Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/700,681

CRYOGENIC ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Apr 11, 2024
Examiner
JACKSON, STEPHEN W
Art Unit
2838
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kwangwoon University Industry-Academic Collaboration Foundation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
974 granted / 1056 resolved
+24.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
1070
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§112
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1056 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/574,925)(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are related by being electrostatic substrate holders having a thermal conductivity adjustment function based on gas pressure, with differences between the two claim groups being only minor variations in the implantation of the adjustment function that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of persons of ordinary skill are taken into full consideration. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Instant claim 1 recites: A cryogenic electrostatic chuck device, comprising: a substrate holder which fixes a substrate by an electrostatic force; and a body which is disposed below the substrate holder and includes a thermal conductivity adjustment channel which is formed of a metal based material determined based on a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the substrate holder and adjusts a thermal conductivity based on a pressure formed by a thermal conductivity adjustment gas supplied by an adjustment gas supply unit. Claim 17 of the copending Application recites: A multi-zone temperature control method by a heat transfer adjustment structure, comprising: a step of installing a heat transfer adjustment structure between a heat source and a heat sink; a step of supplying a first heat transfer gas to a first inner space among multi-zones of the heat transfer adjustment structure; a step of supplying a second heat transfer gas to a second inner space among multi-zones of the heat transfer adjustment structure; a step of adjusting a pressure of the first heat transfer gas; a step of adjusting a pressure of the second heat transfer gas; and a step of controlling a heat transfer time by changing a heat transfer amount between the heat source and the heat sink in accordance with the change in a pressure of the first heat transfer gas and the change in a pressure of the second heat transfer gas. Both claims adjust gas pressure to change the heat transfer rate. 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(s) 1 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonekura et al (2009/0159590A1). Yonekura discloses an electrostatic chuck device, comprising: a substrate holder 21 which fixes a substrate 20 by an electrostatic force (see electrodes 23); and a body 12 which is disposed below the substrate holder 20 and includes a thermal conductivity adjustment channel 47 which is formed of a metal based material determined based on a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the substrate holder (intrinsic to the formation of the channel in the material of the base) and adjusts a thermal conductivity based on a pressure formed by a thermal conductivity adjustment gas supplied by an adjustment gas supply unit (see paras 0077,0078). Claims 10 and 11 are addressed by the body 12 and substrate holder 20 being shown to have the same diameter in the main figure. Claim 12 is an intrinsic material in the formation of substrate holder arrangements. Claim 13 adds details of how to select the gas pressure based on engineering principles such as referring to a look-up table and using temperature sensors in a manner that is intrinsic to the use of a substrate holder in semiconductor manufacturing. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-9 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 the additional feature of thermal conductivity sub-channels 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 December 12, 2025 /STEPHEN W JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603481
SMART AIR IONIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603493
REVERSE WIRING SELF-PROTECTION CIRCUIT AND SOLID-STATE CIRCUIT BREAKER INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603495
FAULT CURRENT-LIMITING CONTROL METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC GRID-FORMING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601793
OPEN-PHASE FAULT MONITORING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597767
NETWORK PROTECTOR THAT DETECTS AN ERROR CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1056 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month