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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 16, 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0188794; hereafter ‘794) in view of Fujisawa et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0223173; hereafter ‘173) and Matsubara (US PG Pub 2022/0108877; hereafter ‘877).
Claims 1 & 16: ‘794 is directed towards a thin film deposition apparatus (title), comprising:
a chamber (¶ 2);
a deposition source disposed in the chamber and that supplies a deposition material to a substrate (vapor deposition apparatus; ¶ 2, 21, & 87);
a mask assembly comprising pattern holes through which the deposition material passes (shadow mask; ¶ 7); and
an electrostatic chuck facing the mask assembly in a third direction corresponding to a thickness direction of the substrate, with the substrate interposed between the electrostatic chuck and the mask assembly, and that fixes the substrate (see Fig. 7).
‘794 does not disclose the specific electrostatic chuck claimed.
However, ‘173, which is directed towards an electrostatic chuck (title) suitable for use in a vapor deposition apparatus (¶ 2), the electrostatic chuck comprises:
a body that supports the substrate (see #7, Figs. 1 & 2 – sample attracting plane; ¶ 90);
an insulating layer (see #9, Fig. 1 & 2 and ¶ 90);
a first electrode disposed in the insulating layer and spaced apart from the body by a first distance in the third direction (see #2, Figs. 1 & 2 – first electrode; ¶ 90);
a second electrode disposed in the insulating layer and spaced apart from the body by a second distance in the third direction (see #4, Figs. 1 & 2 – sample attracting plane; ¶ 90);
a conductive layer disposed in the insulating layer and spaced apart from the body by a third distance in the third direction (see conductor #6, Figs. 1 & 2, wherein the conductor can be formed by mixing a conductive filler to provide an insulating material per se with the electrically conductive property – i.e. a conductor disposed in an insulating layer on the insulating layer of 9 and thus reading on the limitation; see #6, Figs. 1 & 2 – conducting layer; ¶s 57 & 90),
the first electrode and the second layer are supplied with different voltages (¶ 5), and
the third distance is greater than the first distance (see Figs. 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the electrostatic chuck of ‘173 in place of the electrostatic chuck (ESC) of 794 because it is art recognized ESC and would have predictably performed the same functions in the process of ‘794 as desired.
The combination does not teach that the conductive layer is a floating metal layer that is not electrically connected to surroundings and to which no voltage is applied.
However, ‘877, which is also directed towards electrostatic chucks (title) discloses that a switching mechanism can be provided between electrodes individually between a grounded state and a floating state to control the chucking force (see ¶s 57 & 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place a switch between the conductive layer and the rest of the circuit in ‘173 such that the conductive layer can be isolated from ground and the rest of the electrodes because it is known in the art to insert a switch to isolate an electrode for the purpose of controlling chucking force.
Claims 2 & 17: The first electrode and the second electrode are alternately disposed in plan view (see Figs. 1 & 2).
Claims 4 & 20: As noted above, ‘173 teaches that the conductive layer can be conductive particles in a resin layer. ‘173 alternatively teaches that the base can be made of materials such as aluminum.
Aluminum particles are an known alternative conductive particle for carbon particles.
It would have been obvious to use aluminum particles in place of the carbon particles in the combination because they are art recognized alternative conductive particles and aluminum particles would have predictably provided the same desired result.
Claims 7-10: Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 7-10 are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). The manner and method in which a machine is intended to be used is not germane to the patentability of the claimed structure (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235). In this case the position of a substrate on the chuck is considered a recitation of intended use.
However, if the positioning is not deemed intended use, it changes in positioning would have been obvious because rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 3 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘794 in view of ‘173 and ‘877 as applied above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0126835; hereafter ‘835).
Claims 3 & 18: ‘794 & ‘173 teach that the first distance and the second distance are different and if the difference between the two small there may be discharge between the electrodes which can limit the holding force of the chuck (see ¶ 59, ‘794 and ¶ 21, ‘173).
However, ‘835 teaches that the electrodes can be coplanar if they are spaced apart sufficiently in the plane from each other to be electrically isolated (i.e. coplanar with sufficient space to prevent discharge between the electrodes; see Fig. 4 & ¶ 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘835 and modifying the apparatus of the combination such that the first and second electrodes are coplanar with sufficient space between said electrodes to prevent discharge between the electrodes (i.e. the first and second distance are the same) because it is an art recognized alternative configuration and it is prima facie obvious to use art recognized alternative configurations for the same purpose.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘794 in view of ‘173 and ‘877 as applied above, and further in view of Krijne et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0178190; hereafter ‘190).
Claim 11: The combination does not provide details about the mask assembly.
However, ‘190, which is directed towards vapor deposition using a shadow mask assembly (see ¶ 50) teaches a mask assembly comprising a frame upon which a mask is supported comprising:
a frame comprising an opening (¶ 47, #4 and Figs. 4a-c);
first support sticks disposed on the frame extending in a first direction (see Fig. 4c, #6 which is a holding means with an L cross sectional shape and thus comprising a first support stick in extending in both a first and second direction which are orthogonal to each other);
second support sticks disposed on the first support sticks and extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Fig. 4c, #6 which is a holding means with an L cross sectional shape and thus comprising a second support stick in extending in both a first and second direction which are orthogonal to each other); and
mask disposed on the second support sticks, extending in the first direction, and comprising a plurality of cells in which the pattern holes are formed (Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the disclosed mask assembly in the combination because it is an art recognized mask assembly which would have predictably been suitable.
Claims 12-15: Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 12-15 are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). The manner and method in which a machine is intended to be used is not germane to the patentability of the claimed structure (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235). In this case the position of a mask assembly on the chuck is considered a recitation of intended use.
However, if the positioning is not deemed intended use, it changes in positioning would have been obvious because rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 & 6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of ‘794, ‘173, & ‘877 does not teach that the first and second electrode are disposed in the first insulating layer and spaced apart from all the borders of the first insulating layer and the conductive layer is disposed in the second insulating layer and spaced apart from all the borders of the second insulating layer as recited, nor is there any teaching or suggestion in the prior art to modify the locations of the first and second electrodes and the conductive layer as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/23/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of ‘794, ‘173, & ‘877 as discussed above in which ‘877 teaches that a switch can be placed to remove electrodes from the circuit to control the chucking force which renders obvious the amendment as discussed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/23/26, with respect to claims 5, 6, & 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 5, 6, & 19 has been withdrawn.
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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights