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 Species B, claims 1-16 and 18-20, in the reply filed on 23 June 2026 is acknowledged. Examiner further notes that claim 19 is not readable on the elected species.
Claim 17 are 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: plasma excitation member in claim 18 wherein no specific structure was located in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
As discussed above, “plasma excitation member” (i.e. member for exciting plasma) invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference thereto in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “plasma excitation member” (i.e. member for exciting plasma) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,566,043 to Kawada et al.
Regarding claim 1: Kawada et al. disclose an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 1) substantially as claimed and comprising: a body (e.g. all features except “diffusion-preventing layer”); an internal electrode (“electrodes for electrostatic chuck”) in the body, wherein the internal electrode is configured to generate an electrostatic force when a first voltage is applied to the internal electrode; and a coating layer (“diffusion preventing layer”, see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35) on an outer surface of the body, wherein the coating layer comprises a film forming material that includes a silicon containing material.
With respect to claim 2, in Kawada et al., the silicon containing material may be silicon (see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35). Note: the claim has not been interpreted as the film forming material and/or the silicon containing material consists of silicon. See MPEP 2111.03. Applicant is invited to amend to limit the composition of the coating layer.
With respect to claim 3, in Kawada et al., the silicon-containing material includes a silicon compound (see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35).
With respect to claim 4, in Kawada et al., the silicon compound includes silicon and at least one element among nitrogen, oxygen and carbon (see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35).
With respect to claim 11, in Kawada et al., an outer region of the body includes the body comprises pyrolytic boron nitride (pBN) (see, e.g., “Example 1”).
With respect to claim 12, in Kawada et al., the silicon-containing material includes silicon nitride (see, e.g., “Example 1” and column 4, rows 10-35).
With respect to claim 13, in Kawada et al., the body comprises: an outer body (“covering layer”); an inner body (“heat generating layer”) in the outer body; and a core member (supporting substrate) in the inner body.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0138601 to Fan et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-4 and the accompanying text, Fan et al. discloses an electrostatic comprising: a body (multiple structures, e.g. 2, 5, 8, 9); an internal electrode (6, also see, e.g., paras. 58-60) in the body, wherein the internal electrode is configured to generate an electrostatic force when a first voltage is applied to the internal electrode; and a coating layer (5) on an outer surface of the body, wherein the coating layer is formed of a film forming material including a silicon-containing material (see, e.g., paras. 28-35).
With respect to claim 2, in Fan et al., the silicon containing material may be silicon (see, e.g., paras. 28-35). Note: the claim has not been interpreted as the film forming material and/or the silicon containing material consists of silicon. See MPEP 2111.03.
With respect to claim 3, in Fan et al., the silicon-containing material includes a silicon compound (see, e.g., paras. 28-35).
With respect to claim 4, in Fan et al., the silicon compound includes silicon and at least one element among nitrogen, oxygen and carbon (see, e.g., paras. 28-35).
With respect to claim 5, in Fan et al., the film forming material has a content of the silicon-containing material of 90% or more (see, e.g., paras. 28-35).
With respect to claim 6, in Fan et al., the film forming material has a content of the silicon-containing material of one type of 90% or more (see, e.g., paras. 28-35).
With respect to claim 7, in Fan et al., a first coefficient of thermal expansion of the coating layer is 50% of a lower limit value to 150% of an upper limit value of a second coefficient of thermal expansion of the outer surface of the body (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 7, 36, claim 1 and claim 17).
With respect to claim 8, in Fan et al., the coating layer has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K) (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 7, 36, claim 1 and claim 17).
With respect to claim 9, in Fan et al., the coating layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 2 µm (see, e.g., para. 30).
With respect to claim 10, in Fan et al., the coating layer has a thickness of 10 µm to 200 µm (see, e.g., para. 30).
With respect to claim 13, in Fan et al., the body comprises: an outer body (2); an inner body (9) in the outer body; and a core member (8) in the inner body.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,566,043 to Kawada et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0138601 to Fan et al. See, e.g., US. Patent No. 4,960,734 (referenced in Kawada) as evidence.
Regarding claim 1: Kawada et al. disclose an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 1) substantially as claimed and comprising: a body (e.g. all features except “diffusion-preventing layer”); an internal electrode (“electrodes for electrostatic chuck”) in the body, wherein the internal electrode is configured to generate an electrostatic force when a first voltage is applied to the internal electrode; and a coating layer (“diffusion preventing layer”, see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35) on an outer surface of the body, wherein an outer region of the body (“covering layer”) includes pyrolytic boron nitride (pBN) (see, e.g., “Example 1”), wherein the coating layer comprises a film forming material that includes a silicon containing material.
; a heating member (“heat generating layer”) in the body, wherein the heating member is configured to generate heat through resistance heating when a second voltage is applied to the heating member;
Regarding claim 14: Kawada et al. disclose an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 1) substantially as claimed and comprising: a body (e.g. all features except “diffusion-preventing layer”); an internal electrode (“electrodes for electrostatic chuck”) in the body, wherein the internal electrode is configured to generate an electrostatic force when a first voltage is applied to the internal electrode; a heating member (“heat generating layer”) in the body, wherein the heating member is configured to generate heat through resistance heating when a second voltage is applied to the heating member; and a coating layer (“diffusion preventing layer”, see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35) on an outer surface of the body, wherein an outer region of the body (“covering layer”) includes pyrolytic boron nitride (pBN) (see, e.g., “Example 1”), wherein the coating layer comprises a film forming material that includes a silicon containing material.
However, Kawada et al. fail to explicitly disclose the silicon-containing has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K).
Fan et al. disclose providing a coating layer on an outer surface of a body, wherein the coating layer coating layer includes a silicon-containing material, wherein the silicon has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K) for the purpose of providing features of the electrostatic chuck with closely matching coefficients of thermal expansion (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 7, 36, 56, claim 1 and claim 17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the coating layer of Kawada et al. includes a silicon-containing material, wherein the silicon has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K) in order to provide features of the electrostatic chuck with closely matching coefficients of thermal expansion as taught by Fan et al.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Kawada et al., Fan et al. disclose in Fan et al., the film forming material has a content of the silicon-containing material of 90% or more (see, e.g., paras. 28-35).
Regarding claim 16: Kawada et al. disclose an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 1) substantially as claimed and comprising: a body (e.g. all features except “diffusion-preventing layer”); an internal electrode (“electrodes for electrostatic chuck”) in the body, wherein the internal electrode is configured to generate an electrostatic force when a first voltage is applied to the internal electrode; a heating member (“heat generating layer”) in the body, wherein the heating member is configured to generate heat through resistance heating when a second voltage is applied to the heating member; and a coating layer (“diffusion preventing layer”, see, e.g., column 4, rows 10-35) on an outer surface of the body, wherein an outer region of the body (“covering layer”) includes pyrolytic boron nitride (pBN) (see, e.g., “Example 1”), wherein the coating layer comprises a film forming material that includes a silicon containing material.
However, Kawada et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrostatic chuck provided in a chamber of a substrate processing apparatus, wherein the electrostatic chuck is configured to absorb a substrate or the silicon-containing material has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K).
Fan et al. disclose providing an electrostatic in a chamber of a substrate processing apparatus for the purpose of adsorbing a substrate during processing and a coating layer on an outer surface of the body, wherein the coating layer coating layer includes a silicon-containing material, wherein the silicon has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K) for the purpose of providing features of the electrostatic chuck with closely matching coefficients of thermal expansion (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 7, 36, 56, claim 1 and claim 17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the coating layer of Kawada et al. includes a silicon-containing material, wherein the silicon has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 1x(10-6/K) to 4x(10-6/K) in order to provide features of the electrostatic chuck with closely matching coefficients of thermal expansion as taught by Fan et al.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Kawada et al., both Kawada et al. and Fan et al. disclose the silicon containing material is silicon nitride.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Fan et al. as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0021031 to Taylor et al.
Modified Fan et al. disclose the substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Fan et al. fail to disclose the substrate processing apparatus comprising a plasma excitation member in the chamber, wherein the plasma excitation member is in an upper portion of a process space that is in the chamber, and wherein the plasma excitation member includes a conductive material.
Taylor et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus comprising an electrostatic chuck and a plasma excitation member, inter alia, the plasma excitation member in a chamber, wherein the plasma excitation member is in an upper portion of a process space that is in the chamber, and wherein the plasma excitation member includes a conductive material for the purpose of producing energetic ions and neutral species (see, e.g., paras. 1, 16-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substrate processing apparatus of modified Fan et al. having a plasma excitation member, wherein the plasma excitation member is in an upper portion of the process space that is in the chamber, and wherein the plasma excitation member includes a conductive material in order to produce energetic ions and neutral species as taught by Taylor et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 5,591,269; USP Pub. 2004/017316; 2006/0096946; and JP H1080168 disclose and electrostatic chuck concerned with relative thermal expansion coefficients of features thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights