatic chuck) in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 is acknowledged. Furthermore, Applicant’s election without traverse of the first species (i – A first species of the sealant (140) as shown in Figure 4) from Category B (regarding the species of a sealant provided in an electrostatic chuck) in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 11-17 were previously withdrawn (and still are) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/29//2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered by Examiner. Please be advised that all references cited therein have been considered by Examiner with the exception of NPL Citation #1 (Office Action dated October 3, 2005 issued in corresponding to Korean Application No. 10-2022-0186151). This is because the NPL Citation #1 is not in the English language (rather it is in Korean), and Applicant has not provided a concise explanation of the relevance of NPL Citation #1.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification filed on 12/26/2023 does not proper antecedent basis for the claimed “body” of the sealant (140). While the “body” of the sealant (140) is clearly shown in at least Figures 1-3, said “body” of the sealant (140) is never discussed in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because while the “body” of the sealant (140) is shown in at Figures 1-3, the “body” is not pointed to with its own reference character. Please note that Figures 2 and 3 of the drawings point to the “body” with reference character “140”. Reference character “140” though corresponds to the sealant (140) as a whole and not to the “body”. Again, the claimed “body” does not have its own reference character. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 11-13 of claim 18 state, “wherein the coating layer is in direct contact with both the ceramic puck and the electrostatic chuck body to continuously block a space therebetween.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
First, with respect to the specification filed on 12/26/2023, Applicant discloses the following in paragraphs [0033-0035] thereof:
[0033] The coating layer 142 may be formed through an atomic layer deposition process or a chemical vapor deposition process. As an example, when manufacturing the electrostatic chuck 100, the sealant 140 is installed between the electrostatic chuck body 110 and the ceramic puck 130, and then the coating layer 142 may be formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD). At this time, the coating layer 142 may be deposited on the sealant 140 by supplying a coating material in the form of a gas. Accordingly, the coating layer 142 may be formed to block a space between the sealant 140 and the ceramic puck 130 and a space between the sealant 140 and the electrostatic chuck body 110.
[0034] The sealant 140 may have a circular ring shape, and as an example, a cross-section thereof may have a rectangular shape. In addition, the sealant 140 is inserted into a space on the step portion 112 of the electrostatic chuck body 110 and below the edge of the ceramic puck 130 to prevent reaction gas from permeating into the adhesive layer 120. As illustrated in more detail in FIG. 4, the sealant 140 may have a circular annular shape formed of a plurality of seals 141. As an example, the plurality of seals 141 may have coupling portions 141a formed stepwise on mutually coupled portions. For example, the plurality of seals 141 may be comprised of three, and the coupling portions 141a may be provided on both ends of the three seals 141. In addition, the plurality of seals 141 may be coupled as the coupling portions 141a facing each other are displaced vertically.
[0035] As described above, since the sealant 140 includes a metal material, a ceramic material, a metal-ceramic composite, and/or a polymer-ceramic composite, thermal conductivity may be increased and corrosion resistance may be increased. Accordingly, the replacement frequency of the sealant 140 may be reduced. In addition, the temperature at the edge of the electrostatic chuck 100 may be prevented from excessively rising. In addition, since the coating layer 142 is provided on the outer surface of the sealant 140, the contact area between the sealant 140, the electrostatic chuck body 120, and the ceramic puck 130 is increased, and thus, thermal conductivity may be increased. Furthermore, permeation of reactive gas into the adhesive layer 120 may be prevented.
As can be seen above, paragraph [0035] provides disclosure on the coating layer (142) being in direct contact with both the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (120). Next, in paragraph [0033], disclosure is provided on the coating layer (142) being formed to block a space, e.g. a first space, between the sealant (140) and the ceramic puck (130) and to further block a space, e.g. a second space, between the sealant (140) and the electrostatic chuck body (110). Disclosure; however, does not extend to the coating layer (142) blocking a space (continuously or not) that is disposed between the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (110). That is to say that clam 18 is referring to a space, e.g. a third space, that is larger than the aforesaid first space and the aforesaid second space. The third space extends between the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (110) and is occupied by not just said coating layer (142) but also by a body of the sealant (140). Be advised that paragraph [0033] discloses that the sealant (140) is installed between the electrostatic chuck body (110) and the ceramic puck (130). This is disclosure for the sealant (140) (which includes the body thereof and the coating layer (142)) blocking the space, e.g. the third space, between the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (110). Again, as it pertains to the coating layer (142), it (142) according to paragraph [0033] blocks the space, e.g. the aforesaid first space, disposed between the sealant (140) and the ceramic puck (130) and blocks the space, e.g. the aforesaid second space, disposed between the sealant (140) and the electrostatic chuck body (110). On top of this, there is no disclosure of any blocking of the claimed space either by the coating layer (142) itself or by the sealant (140) as a whole, for example, being done “continuously.” Based on the foregoing, the specification filed on 12/26/2023 does not provide disclosure on, “wherein the coating layer is in direct contact with both the ceramic puck and the electrostatic chuck body to continuously block a space therebetween.”
Next, with respect to the drawings filed on 12/26/2023, there isn’t any indication therein that the coating layer (142) “is in direct contact with both the ceramic puck and the electrostatic chuck body to continuously block a space therebetween.” While Figures 2 and 3 of the drawings certainly show therein the coating layer (142) being in direct contact with each of the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (110), there isn’t any indication therein that any blocking performed by the coating layer (142) is done “continuously” as is claimed. On top of this, while Figures 2 and 3 certainly show the coating layer (142) as having a vertical dimension, there is no indication within Figures 2 and 3 that the coating layer (142) by itself blocks the space that is disposed between the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (110). Please be advised that this space is shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the drawings as being substantially occupied by the body of the sealant (140). Noting this, it cannot be derived from the drawings that the coating layer (142) itself and not as a part of the sealant (140) as a whole functions to block (continuously or not) the space disposed between the ceramic puck (130) and the electrostatic chuck body (110). Based on the foregoing, the drawings filed on 12/26/2023 don’t provide disclosure on, “wherein the coating layer is in direct contact with both the ceramic puck and the electrostatic chuck body to continuously block a space therebetween.”
Since neither the specification nor the drawings are in agreement with or provide support for the claimed subject matter, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0290145 A1).
Please be advised that Howard was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that previously mailed on 10/2/2025.
Claim 18: Figure 4 of Howard shows therein an electrostatic chuck (400) comprising an electrostatic chuck body (101) comprising a lower end and a step portion protruding therefrom, and an adhesive layer (103) disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101). The electrostatic chuck (400) further comprises a ceramic puck (111) [paragraph 0006] that is adhered to the adhesive layer (103) via a heater (105), a heater plate (107), and a ceramic bond layer (109). Figure 4 of Howard further shows the ceramic puck (111) as having an edge that protrudes from the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101). Alternatively, be advised that the ceramic bond layer (109) may be considered to correspond to the “adhesive layer” of claim 18 to which the ceramic puck (111) is adhered, wherein the ceramic bond layer (109)/ adhesive layer is disposed “on” the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101) via the intervening heater plate (107), heater (105), and heater bond layer (103). For Applicant’s reference, the upper surface, the edge that protrudes, the lower end, and the step portion have all been pointed to in annotated Figure 4 of Howard.
PNG
media_image1.png
715
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The electrostatic chuck (400) further comprises a sealant (401+403) that is disposed between the step portion and the edge of the ceramic puck (111), wherein the sealant (401+403) is configured to block reaction gas from permeating into the adhesive layer (103 or 109).
As can be seen in Figure 4, the sealant (401+403) has a body (403) comprising but is not limited to a ceramic material, e.g. silicon carbide (SiC) [paragraph 0033], and the sealant (401+403) further has a coating layer (401) disposed on an external surface of the body (403), the coating layer (401) being in direct contact with both the ceramic puck (111) and the electrostatic chuck body (101) so as to continuously block a space therebetween.
Claim 19: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 18, the ceramic material includes silicon carbide (SiC).
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, 3-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,583,371 B2) in view of Howard (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0290145 A1), and further in view of Xu (WIPO Pub. No 2021/167897 A1).
Please be advised that Shim et al. was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that previously mailed on 10/2/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Shim et al. shows therein an electrostatic chuck (100) comprising an electrostatic chuck body (130) including a lower end and a step portion protruding therefrom. The electrostatic chuck (100) further comprises an adhesive layer (150) that is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (130), wherein a dielectric puck (110) is adhered to the adhesive layer (150) by means an upper adhesive (152) and a heater (140). As to the dielectric puck (110), it (110) has an edge protruding at least from the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (130). Alternatively, be advised that the upper adhesive (152) may be considered to correspond to the “adhesive layer” of claim 1 to which the dielectric puck (110) is adhered, wherein the upper adhesive (152)/adhesive layer is disposed “on” the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (130) via the intervening lower adhesive (150) and heater (140). For Applicant’s reference, at least the edge that protrudes and the step portion have been pointed to below in annotated Figure 1 of Shim et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
397
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen between Figures 1-3 of Shim et al., the electrostatic chuck (100) further comprises a sealant ring having a body (160 or 160a) that is disposed between the step portion and the edge of the dielectric puck (110). By being disposed in this particular location, the body (160 or 160a) helps to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) [column 5, lines 29-37]. Please be advised that the body (160 or 160a) comprises a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [column 5, lines 40-42].
Shim et al. though, does not disclose the dielectric puck (110) as being “a ceramic puck.” Noting this, please be advised that the dielectric puck (110) acts to fix a substrate using an electrostatic force [column 4, lines 43-50].
Figure 4 of Howard though, shows therein an electrostatic chuck (400) comprising an electrostatic chuck body (101) comprising a lower end and a step portion protruding therefrom, and an adhesive layer (103) disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101). The electrostatic chuck (400) further comprises a ceramic puck (111) [paragraph 0006] that is adhered to the adhesive layer (103) via a heater (105), a heater plate (107), and a ceramic bond layer (109). Figure 4 of Howard further shows the ceramic puck (111) as having an edge that protrudes from the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101). Alternatively, be advised that the ceramic bond layer (109) may be considered to correspond to the “adhesive layer” of claim 1 to which the ceramic puck (111) is adhered, wherein the ceramic bond layer (109)/ adhesive layer is disposed “on” the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101) via the intervening heater plate (107), heater (105), and heater bond layer (103). Please be advised that per Howard that the ceramic puck (111) is commonly fabricated from alumina [paragraph 0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the dielectric puck (110) of the electrostatic chuck (100) of Shim et al. from ceramic, specifically from alumina, in accordance with the disclosure of Howard, so as to provide the dielectric puck (110) of Shim et al. with the advantages of alumina including its durability, thermal stability, and electrical insulation ability.
As was noted above, the sealant of Shim et al. has a body (160 or 160a) that comprises a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [column 5, lines 40-42]. Shim et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the sealant further having “a coating layer disposed on an external surface of the body.” Be advised that a reaction chamber (210) of Shim et al. (see at least Figure 5-8 of Shim et al.) in which the electrostatic chuck (100) is disposed has plasma formed therein.
Xu though, shows in at least Figure 4 a ring (400) having a body (404) to which a coating layer (412) is disposed on an external surface of the body (404) [paragraph 0029]. Note that the coating layer (412) is a metal oxide that is thermally sprayed on the surface of the body (404), the metal oxide being, for example, aluminum, yttria (Y2O3), ternary yttria-alumina oxides such as yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), yttrium aluminum monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 (YAM)), or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAlO3 (YAP)), or YSZ (yttria stabilized zirconia) [paragraphs 0028, 0029]. Per Xu, the metal oxide coating is most useful for consumable plasma processing chamber components [paragraph 0025]. As can also be seen in Figure 4 of Xu, the metal oxide coating layer (412) surrounds the body (404), and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm [paragraph 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu on an external surface of the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., so as to provide the sealant of Shim et al. with the advantage of a coating layer that will be useful in the reaction chamber (210) of Shim et al. due to the plasma that is formed therein, and that will help to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) of Shim et al.
In making the above modification, the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu surrounds the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm in accordance with the disclosure of Xu [paragraph 0029 of Xu]. Next, please note that the body (160 of 160a), prior to have the coating thereon, had a thickness that is substantially equal to or slightly greater than a summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50]. As such, since the coating layer (412) surrounds the body (160 or 160a), and because the body (160 or 160a) was already substantially coplanar with the dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 50-55] (see Figure 1 of Shim et al.), the result is the coating layer (412) being in direct contact with both the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130). In other words, because a thickness of the body (160 or 160a) was already substantially equal to or slightly greater than a summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), the heater (140), and the upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50], the result of adding the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu to the external surface of the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al. is the thickness of the sealant of Shim et al. being increased. Due to this increased thickness, the outermost portion of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) comes into contact with the edge of the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) that the body (160 or 160a) was previously in contact with. (Please be advised that it is known that the body (160 or 160a) was previously in contact with the edge of the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130), since it (160 or 160a) already had a thickness of its own that was substantially equal to or slightly greater than the aforesaid summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50]). Based on the foregoing, in the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a), the coating layer (412) thereof is in direct contact with both the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130).
Next, with regards to the coating layer (412), it is reiterated that it is a metal oxide which is thermally sprayed on the surface of the body (404), the metal oxide being, for example, aluminum, yttria (Y2O3), ternary yttria-alumina oxides such as yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), yttrium aluminum monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 (YAM)), or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAlO3 (YAP)), or YSZ (yttria stabilized zirconia) [Xu, paragraphs 0028, 0029]. At least when the metal oxide is yttria (Y2O3) or yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), the coating layer (412) is a metal oxide including a single rate earth oxide.
Lastly, due to the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) being disposed between the edge of the dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) so as to surround the adhesive layer (150 or 152), the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) will block reaction gas from permeating into said adhesive layer (150 or 152). Please be advised that the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al. comprises, for example, a metal material or a ceramic material like the body of Applicant’s sealant. Furthermore, the coating layer (412) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) includes a metal oxide like the coating layer of Applicant’s sealant. Due to having the same structure as the sealant of Applicant and due to being disposed between the edge of the dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) so as to surround the adhesive layer (150 or 152), the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) is indeed “configured to block reaction gas from permeating into the adhesive layer.”
Claim 3: When the body (160 or 160a) comprises a metal material, it includes, for example, aluminum [Shim et al., column 5, lines 40-42].
Claim 4: The modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. has a body (160 or 160a) that is a plasma resistant material comprising a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [Shim et al., column 5, lines 40-42]. When the body (160 or 160a) is embodied as a ceramic material, and when the coating layer (412) disposed on the ceramic material is a metal oxide that is yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG) [Xu, paragraphs 0028, 0029], for example, then at least in this way (as is broadly claimed) the “ceramic material includes…yttrium aluminum garnet.”
However, should it be held that “the ceramic material includes aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (A12O3), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG)” means that the ceramic material is itself one of “aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (A12O3), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG),” then it is noted that Shim et al. does not provide disclosure on the ceramic material of the body (160 or 160a) including any one of these specific materials.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. be a ceramic material that includes aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (A12O3), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, by forming the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. as ceramic material that includes, for example, aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (A12O3), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), the body (160 or 160a) is suitable to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) to, for example, plasma and/or reaction gas.
Claim 5: The modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. has a body (160 or 160a) that is a plasma resistant material comprising a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [Shim et al., column 5, lines 40-42]. Shim et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the plasma resistant material being a “metal ceramic composite [that] is an aluminum-silicon carbide composite.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. be a metal ceramic composite that is an aluminum-silicon carbide composite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, by forming the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. as a metal ceramic composite that is an aluminum-silicon carbide composite, the body (160 or 160a) is suitable to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) to, for example, plasma and/or reaction gas.
Claim 6: The modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. has a body (160 or 160a) that is a plasma resistant material comprising a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [Shim et al., column 5, lines 40-42]. Shim et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the plasma resistant material being a “polymer-ceramic composite [that] includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. be a polymer-ceramic composite that includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, by forming the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. as a polymer-ceramic composite that includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite, the body (160 or 160a) is suitable to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) to, for example, plasma and/or reaction gas.
Claim 7: As stated above in the rejection of claim 1, in the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al., the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu surrounds the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm in accordance with the disclosure of Xu. Regarding the coating layer (412), it is reiterated that it is a metal oxide which is thermally sprayed on the surface of the body (404), the metal oxide being, for example, aluminum, yttria (Y2O3), ternary yttria-alumina oxides such as yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), yttrium aluminum monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 (YAM)), or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAlO3 (YAP)), or YSZ (yttria stabilized zirconia) [Xu, paragraphs 0028, 0029]. When the metal oxide is, for example, yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), it is a ternary yttria-alumina oxide according to Xu. As a ternary yttria-alumina oxide, it includes an aluminum oxide material.
Noting the above, attention is now directed to Figure 1 of Shim et al. As can be seen therein, the body (160 or 160a) of the sealant, on which the coating layer (412) is disposed, surrounds a step of the electrostatic chuck body (130). Thus, in this way, the electrostatic chuck body (130) includes a protective layer, in the form of the coating layer (412), that is “disposed on” (as broadly claimed) a surface thereof, wherein the coating layer (115) includes alumina oxide/ aluminum oxide material.
Claim 8: As can be seen in each of Figures 2 and 3 of Shim et al., the body (160 or 160a) has a circular ring shape. Noting this, when the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu is applied to the external surface of the body (160 or 160a), the shape of the body (160 or 160a) does not change. Thus, the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) has a circular ring shape.
Claim 9: When the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) has the body (160a) as is embodied within Figure 3 of Shim et al., for example, it can be seen in Figure 3 that the circular ring shape has a plurality of seals (162a, 164a).
Claim 10: When the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) has the body (160a) as is embodied within Figure 3 of Shim et al., for example, it can be seen that the plurality of seals (162a, 164a) include a coupling portion (163a, 165a) formed stepwise on a mutually coupled portion.
Claim 18: Figure 1 of Shim et al. shows therein an electrostatic chuck (100) comprising an electrostatic chuck body (130) including a lower end and a step portion protruding therefrom. The electrostatic chuck (100) further comprises an adhesive layer (150) that is disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (130), wherein a dielectric puck (110) is adhered to the adhesive layer (150) by means an upper adhesive (152) and a heater (140). As to the dielectric puck (110), it (110) has an edge protruding at least from the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (130). Alternatively, be advised that the upper adhesive (152) may be considered to correspond to the “adhesive layer” of claim 18 to which the dielectric puck (110) is adhered, wherein the upper adhesive (152)/adhesive layer is disposed “on” the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (130) via the intervening lower adhesive (150) and heater (140). For Applicant’s reference, at least the edge that protrudes and the step portion have been pointed to below in annotated Figure 1 of Shim et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
397
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen between Figures 1-3 of Shim et al., the electrostatic chuck (100) further comprises a sealant ring having a body (160 or 160a) that is disposed between the step portion and the edge of the dielectric puck (110). By being disposed in this particular location, the body (160 or 160a) helps to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) [column 5, lines 29-37]. Please be advised that the body (160 or 160a) comprises a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [column 5, lines 40-42].
Shim et al. though, does not disclose the dielectric puck (110) as being “a ceramic puck.” Noting this, please be advised that the dielectric puck (110) acts to fix a substrate using an electrostatic force [column 4, lines 43-50].
Figure 4 of Howard though, shows therein an electrostatic chuck (400) comprising an electrostatic chuck body (101) comprising a lower end and a step portion protruding therefrom, and an adhesive layer (103) disposed on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101). The electrostatic chuck (400) further comprises a ceramic puck (111) [paragraph 0006] that is adhered to the adhesive layer (103) via a heater (105), a heater plate (107), and a ceramic bond layer (109). Figure 4 of Howard further shows the ceramic puck (111) as having an edge that protrudes from the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101). Alternatively, be advised that the ceramic bond layer (109) may be considered to correspond to the “adhesive layer” of claim 18 to which the ceramic puck (111) is adhered, wherein the ceramic bond layer (109)/ adhesive layer is disposed “on” the upper surface of the electrostatic chuck body (101) via the intervening heater plate (107), heater (105), and heater bond layer (103). Please be advised that per Howard that the ceramic puck (111) is commonly fabricated from alumina [paragraph 0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the dielectric puck (110) of the electrostatic chuck (100) of Shim et al. from ceramic, specifically from alumina, in accordance with the disclosure of Howard, so as to provide the dielectric puck (110) of Shim et al. with the advantages of alumina including its durability, thermal stability, and electrical insulation ability.
As was noted above, the sealant of Shim et al. has a body (160 or 160a) that comprises a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [column 5, lines 40-42]. Shim et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the sealant further having “a coating layer disposed on an external surface of the body.” Be advised that a reaction chamber (210) of Shim et al. (see at least Figure 5-8 of Shim et al.) in which the electrostatic chuck (100) is disposed has plasma formed therein.
Xu though, shows in at least Figure 4 a ring (400) having a body (404) to which a coating layer (412) is disposed on an external surface of the body (404) [paragraph 0029]. Note that the coating layer (412) is a metal oxide that is thermally sprayed on the surface of the body (404), the metal oxide being, for example, aluminum, yttria (Y2O3), ternary yttria-alumina oxides such as yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), yttrium aluminum monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 (YAM)), or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAlO3 (YAP)), or YSZ (yttria stabilized zirconia) [paragraphs 0028, 0029]. Per Xu, the metal oxide coating is most useful for consumable plasma processing chamber components [paragraph 0025]. As can also be seen in Figure 4 of Xu, the metal oxide coating layer (412) surrounds the body (404), and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm [paragraph 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu on an external surface of the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., so as to provide the sealant of Shim et al. with the advantage of a coating layer that will be useful in the reaction chamber (210) of Shim et al. due to the plasma that is formed therein, and that will help to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) of Shim et al.
In making the above modification, the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu surrounds the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm in accordance with the disclosure of Xu [paragraph 0029 of Xu]. Next, please note that the body (160 of 160a), prior to have the coating thereon, had a thickness that is substantially equal to or slightly greater than a summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50]. As such, since the coating layer (412) surrounds the body (160 or 160a), and because the body (160 or 160a) was already substantially coplanar with the dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 50-55] (see Figure 1 of Shim et al.), the result is the coating layer (412) being in direct contact with both the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130) thereby continuously blocking a space therebetween. In other words, because a thickness of the body (160 or 160a) was already substantially equal to or slightly greater than a summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50], the result of adding the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu to the external surface of the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al. is the thickness of the sealant of Shim et al. being increased. Due to this increased thickness, the outermost portion of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) comes into contact with the edge of the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) that the body (160 or 160a) was previously in contact with. (Please be advised that it is known that the body (160 or 160a) was previously in contact with the edge of the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130), since it (160 or 160a) already had a thickness of its own that was substantially equal to or slightly greater than the aforesaid summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50]). Based on the foregoing, in the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a), the coating layer (412) thereof is in direct contact with both the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130) to continuously block a space therebetween.
Lastly, due to the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) being disposed between the edge of the dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) so as to surround the adhesive layer (150 or 152), the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) will block reaction gas from permeating into said adhesive layer (150 or 152). Please be advised that the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al. comprises, for example, a metal material or a ceramic material like the body of Applicant’s sealant. Furthermore, the coating layer (412) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) includes a metal oxide like the coating layer of Applicant’s sealant. Due to having the same structure as the sealant of Applicant and due to being disposed between the edge of the dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) so as to surround the adhesive layer (150 or 152), the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) is indeed “configured to block reaction gas from permeating into the adhesive layer.”
Claim 19: When the body (160 or 160a) comprises a metal material, it includes, for example, aluminum [Shim et al., column 5, lines 40-42].
Claim 20: The modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. has a body (160 or 160a) that is a plasma resistant material comprising a metal material, a ceramic material, etc. [Shim et al., column 5, lines 40-42]. Shim et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the plasma resistant material being a “metal ceramic composite [that] is an aluminum-silicone carbide composite” or instead being a “polymer-ceramic composite [that] includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. be a polymer-ceramic composite that includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, by forming the body (160 or 160a) of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) of Shim et al. as a polymer-ceramic composite that includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite, the body (160 or 160a) is suitable to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) to, for example, plasma and/or reaction gas.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0290145 A1).
Claim 20: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 18, the sealant (401+403) of Howard has a body (403). While this body (403) may comprise a ceramic material, e.g. silicon carbide (SiC), the body (403) may instead comprise, for example, silicon (Si), silicon nitride (Si3N4), various boron-containing materials (e.g., boron nitride (both hexagonal, h-BN, and cubic, C-BN)), as well as other elemental and compound semiconductor-containing materials. Howard though, does not provide disclosure on the other elemental and compound semiconductor-containing materials being a “metal ceramic composite [that] is an aluminum-silicone carbide composite” or instead being a “polymer-ceramic composite [that] includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the body (403) of the sealant (401+403) of Howard be a polymer-ceramic composite that includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, by forming the body (403) of Howard’s sealant (401+403) as a polymer-ceramic composite that includes a silicon-aluminum oxide composite or a silicon-aluminum nitride composite, the body (403) is suitable for blocking reaction gas from permeating into the adhesive layer (103 or 109) of the electrostatic chuck (400).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 with respect to Xu (U.S. PG Publication No. 2016/0379806) have been fully considered but are moot, because Xu (U.S. PG Pub '806) is not relied upon in the new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 with respect to the combination of Shim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,583,371 B2) in view of Noorbakhsh (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0151402 A1), and further in view of Xu (U.S. PG Publication No. 2016/0379806) have been fully considered but are moot, since this combination of references is not relied upon in the new ground of rejection. Please be advised that Shim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,583,371 B2) has again been utilized by Examiner as a base reference. However, in light of Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/2/2026, Examiner has now utilized Howard (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0290145 A1), and Xu (WIPO Publication No 2021/167897 A1) as modifying references to Shim et al.
