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. 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) 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0266088 A1) in view of Burkhart (U.S. Pat. 6,303,879). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: Regarding claim 1, Kosakai et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus (Paragraph 0082 – plasma etching apparatus utilizing the electrostatic chuck (ESC) , comprising: a plasma processing chamber (Paragraph 0082 – inherent to a plasma etching apparatus) ; a substrate support disposed in the plasma processing chamber (Paragraph 0082, 0083 – the type of the plasma etching apparatus provided with the electrostatic chuck device 1 ) , the substrate support (For example Fig. 6) including: a base (Paragraph 0162 ;Fig. 6 - items 214 , 213 ) , an electrostatic chuck (Paragraph 0162 – electrostatic chuck 212) disposed on the base ( Fig. 6 214 , 213 ) and having a central region with a substrate support surface and an annular region surrounding the central region (Fig. 6) , the annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region (Fig. 6) a chuck electrode disposed in the central region (Paragraph 0076 – item 23) , at least one bias power supply electrically connected to the substrate support (Fig. 6 – C2). The difference between Kosakai et al. and claim 1 is that an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and being in an electrically floating state, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer, and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view is not discussed (Claim 1). Regarding an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and being in an electrically floating state, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer, and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view (Claim 1), Burkhart teaches an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and being in an electrically floating state, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer, and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view . (Figs. 5B, 6; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0031-0038) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kosakai et al. by utilizing the features of Burkhart because it allows for minimizing thermal stress. (Burkhart Column 8 lines 5-9) DEPENDENT CLAIM 2: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first electrode and the second electrode layer extend over the substrate support surface in plan view. Regarding claim 2, Burkhart teaches wherein the first electrode and the second electrode layer extend over the substrate support surface in plan view. (See Fig. 5B) DEPENDENT CLAIM 4 : The difference not yet discussed is wherein the base includes an insulator, a first electrode film is disposed below the central region on the insulator, and a second electrode film disposed below the annular region and on the insulator is not discussed. Regarding claim 4 : Kosakai et al. teach the base includes an insulator. ( Paragraph 0101 – silicon with filler for adhesive layer; Paragraph 0110 – alumina coating) Kosakai et al. teach a first electrode film is disposed below the central region on the insulator and a second electrode film disposed below the annular region and on the insulator . (See Figs.11-13, 16 – annular electrodes on outer thinner region) DEPENDENT CLAIM 5: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one bias po w er supply includes a first bias power supply and a second bias po w er supply, the first bias power supply is electrically connected to the first electrode film, and the second bias power supply is electrically connected to the second electrode film Regarding claim 5, Kosakai et al. teach wherein the at least one bias power supply includes a first bias power supply and a second bias power supply, the first bias power supply is electrically connected to the first electrode film, and the second bias power supply is electrically connected to the second electrode film . (See Figs.11-13, 16 – annular electrodes on outer thinner region) DEPENDENT CLAIM 6: The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a bias electrode which is disposed in the central region and extends over the substrate support surface in plan view. Regarding claim 6, Kosakai et al. teach a bias electrode which is disposed in the central region and extends over the substrate support surface in plan view. (Figs. 9, 15, 17) DEPENDENT CLAIM 7: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias electrode is disposed between the chuck electrode and the electrode structure. Regarding claim 7, K osakai et al. teach in Fig. 9 the bias electrode below the chuck electrode. (See Fig. 9) Burkhart teach providing floating electrodes to prevent heating beneath the electrodes that are electrically powered (i.e. for chucking) (See Burkhart discussed above) It would be obvious to modify K osakai et al. by placing the floating electrodes of Burkhart beneath the active electrodes (i.e. 23, 62a in Fig. 9) of Kosakai et al. because it prevents heating. DEPENDENT CLAIM 8: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one bias power supply is electrically connected to the bias electrode. Regarding claim 8, Kosakai et al. teach wherein the at least one bias power supply is electrically connected to the bias electrode. (See Fig. 9 – C14 – RF power) DEPENDENT CLAIM 9: The difference not yet discussed is further comprising another bias electrode disposed in the annular region. Regarding claim 9, Kosakai et al. teach a nother bias electrode disposed in the annular region. (See Fig. 9 – 26, 28) DEPENDENT CLAIM 11: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one bias power supply includes a first bias power supply and a second bias power supply, the first bias power supply is electrically connected to the bias electrode, and the second bias power supply is electrically connected to the other bias electrode. Regarding claim 11, Kosakai et al. teach wherein the at least one bias power supply includes a first bias power supply and a second bias power supply, the first bias power supply is electrically connected to the bias electrode, and the second bias power supply is electrically connected to the other bias electrode. (See Fig. 9 above which show the bias power supplies to the electrodes) DEPENDENT CLAIM 12: The difference not yet discussed is where the base is formed of a metal. Regarding claim 12, Kosakai et al. teach where the base is formed of a metal. (Paragraph 0109) DEPENDENT CLAIM 14: Regarding claim 14, Kosakai et al. teach a substrate support, comprising: an electrostatic chuck having a central region with a substrate support surface and an annular region surrow1ding the central region, the annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region: a chuck electrode disposed in the central region . (See Kosakai et al. discussed above – Figs. 6, 9) The difference between Kosakai et al. and claim 14 is that an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and being in an electrically floating state, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer, and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan vi ew is not discussed. Regarding an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and being in an electrically floating state, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer, and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan vi ew (Claim 14) , Burkhart teaches an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and being in an electrically floating state, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer, and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan vi ew . (Figs. 5B, 6; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0031-0038) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kosakai et al. by utilizing the features of Burkhart because it allows for minimizing thermal stress. (Burkhart Column 8 lines 5-9) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15: Regarding claim 1 5 , Kosakai et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus (Paragraph 0082 – plasma etching apparatus utilizing the electrostatic chuck (ESC) , comprising: a plasma processing chamber (Paragraph 0082 – inherent to a plasma etching apparatus) ; a substrate support disposed in the plasma processing chamber (Paragraph 0082, 0083 – the type of the plasma etching apparatus provided with the electrostatic chuck device 1 ) , the substrate support (For example Fig. 6) including: a base (Paragraph 0162;Fig. 6 - items 214, 213) , an electrostatic chuck (Paragraph 0162 – electrostatic chuck 212) disposed on the base (Fig. 6 214, 213) and having a central region with a substrate support surface and an annular region surrounding the central region (Fig. 6) , the annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region (Fig. 6) a chuck electrode disposed in the central region (Paragraph 0076 – item 23) , The difference between Kosakai et al. and claim 15 is that an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view; and at least one power supply electrically connected to the electrode structure. Regarding an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view; and at least one power supply electrically connected to the electrode structure (Claim 15), Burkhart teaches an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region, the electrode structure including a first electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view; and at least one power supply electrically connected to the electrode structure . (Column 7 lines 41-67; Column 8 lines 1-19 – Chuck electrode 506a1, 506b1; electrode 506a4, 506b4; Power supplies RF and DC power) DEPENDENT CLAIM 16: The difference not yet discussed is the electrode structure further includes a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer and extending over the substrate support surface in the plan view, one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, and a conductor connecting the second electrode layer and the base, and the at least one power supply is electrically connected to the electrode structure via the conductor. Regarding claim 16, Burkhart teaches a second electrode layer disposed below the first electrode layer and extending over the substrate support surface in the plan view, one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, and a conductor connecting the second electrode layer and the base, and the at least one power supply is electrically connected to the electrode structure via the conductor. (See Fig. 2; Column 4 lines 16-68; Column 5 lines 1-35) DEPENDENT CLAIM 17: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the electrode structure further includes one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the base, and the at least one power supply is electrically connected to the electrode structure via the one or more connectors. Regarding claim 17, Burkhart teaches wherein the electrode structure further includes one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the base, and the at least one power supply is electrically connected to the electrode structure via the one or more connectors. (Column 7 lines 41-67; Column 8 lines 1-19 – connectors 514a, 514b) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18: Regarding claim 18, Kosakai et al. teach a substrate support, comprising: a base; an electrostatic chuck having a central region and an annular region surrounding the central region, the central region having a substrate support surface, the annular region having an edge ring support surface, the annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region; a chuck electrode disposed in the central region . (See Kosakai et al. discussed above) The difference between Kosakai et al. and claim 18 is that an element disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and configured to reduce a difference between an electrostatic capacity per unit area of the central region between the substrate support surface and the base and an electrostatic capacity per unit area of the annular region between the edge ring support surface and the base is not discussed. Regarding an element disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region and configured to reduce a difference between an electrostatic capacity per unit area of the central region between the substrate support surface and the base and an electrostatic capacity per unit area of the annular region between the edge ring support surface and the base (Claim 18), Burkhart teaches floating electrodes as discussed above which would have the same effect as reducing a difference between an electrostatic capacity per unit area of the central region between the substrate support surface and the base and an electrostatic capacity per unit area of the annular region between the edge ring support surface and the base . In other words the structure is the same as Applicant’s claims and would have the same effect. (See Burkhart discussed above) DEPENDENT CLAIM 19: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the element includes a conductor plate. Regarding claim 19, Burkhart teach utilizing floating conductors. (See Burkhart discussed above) DEPENDENT CLAIM 20: The difference not yet discussed is w herein the element is formed of a metal based composite material. Regarding claim 20, Kosakai et al. teach that conductors can be made of conductive composites. (Paragraph 0078) Burkhart requires conductors for the electrodes including the floating electrodes. (See Burkhart discussed above) It would be obvious knowing that Burkhart require conductive material for the electrodes to utilize a composite conductive material for conductors as suggested by Kosakai et al. because it allows for conducting various potentials to the electrodes. DEPENDENT CLAIM 21: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the element is formed of a material having a dielectric constant higher than a die lectric constant of a dielectric mate ri al forming the annular region. Regarding claim 21, Burkhart teach producing the elements of tungsten alloy and the annular region of alumina. (Column 4 lines 36-54) The dielectric constant of tungsten is essentially infinite. The dielectric constant of a ceramic like alumina is about 9. Infinity is therefore greater than 9 and therefore meets the claim. The motivation for utilizing the features of Burkhart is that it allows for minimizing thermal stress. (Burkhart Column 8 lines 5-9) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kosakai et al. by utilizing the features of Burkhart because it allows for minimizing thermal stress. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. in view of Burkhart as applied to claim s 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-21 above, and further in view of Momiyama et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0074521 A1). DEPENDENT CLAIM 3: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first electrode layer is disposed such that a distance between the first electrode layer and the substrate support surface decreases step w ise or gradually as a distance from a center of the central region in a radial direction increases. Regarding claim 3, Momiyama et al. teach in Figs. 2, 4B electrodes with a stepwise structure. (See Figs. 2, 4B) The motivation for utilizing the features of Momiyama et al. is that it allows for controlling plasma density. (Paragraph 0056) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Momiyama et al. because it allows for controlling plasma density. Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosakai et al. in view of Burkhart as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-21 above, and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0350565 A1). DEPENDENT CLAIM 10: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one bias power supply is electrically connected to the bias electrode and the other bias electrode. Regarding claim 10, Matsuyama et al. teach utilizing one bias power supply 28 to multiple bias electrodes. (See Fig. 1, 2; Paragraph 0035) Matsuyama et al. also teaches that equivalently two DC power sources can be used. This is shown in the primary reference. (Paragraph 0044) The motivation for utilizing a single source of DC power to multiple electrodes is that it prevent the focus ring from being attracted to the electrostatic chuck electrodes. (Paragraph 0048) DEPENDENT CLAIM 13: The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an RF power supply wherein both the RF power supply and the bias power supply are electrically connected to the base. Regarding claim 13: Kosakai et al. above teach an RF connected to the substrate support via the base cooler. (See Kosakai et al. discussed above) Matsuyama et al. teach connecting two power supplies 21a, 21b to the susceptor (i.e. base). The susceptor also serving as a cooler. (Paragraph 0034 – [0034] A first high frequency power source 21 a is connected to the susceptor 11 via a first matcher 22 a . Further, a second high frequency power source 21 b is connected to the susceptor 11 via a second matcher 22 b . The first high frequency power source 21 a is a power source for plasma generation , which supplies high frequency power of a predetermined frequency (e.g., 100 MHz) to the susceptor 11 during the plasma processing. The second high frequency power source 21 b is a power source for ion attraction (bias) , which supplies high frequency power of a predetermined frequency lower than that of the first high frequency power source 21 a (e.g., 13 MHz) to the susceptor 11 during the plasma processing. On the ceiling portion of the processing container 10 , a shower head 24 is disposed as an upper electrode having a ground potential (to be described below). Therefore, a high frequency voltage of two frequencies from the first high frequency power source 21 a and the second high frequency power source 21 b is applied between the susceptor 11 and the shower head 24 . ) The motivation for utilizing two power sources is that it allows for generating a plasma and for attracting ions. (Paragraph 0034) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Matsuyama et al. because it allows for p revent ing the focus ring from being attracted to the electrostatic chuck electrodes and for generating a plasma and for attracting ions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1340 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off. 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, James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272- 8902 . 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. /RODNEY G MCDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 RM March 19, 2026