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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “wherein, when a thickness of the joining layer is T (µm) and a Young’s modulus of the joining layer at -100°C is E (MPa), a condition expressed as E ≤ 0.04 x T – 0.04 is satisfied” (emphasis added), however, it is noted that Young’s modulus is a “relative” property dependent upon the method and conditions under which the Young’s modulus is determined (as specifically detailed in the Japanese Office Action dated 11/15/2024, entitled Notice of Reasons for Revocation of Patent, in the counterpart application filed with the IDS dated 3/6/2025, Entire document, see particularly pages 5-24, and incorporated herein by reference), such that the numerical value of Young’s modulus can vary substantially based upon the method and conditions utilized to determine the value; and given that the instant specification does not define or discuss the method or conditions for measuring or determining the claimed Young’s modulus, the Examiner takes the position that the recitation of a Young’s modulus in the claimed relative expression without reciting the methods and conditions for measuring or determining the modulus renders the claims indefinite given that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim Interpretation
For examination purposes with respect to prior art, the Examiner has interpreted the claimed “Young’s modulus” as being one determined by any known method in the art.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inayoshi (WO2024/219229A1, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Inayoshi discloses an electrostatic chuck or holding device (10) comprising a ceramic plate-shaped portion (20) (Paragraph 0007) that is formed primarily from a ceramic, such as aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride (reading upon the claimed “dielectric substrate”; Paragraph 0016); a base portion (30) that provides a cooling function and contains at least one metal (reading upon the claimed “base plate formed of a metal material”; Paragraph 0018); and an adhesive layer (40) disposed between and bonding together the plate-shaped portion (20) and the base portion (30) (reading upon the claimed “joining layer which is provided between the dielectric substrate and the base plate” as in instant claim 1; Paragraphs 0007 and 0015); wherein the adhesive layer (40) contains an adhesive and an inorganic filler (Paragraph 0007), particularly an adhesive layer having a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -100°C or lower making “it possible to obtain an adhesive layer that is flexible even at -100°C and has stress relaxation properties, thereby realizing stable bonding and uniform heat conduction” (Paragraphs 0010 and 0050). Inayoshi discloses that the adhesive layer (40) has a storage modulus of preferably 30 MPa or less at -60°C (Paragraph 0011), more preferably 20 MPa or less, and even more preferably 5 MPa or less (Paragraph 0053), measured using a dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) as in the examples (Paragraphs 0061-0062); and given that silicone resin has a relatively low modulus of elasticity and therefore a high function of alleviating thermal stress generated in the adhesive layer (40), Inayoshi disclose that the adhesive layer (40) is preferably formed from a cured silicone resin adhesive composition as described in Paragraphs 0028-0045. Inayoshi specifically discloses working examples wherein the thickness of the adhesive sheet is 0.35 mm (350 µm) with several silicone resin adhesive compositions providing an adhesive having a Tg of -110°C and a storage modulus of less than 1 MPa at -60°C as well as at room temperature (Examples 4-9, e.g., substantially constant slightly higher than Tg through room temperature as is typical in the art), and given that the Tg is obtained by measuring the storage modulus of the adhesive layer using DMA by lowering the temperature to -150°C and increasing at a temperature rise rate of 2°C/min as described in Paragraphs 0061-0063, wherein in a graph thereof, the temperature at the tangent intersection point PI of the part where the storage modulus of the adhesive layer begins to decrease significantly as shown in Fig. 7 is taken as the Tg, the Examiner takes the position that the examples disclosed by Inayoshi having a Tg of -110°C and storage modulus at -60°C of less than 1 MPa as summarized in the tables shown in Figs. 4-5 would inherently have a storage modulus, which corresponds to the “Young’s modulus” (as evidenced by the Japanese Office Action dated 11/15/2024, see pages 17-20), at -100°C meeting the claimed expression at the 350 µm thickness, particularly when the claimed “Young’s modulus” at -100°C is determined by some arbitrary method. Hence, the Examiner takes the position that Inayoshi discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1 and 5.
With respect to instant claim 2, Inayoshi discloses a plurality of through holes (52) formed in the dielectric body/substrate (20) as shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0021), thereby anticipating instant claim 2.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkhe (US2022/0270864A1). Parkhe discloses an electrostatic chuck assembly for use in cryogenic applications at a cryogenic processing temperature of about -50°C to about -150°C (Paragraph 0018) comprising an electrostatic chuck (ESC) (180) comprising a dielectric body (182) (“dielectric substrate”, Paragraph 0024), a cooling plate (130) formed of a metal material (“base plate”; Paragraphs 0022-0023), and a bonding (“joining”) layer (170) disposed below the ESC (180) that secures the ESC (180), or dielectric body (182) thereof, to the cooling plate (130) (Entire document, particularly as noted above, Abstract, Paragraph 0029, and Figs. 1-2). Parkhe discloses that the bonding layer (170) has a thickness of about 0.1 mm (i.e., about 100 µm, reading upon the claimed “equal to or smaller than 100 µm” as recited in instant claim 4) to about 1.2 mm, such as about 0.3 mm to about 0.9 mm, or about 0.5 mm to about 0.7 mm (Paragraph 0040). Parkhe discloses that the bonding layer (170) can be one or more types of silicone materials, particularly one or more alkyl phenyl silicones, wherein the silicone material has a Tg of less than -60°C, such as a Tg of about -100°C to about -150°C, and a Young’s modulus of about 0.5 MPa to about 5 MPa, particularly a Young’s modulus of less than 1 MPa, such as about 0.5 MPa; and in several examples, the bonding layer (170) contains one or more silicone materials commercially available under the tradename NuSil® from Avantor, Inc. as recited in Paragraph 0041, including the exemplary NuSil® silicones of: “NuSil® R3-2160 two-component adhesive/sealant containing a silicone elastomer and useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −140° C.; NuSil® R-2655 and NuSil® R-2560 two-component silicones useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −115° C.; NuSil® R-2949 thermally conductive two-component adhesive useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −115° C.; and NuSil® R-2634 electrically conductive silicone adhesive useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −140° C” (Paragraphs 0038-0041; reading upon the claimed “wherein the joining layer is a layer generated by curing a silicone adhesive” as in instant claim 5), and given that one skilled in the art would clearly envisage the above Young’s modulus values as being over the above useful operating temperature ranges including at -100°C, particularly given that the above commercially available NuSil® silicones are known to maintain their elasticity or flexibility over the broad operating temperature ranges (as evidenced by the attached Avantor™ NuSil® Advanced Technologies – Aviation and Defense Silicones Product Guide brochure), the Examiner takes the position that Parkhe discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1, 4, and 5, given that the above thickness and Young’s modulus values of the bonding layer as disclosed by Parkhe would satisfy the claimed expression as recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to instant claim 2, Parkhe discloses that the ESC (180) also includes lift pin holes for accommodating lift pins (not shown) for elevating the substrate (124) above the substrate support surface (137) of the ESC (180) to facilitate robotic transfer into and out of the plasma processing chamber (100) shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0028). Hence, Parkhe anticipates instant claim 2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Alternatively, claims 1, 2, and 5 as well as claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inayoshi (WO2024/219229A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5 above, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Inayoshi are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory for the reasons discussed above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that based upon the teachings of Inayoshi, particularly with respect to the Tg of the silicone resin adhesive layer being -100°C or lower and the storage modulus at -60°C being more preferably 5 MPa or less with specific working examples having a Tg of -110°C and storage modulus below 1 MPa, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the silicone resin adhesive layer (40) taught by Inayoshi, particularly as in the cited examples, to exhibit a Young’s modulus at -100°C that would satisfy the claimed expression at the 350 µm thickness taught by Inayoshi, including when determined by the same method and/or conditions as in the instant invention. Further, Inayoshi teaches that there are no particular limitations on the thickness of the adhesive layer (40) (Paragraph 0065), and given that Inayoshi teaches that the average particle size of the filler is preferably 5 nm or more and 50 µm or less, wherein “if the average particle diameter exceeds 50 µm, the particle diameter is large, making it more difficult to control the sheet thickness during sheet molding, etc., compared to when the particle diameter is small, and as a result, the flatness of the surface of the adhesive layer 40 tends to decrease” (Paragraph 0046), with a more preferred average particle size range being 50 nm or more and 40 µm or less, and even more preferably 100 nm or more and 30 µm or less (Paragraph 0046), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an adhesive layer thickness equal to or larger than the 50 µm or 40 µm or 30 µm average particle diameter of filler, thereby rendering the claimed thickness of “equal to or smaller than 100 µm” as recited in instant claim 4 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art while still satisfying the claimed expression particularly in light of the working examples having modulus values of less than 1 MPa. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results over the teachings of Inayoshi, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 would have been obvious over Inayoshi given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claim 3, as discussed above with respect to instant claim 2, Inayoshi clearly teaches a plurality of through holes (52) formed in the dielectric body/substrate (20) as shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0021), and although Inayoshi does not specifically teach a diameter at an end thereof on an opposite side to the joining layer of equal to or smaller than 0.2 mm as instantly claimed, given the overall dimensions taught by Inayoshi in the examples and that the drawings appear to suggest a diameter of the holes (52) smaller than the thickness of the adhesive layer (40) (Entire document, particularly Examples, Figures), the claimed diameter range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, particularly given that diameters of similar magnitude are typical in the art (e.g., as evidenced by JP2006-013256A, Claim 8). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Inayoshi.
Alternatively, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as well as claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe (US2022/0270864A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 above, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Parkhe are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that based upon the teachings of Parkhe, particularly with respect to the above bonding layer (170) thickness range and the preferred Young’s modulus values in light of the processing temperature range of about -50°C to about -150°C and the operating temperatures of the preferred commercially available silicone resins, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the recited Young’s modulus values to be exhibited over the processing temperature and/or operating temperature ranges taught by Parkhe such that the thickness and Young’s modulus at -100°C of the invention taught by Parkhe would satisfy the claimed expression even when measured by the same method and/or conditions as in the instant invention. Hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 would have been obvious over the teachings of Parkhe, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claim 3, as discussed above with respect to instant claim 2, Parkhe teaches that the ESC (180) also includes lift pin holes for accommodating lift pins (not shown) for elevating the substrate (124) above the substrate support surface (137) of the ESC (180) to facilitate robotic transfer into and out of the plasma processing chamber (100) shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0028), and although Parkhe does not specifically teach a diameter at an end thereof on an opposite side to the joining layer of equal to or smaller than 0.2 mm as instantly claimed, given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to determine the optimum pin hole diameter based upon the robotic utilized for transfer, wherein a “pin hole” diameter within the claimed range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 3 would have been obvious over the teachings of Parkhe.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (US2022/0223454A1) discloses an electrostatic chuck comprising a base plate (10), an electrostatic adsorption member (50) that adsorbs and holds a substrate, and an adhesive layer (20) that adhesively bonds the electrostatic adsorption members to the base plate, wherein a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer is not less than 0.01 MPa and not more than 25 MPa within a temperature range of −110° C. to 250° C, and has a thickness of not less than 0.05 mm and not more than 0.4 mm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787