Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/610,491

ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Examiner
AL-TAWEEL, MUAAMAR QAHTAN
Art Unit
2838
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toto Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
39 granted / 44 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
102
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§112
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 44 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to (II); Applicant argues in bullet (II), pages 1-3 of Remarks filed on 01/26/2026. In accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation to the U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030168439 to Kanno et al. ("Kanno"), the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because giving the name “heater” to electrode 16 does not change the fact that electrode 16 is supplied with RF power of 13.56 MHz, numeral 5 (See Kanno; fig. 1, para. [0031]- [0032]), and that is exactly the RF electrode of claim 1. The same scenario applies to electrode 17 which is supplied with DC power numeral 22 (See Kanno fig. 1, para. [0035]), because again, giving the name “RF bias to the wafer stage” does not change the fact that electrode 17 is the chucking electrode and that is exactly the attracting electrode of claim 1. In other words, the Applicant’s statement; “This is factually and technically incorrect, and the heater 16 does not have such a function” is completely not true. Additionally, a wafer stage of Kanno is capable of solving a dielectric breakdown (For more details see Kanno; figs. 4-5, para. [0037]- [0040]), in other words, Kanno does teach and suggest the electrostatic chuck of claim 1. Therefore, as for the reasons stated above the rejection still stands. 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. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(l) as being anticipated by Kanno et al (US Publication No. 20030168439). Regarding claim 1, Kanno discloses an electrostatic chuck (i.e., ESC; see for example fig. 2 as shown below, para. [0030]- [0041]), comprising: a dielectric substrate (15) which includes a placement surface (PS) on which an attracted object (1) is to be placed and in which a through hole (29) is perpendicularly (Y-axis) formed with respect to the placement surface (PS); an RF electrode (16) which is embedded inside the dielectric substrate (15); and an attracting electrode (17) which is embedded inside the dielectric substrate (15) at a position (P17) that is closer to the placement surface (PS) than the RF electrode (16), wherein when viewed from a direction perpendicular (Y-axis) to the placement surface, a circular first opening (OP1) which is concentric with the through hole (29) and which includes the through hole (29) is formed in the attracting electrode (17), a circular second opening (OP2) which is concentric with the through hole (29) and which includes the through hole (29) is formed in the RF electrode (16), and a radius (r2) of the second opening (OP2) is larger than a radius (r1) of the first opening (OP1) (i.e., r2 > r1). PNG media_image1.png 621 478 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, Kanno discloses an electrostatic chuck (i.e., ESC; see for example fig. 2 as shown above, para. [0030]- [0041]), wherein the through hole (29) is a hole (29) for supplying gas (i.e., In brief, it is arranged so that the required helium gas is introduced onto the wafer back surface from a through-going hole 29 which is provided at a central portion of the ceramics plate; see for example fig. 2, para. [0042]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 4 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, Kanno teaches the invention set forth above. However, Kanno does not particularly teach wherein a difference between the radius of the second opening and the radius of the first opening is equal to or smaller than 2.7 mm. Hence claim 2 will be deemed allowable if rewritten in an independent form. Claim 4 depends on objected claim 2, consequently claim 4 will also be deemed allowable. Claims 5-12 are allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 5, Kanno et al (US Publication No. 20030168439) teaches an electrostatic chuck (i.e., ESC; see for example fig. 2 as shown above, para. [0030]- [0041]), comprising: a dielectric substrate (15) which includes a placement surface (PS) on which an attracted object (1) is to be placed and in which a through hole (29) is perpendicularly (Y-axis) formed with respect to the placement surface (PS); and an RF electrode (16) which is embedded inside the dielectric substrate (15), wherein a circular opening (OP2) which is concentric with the through hole (29) and which includes the through hole (29) is formed in the RF electrode (16). Kanno does not teach or suggest and a radius of the opening is equal to or larger than 1. 75 mm. Claims 6-8 are allowed, as they depend on allowed claim 5. Regarding claim 9, Kanno et al (US Publication No. 20030168439) teaches an electrostatic chuck (i.e., ESC; see for example fig. 2 as shown above, para. [0030]- [0041]), comprising: a dielectric substrate (15) which includes a placement surface (PS) on which an attracted object (1) is to be placed and in which a through hole (29) is perpendicularly (Y-axis) formed with respect to the placement surface (PS); and an RF electrode (16) which is embedded inside the dielectric substrate (15), wherein a circular opening (OP2) which is concentric with the through hole (29) and which includes the through hole (29) is formed in the RF electrode (16). Kanno does not teach or suggest and a difference between a radius of the opening and a radius in a portion of the through hole closest to a side of the placement surface is equal to or larger than 1.6 mm. Claims 10-12 are allowed, as they depend on allowed claim 9. 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 MUAAMAR Q AL-TAWEEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0339. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700. 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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270- 1276. 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. /MUAAMAR QAHTAN AL-TAWEEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838 /THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604533
ADAPTABLE ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE CLAMP TRIGGER CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604383
CURRENT SOURCE DEVICE FOR ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597770
VOLTAGE LIMITER FOR ELECTROSTATIC SIGNAL RECEIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597872
ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586737
SELF-PASSIVATING METAL CIRCUIT DEVICES FOR USE IN A SUBMERGED AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 44 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month