DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 02/11/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 for further examination. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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-AlA 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: “height adjusting member” in claims 1-2, 4-5 & 8-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 13, line 2 recites the limitation “the same”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the same” as “a same”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “a same”.
Claim Rejections
8. 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 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.
9. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-6 & 8-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyashita (US 20060158821 A1) hereinafter Miyashita (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Miyashita are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), comprising:
a first plate (1) having a first surface (see fig 1, top surface) and a second surface (see fig 1, bottom surface) facing each other and a first hole (1f) extending from the first surface (see fig 1, top surface) in the direction of the second surface (see fig 1, bottom surface) ([0051]-[0053]; fig 1);
a second plate (3) on the first surface (see fig 1, top surface) of the first plate (1) and having a groove (4a) corresponding to the first hole (1f) ([0051]-[0053]; fig 1);
a coupling bolt (9) inserted into the first hole (1f) and the groove (4a) ([0051]-[0053]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1); and
a height adjusting member (10+2) spaced apart from the coupling bolt (9) in a plan view (see fig 1) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 2, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first plate (1) has a second hole (1g) extending from the first surface (see fig 1, top surface) in the direction of the second surface (see fig 1, bottom surface) and spaced apart from the groove (4a) in the plan view (see fig 1), and wherein the height adjusting member (10+2) comprises a height adjusting bolt (see fig 1) inserted into the second hole (1g) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 3, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein a length of the height adjusting bolt (see fig 1) exposed through the first plate (1) is shorter than (see fig 1) a length of the coupling bolt (9) exposed through the first plate (1) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 4, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the height adjusting member (10+2) further comprises a washer (2) on the height adjusting bolt (see fig 1) ([0051]; [0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0059]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 5, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the height adjusting member (10+2) is a spacer (see fig 1) between the first plate (1) and the second plate (3) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 6, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the spacer (see fig 1) comprises an inorganic insulating material ([0026]-[0027]; [0029]-[0032]; [0035]-[0037]; [0040]).
As regards to claim 8, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the height adjusting member (10+2) contacts (see fig 1) the second plate (3) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 9, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the second plate (3) is spaced apart (see fig 1) from the first plate (1) by the height adjusting member (10+2) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 10, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first plate (1) and the second plate (3) are coupled to each other (see fig 1) by the coupling bolt (9) ([0053]-[0054]; [0056]; [0061]-[0063]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 11, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first plate (1) has a protrusion (1d) protruding from the first surface (see fig 1, top surface) toward the second plate (3) ([0052]-[0054]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 12, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first plate (1) and the second plate (3) comprise at least one selected from a metal material ([0026]-[0027]; [0029]-[0032]; [0035]-[0037]; [0040]; [0051]-[0054]; [0062]).
As regards to claim 13, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first plate (1) and the second plate (3) comprise a same metal material as each other ([0026]-[0027]; [0029]-[0032]; [0035]-[0037]; [0040]; [0051]-[0054]; [0062]).
As regards to claim 14, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), further comprising a base frame (17) electrically supporting the first plate (1) and the second plate (3) ([0053]-[0057]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 15, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the base frame (17) has an opening (16), and wherein the first plate (1) and the second plate (3) are in contact with the opening (16) ([0053]-[0057]; fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
14. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita as applied to claim 6 above.
As regards to claim 7, Miyashita discloses an electrostatic chuck unit (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the spacer (see fig 1) comprises an inorganic insulating material ([0026]-[0027]; [0029]-[0032]; [0035]-[0037]; [0040]), however Miyashita does not disclose wherein the spacer (see fig 1) comprises a same material as the first plate and the second plate. However, Miyashita discloses made of an electrically insulating material so that the annular electrode member and the chuck main body can be kept in the electrically insulating state. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to comprises a same material as the first plate and the second plate so that the annular electrode member and the chuck main body can be kept in the electrically insulating state with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights