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) 1-5, 10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake (JP 2021-028958) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0286530 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 12:
Regarding claim 1, Satake teaches a substrate processing device comprising:
a processing chamber 1 in which plasma is generated; a support 4 disposed in the processing chamber 1; a base 2a in which a pin through hole 200b is formed and which is disposed over the support 4; an electrostatic chuck 6 in which a pin through hole 200a that communicates with the pin through hole 200b is formed and that is disposed over the base 2a; an inner sleeve 201 that is disposed in the pin through hole 200b and that is constituted of a cylindrical insulating member; an outer sleeve 202 that is disposed in the pin through hole 200b so as to surround a portion of the circumference of the inner sleeve 201 and that is constituted of a cylindrical insulating member; an O-ring 203 disposed between the inner sleeve 201 and the electrostatic chuck 6; and
an O-ring 207 disposed between the inner sleeve 201 and the base 2a. (Paragraphs 0003, 0010, 0026-0039,0056-0062, Figs. 1-3)
Satake teaches an O ring 207 disposed between the inner sleeve 201 and the base 2a, but the location of the placement of the O-ring is different.
The difference between Satake and claims 1 and 12 is that a second sealing member disposed between the first insulating member and the insulating support member disposed within the base support.
Regarding claims 1, 12, Lin et al. teach a second sealing member disposed between the first insulating member and the insulating support member disposed within the base support. (Fig. 1A, Paragraphs 0025, 0030)
PNG
media_image1.png
491
1185
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2 AND 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first insulating member includes: a first portion having a first outer diameter; and a second portion having a second outer diameter larger than the first outer diameter and disposed below the first portion, and wherein the second insulating member is disposed to surround the first portion.
Regarding claims 2, 13, Satake teaches from Fig. 2 an inner sleeve 201 having an upper section (first section) having a first outer diameter and a lower section (second section) that has an outer diameter larger than the first outer diameter and that is disposed under the upper section (first section), and that the outer sleeve 202 is disposed so as to surround the circumference of the upper section (first section) of the inner sleeve 201.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 14:
The difference not yet discusses is wherein the first insulating member is disposed within the first through hole such that the second portion and an inner circumferential surface of the first through hole are in contact with each other.
Regarding claims 3, 14, Satake teaches in Fig. 2 an inner sleeve 201 disposed in the pin through hole 200b such that the lower section (second section) and the inner circumferential surface of the pin through hole 200b are in contact with each other.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 4 AND 15:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an adhesive layer provided between the base and the electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claims 4, 15, Satake teaches in paragraph 0027, Fig. 2 an adhesive layer 7 provided between the base 2a and the electrostatic chuck 6.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5 AND 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first insulating member has at least one protrusion configured to be in contact with the first sealing member to align the first sealing member.
Regarding claims 5, 16, Satake teaches in paragraphs 0056-0062, Fig. 3 protruding sections 209b, 209c, and 209d provided at a tip of the inner sleeve 201 so as to be in contact with the O-ring 203.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a lifter pin inserted through the first through hole and the second through hole; and a lifter pin guide configured to guide the lifter pin, wherein the first insulating member has a fitting portion configured to fit with the lifter pin guide.
Regarding claim 10, Satake teaches at paragraphs [0030], [0031], fig. 1, 2 that a lifter pin 61 is provided. A sleeve is used to guide a lifter pin. The feature of additionally providing a lifter pin guide that guides a lifter pin merely is a design matter that could be addressed, as appropriate, by a person skilled in the art during implementation.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Lin et al. is that it allows for electrical isolation of the lift pin. (Paragraph 0025)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Satake by utilizing the features of Lin et al. because it allows for electrical isolation.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake in view of Lin et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 12-16 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2012-142325).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 8 AND 19:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a cylindrical lid member having a male thread portion configured to screw into a female thread portion formed in the first through hole.
Regarding claims 8, 19, Sasaki et al. teach at Paragraph 0035 an O-ring provided to prevent an inner sleeve from falling.
Sasaki et al. teach that when inserting a sleeve 45 into a through hole 41, a lid member 55 is secured to a base material 13.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 9 AND 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the female thread portion is alumite-processed, and wherein the lid member is made of a resin material.
Sasaki et al. teach in paragraph [0053], fig. 4 a sleeve attachment process, a fitting section is treated with anodized aluminum.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sasaki et al. is that it allows for easily fitting. (Paragraph 0053)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Sasaki et al. because it allows for easily fitting.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake in view of Lin et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 12-16 above, and further in view of Nangoy (U.S. Pat. 9,034,771).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a third sealing member disposed between the base and the insulating support member.
Nangoy teaches in Fig. 4 providing multiple sealing members between the insulation member 414 and the electrostatic chuck 410. (Fig. 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nangoy is that it allows for providing isolation. (Column 9 lines 34-35)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Nangoy because it allows for providing isolation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 17, 18 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:
Claims 6, 7, 17, 18 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach wherein the at least one protrusion is a plurality of protrusions installed in a circumferential direction, and a space is provided between each of the protrusions.
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
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights