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
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) 1-6, 11-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd Jr. et al (2018/0301364A1) in view of Shamouilian et al (5,745,331).
Boyd discloses an electrostatic chuck having a plurality of mesas 492 extending from the top surface 494 of the chuck, with electrodes 436. The mesas are said to be ceramic and claim 3 of Boyd list Aluminum Nitride (AlN) to address the limitations of claim 3 of this instant Application.
The device taught by Boyd differs from the claims by not showing a mesa extending along a diameter of the top surface of the electrostatic chuck such that the mesa contacts a ring on opposed ends thereof. Shamouilian et al discloses an electrostatic chuck 20 for holding a substrate 75 having a base 80 with an upper surface 95 that includes a continuous insulator film 45. In fig. 5 the film can be seen to form a ring shaped structure that surrounds electrodes 50a and 50b and also a structure that extends along a diameter of the top surface of the electrostatic chuck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the feature shape of Shamouilian with the mesa features of Boyd to meet the claims because both teachings are electrostatic chuck devices having embedded electrodes below the top surface of the chuck with Shamouilian teaching that it is known in the art to adjust the shape of chuck layer features to accommodate the presence and function of the attracting electrodes.
The features of claims 2 and independent claim 11 are addressed by the continuous nature of the shape feature shown in fig. 5 of Shamouilian.
The features of claims 4 and 14 are addressed by the mesa features of Boyd understood to contact the bottom surface of substrate 444.
Claims 5, 6 and 15 are addressed by the rectangular shape shown in fig. 5 of Shamouilian extending between electrodes 50a and 50b to contact the ring on opposite ends.
Claims 12,13 and 19 are addressed by the combination of mesa structure with the electrode accommodating shape shown to form a ring with a rectangle joining the sides of the ring through a diameter of the electrostatic chuck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 16-18 and 20 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: the above mentioned claims recite specific dimensional features and positioning limitations that have not been taught or been fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN W JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
SWJackson
February 5, 2026
/STEPHEN W JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838