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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al (US Publication No. 20030168439) in view of Sato et al (US Publication No. 20240222092).
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
553
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kanno does not explicitly disclose for generating plasma.
Sato discloses an ESC (i.e., see for example fig. 3, para. [0037]- [0067]); wherein the RF electrode (i.e., such as the RF electrode 1111c; see for example fig. 3, para. [0037]- [0067]) is for generating plasma (i.e., such as RF electrode 1111c is configured to generate plasma; see for example fig. 3, para. [0037]- [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the plasma generator in Kanno, as taught by Sato, as it provides the advantage of optimizing the circuit design towards creating a negative self-bias that accelerates ions uniformly toward the wafer surface.
Regarding claim 3, Kanno in view of Sato and the teachings of Kanno as modified by Sato have been discussed above.
Kanno further 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 in view of Sato teaches the invention set forth above. However, neither Kanno nor Sato particularly teaches 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) in view of Sato et al (US Publication No. 20240222092) 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).
Neither Kanno nor Sato teaches or suggests 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) in view of Sato et al (US Publication No. 20240222092) 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).
Neither Kanno nor Sato teaches or suggests 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
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
Prosecution Insights