Noting the above, for the sake of completeness, Examiner would like to address the only arguments presently by Applicant that are directed to just Shim et al.
Shim discloses a sealant 160 (or 160a) positioned between a dielectric puck 110 and an electrostatic-chuck body 130. Shim teaches that the sealant may include a metal or ceramic material to resist plasma damage, but Shim provides no disclosure of a two-layer structure in which a separate coating layer is disposed on an external surface of a distinct sealant body. Instead, Shim's sealant is a single-phase element functioning as a spacer ring or barrier. There is no teaching that the sealant has both (1) a metallic or ceramic body and (2) an independently formed oxide coating layer. Further, Shim is silent as to any layer being in direct contact with both the puck and the chuck body or blocking a space therebetween. Thus, the fundamental two-layer configuration and direct-contact sealing relationship of the present invention are absent from Shim.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that, “Shim provides no disclosure of a two-layer structure in which a separate coating layer is disposed on an external surface of a distinct sealant body.” As such, Examiner agrees that Shim “is silent as to any [oxide coating] layer being in direct contact with both the puck and the chuck body or blocking a space therebetween.”
Based on the foregoing, Examiner applied Xu (WIPO Publication No 2021/167897 A1) as a modifying reference to Shim et al., noting that Xu (WIPO Publication No 2021/167897 A1) teaches a ring (400) (see at least Figure 4) having a body (404) to which a coating layer (412) is disposed on an external surface of the body (404) [Xu, paragraph 0029]. Please note that the coating layer (412) is a metal oxide that is thermally sprayed on the surface of the body (404), the metal oxide being, for example, aluminum, yttria (Y2O3), ternary yttria-alumina oxides such as yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12 (YAG)), yttrium aluminum monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 (YAM)), or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAlO3 (YAP)), or YSZ (yttria stabilized zirconia) [paragraphs 0028, 0029]. Per Xu, the metal oxide coating is most useful for consumable plasma processing chamber components [paragraph 0025]. As can also be seen in Figure 4 of Xu, the metal oxide coating layer (412) surrounds the body (404), and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm [paragraph 0029].
Noting the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu on an external surface of the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., so as to provide the sealant of Shim et al. with the advantage of a coating layer that will be useful in the reaction chamber (210) of Shim et al. due to the plasma that is formed therein, and that will help to protect and prevent exposure of the adhesive layer (150 or 152) of Shim et al. Thus, it is a new combination of references including Shim et al. and Xu (WIPO Publication No 2021/167897 A1) that is relied upon to teach, “the sealant having a coating layer disposed on an external surface of the body.”
In making the above modification, the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu surrounds the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al., and has a thickness of 0.5mm to 2mm in accordance with the disclosure of Xu [paragraph 0029 of Xu]. Next, please note that the body (160 of 160a), prior to have the coating thereon, had a thickness that is substantially equal to or slightly greater than a summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50]. As such, since the coating layer (412) surrounds the body (160 or 160a), and because the body (160 or 160a) was already substantially coplanar with the dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 50-55] (see Figure 1 of Shim et al.), the result is the coating layer (412) being in direct contact with both the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130). In other words, because a thickness of the body (160 or 160a) was already substantially equal to or slightly greater than a summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), the heater (140), and the upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50], the result of adding the metal oxide coating layer (412) of Xu to the external surface of the body (160 or 160a) of Shim et al. is the thickness of the sealant of Shim et al. being increased. Due to this increased thickness, the outermost portion of the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a) comes into contact with the edge of the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130) that the body (160 or 160a) was previously in contact with. (Please be advised that it is known that the body (160 or 160a) was previously in contact with the edge of the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and step portion of the electrostatic chuck body (130), since it (160 or 160a) already had a thickness of its own that was substantially equal to or slightly greater than the aforesaid summed thickness of the lower adhesive (150), heater (140), and upper adhesive (152) [Shim et al., column 5, lines 46-50]). Based on the foregoing, in the modified sealant (412; 160 or 160a), the coating layer (412) thereof is in direct contact with both the (ceramic) dielectric puck (110) and the electrostatic chuck body (130). Thus, it is the new combination of references including Shim et al. and Xu (WIPO Publication No 2021/167897 A1) that is relied upon to teach, “the coating layer is in direct contact with both the ceramic puck and electrostatic chuck body.”
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722