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) 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushkin et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0110356 A1) in view of Kosakai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0266088 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Matyushkin et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1B), comprising: a plasma processing chamber (Fig. 1B); a substrate support disposed in the plasma processing chamber (Fig. 1B, 4A), the substrate support including a base (Fig. 4A – 114), an electrostatic chuck disposed on the base (Fig. 4B- 106) and having a central region with a substrate support surface and an annular region surrounding the central region (Fig. 4A – 106), a chuck electrode disposed in the central region (Fig. 4A – 106), and an electrode structure disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region (Fig. 4A – 402, 404, 404a, 406), the electrode structure including a first electrode layer extending over the substrate support surface in a plan view (Fig. 4A – 402) and one or more connectors connecting the first electrode layer and the base (Fig. 4A – 406); and at least one power supply electrically connected to the electrode structure via the one or more connectors (Fig. 4A – 118). (Paragraphs 0067-0077)
The difference between Matyushkim et al. and claim 15 is that an annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region is not discussed (Claim 15).
Regarding an annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region (Claim 15), Kosakai et al. teach an annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region for holding a focus ring. (Paragraph 0072)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Regarding claim 16, Matyushkin et al. teach wherein the electrode structure further includes a second electrode layer (Fig. 4A – 404a) disposed below the first electrode layer (Fig. 4A – 402) and extending over the substrate support surface in the plan view, one or more connectors (Fig. 4A – 406) connecting the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, and a conductor connecting the second electrode layer and the base (Fig. 4A), and the at least one power supply (Fig. 4A – 118) is electrically connected to the electrode structure via the conductor. (Paragraphs 0067-0077)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Matyushkin et al. teach the 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, a chuck electrode disposed in the central region; and an element disposed below the chuck electrode in the central region.
The difference between Matyushkin et al. and claim 18 is that the annular region having an edge ring support surface and the annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region is not discussed and the element 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, wherein the element includes a conductor plate is not discussed.
Regarding the annular region having an edge ring support surface and the annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region (Claim 18),
Kosakai et al. teach an annular region having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the central region for holding a focus ring. (Paragraph 0072)
Regarding the element 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, wherein the element includes a conductor plate (Claim 18), Matyushkin et al. teach this limitation because Matyushkin et al. teach using a metal electrode conductor plate and a ceramic. (Paragraph 0052)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein 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)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the element is formed of a material having a dielectric constant higher than a dielectric constant of a dielectric material forming the annular region.
Matyushkin et al. teach using a metal electrode conductor plate and a ceramic. (Paragraph 0052) The dielectric constant of a metal is nearly infinite and the ceramic has a definite dielectric constant.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kosakai et al. is that it allows for holding a focus ring. (Paragraph 0072)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Matyushkin et al. with the teachings of Kosakai et al. because it allows for holding a focus ring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-13 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including 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 in a plan view.
Claim 14 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. New rejections have been made based on newly applied prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached 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 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
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights