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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2-3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/08/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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 4 and 7-9 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “a capacitance is equal to or greater than 1 nF.” However, the claim does not identify what has this claimed capacitance range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what capacitance is being limited by the Claim 1 and renders this claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “σ11 and σ22 as two directions perpendicular to a thickness direction of the dielectric layer … compressive stress”. The claim does not identify what has the compressive stresses. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what compressive stress is being measured and is being limited by the Claim 7 and renders this claim indefinite.
Claims 8-9 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 7.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishino (JP 3426845 B2)
Regarding Claim 1, Kishino teaches a plasma-resistant laminate for an electrostatic chuck (Page 1, 4) comprising a substrate (Fig. 1b, Item 4), a membrane electrode located on the substrate (Fib. 1b, Item 2), and a dielectric layer located on the membrane electrode. (Fig. 1b, Item 1). Kishino teaches the substrate can comprise sapphire. (Page 2). Kishino teaches the dielectric can comprise yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), an oxide comprising yttrium. (Page). Kishino teaches the electrode can comprise an active metal of Cr or Mo. (Page 3).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishino, in further view of Maeta et al. (US 2018/0269097 A1), Boyd et al. (US 2017/0140970 A1) and WaferWorld (NPL).
Regarding Claim 3, Kishino does not teach the thickness of the electrode or the thickness and area of dielectric layer.
Maeta teaches thickness of an electrode layer for an electrostatic chuck should be 0.1 to 100 microns. (Paragraph 0050). This overlaps the claimed range of 5 microns or less. Maeta teaches this ensure for sufficient electrical conductivity for chucking. (Paragraph 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness to the claimed range for sufficient electric conductivity.
Boyd teaches the thickness of outer dielectric layer can be a multilayer coating to protect an electrostatic chuck can be 6 micron or less. (Paragraph 0043-0044) Boyd teaches this coating fill cracks and offers plasma protection. (Paragraph 0042-0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the dielectric layer of Boyd to the claimed thickness to Kishino to ensure the dielectric layer can protect the chuck.
WaferWorld teaches wafers can be processed from sizes up to 450 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make chuck and therefore the dielectric layer to an area that overlaps the claimed range to handle all sizes of wafers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishino (JP 3426845 B2) in view of Maeta et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Kishino does not specifically teach the membrane electrode comprises titanium, yttrium or a laminate thereof.
Maeta, like Kishino, teaches a plasma resistant laminate for an electrostatic chuck of a substrate, electrode layer, and dielectric layer. (Fig. 1; Abstract) Maeta teaches the electrode can comprise yttrium oxide-molybdenum or molybdenum and these two materials are suitable equivalents. (Paragraph 0049). Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation (see MPEP 2144.06.II.). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use either yttrium oxide-molybdenum or molybdenum as Maeta teaches they are functional equivalents for electrostatic chuck electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 and 10-12 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights