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 Invention I and Species I-1 drawn to claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 19 Feb 2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted that all of the Species were found in the prior art during search. Therefore, the election of Species requirement is withdrawn and claims 1-9 have been examined on the merits.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 Feb 2026.
Claims 1-9 are examined on their merits as discussed in detail below.
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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0013658 A1 hereinafter “Ko”) in view of Hong et al. (US 2016/0248049 A1 hereinafter “Hong”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Regarding independent claim 1, Ko teaches a deposition apparatus (comprising thin film deposition apparatus including chamber 400, Fig. 1, para. [0047]; Fig. 10, para. [0077]) comprising:
a base substrate (comprising substrate 10, Fig. 1 and 10, para. [0047],[0077];
an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck unit 100 including chuck body 110, Fig. 1 and 10, para. [0049], [0077]) on the base substrate (comprising 10, Fig. 1 and 10); and
a plate (comprising magnet unit 140 including yoke plate 142 and magnet 141, Fig. 10, para. [0077]) on the electrostatic chuck (comprising 110, Fig. 10), the plate(comprising 140, Fig. 10) having a magnet (comprising 141, Fig. 10).
Ko does not explicitly teach the plate has a first area in which first magnet units are arranged and a second area in which second magnet units are arranged, wherein the first magnet units are spaced apart from each other at a first distance, and the second magnet units are spaced apart from each other at a second distance, the second distance being greater than the first distance.
Examiner notes that the plate (comprising 140 including 142, Fig. 10) of Ko is configured to hold a mask (para. [0077])
However, Hong teaches a plate (comprising mask fixing part 140 including plate 144, Fig. 1-6) configured to hold a mask (comprising 20, Fig. 2, para. [0039]), wherein the plate (comprising 144, Fig. 1-6) comprises a plurality of magnet units (comprising 142, Fig. 1-6) wherein the plate (comprising 144, Fig. 1-6) has a first area (i.e. a central area) in which first magnet units (comprising 142 disposed in a central region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) are arranged and a second area (i.e. an outer area) in which second magnet units (comprising 142 disposed in an outer region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) wherein the first magnet units (comprising 142 disposed in a central region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) are spaced apart from each other at a first distance (as understood from Fig. 1-6), and the second magnet units (comprising 142 disposed at an outer region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) are spaced apart from each other at a second distance (as understood from Fig. 1-6). Hong further teaches that each of the plurality of magnet units are adjustable/movable (i.e. the spacing between each magnet unit is adjustable, see arrows Fig. 2-6) to affect the magnetic strength applied to the mask (para. [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0053]). In other words, Hong teaches that the spacing of the magnet units is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask. Without evidence of unexpected results, the spacing between each magnet unit cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plate to include a plurality of first magnet units arranged in a first area (i.e. central area) of the plate and a plurality of second magnet units arranged in a second area (i.e. outer area) of the plate and to further optimize, through routine optimization, the spacing between each magnet unit because Hong teaches that a plate configured to hold a mask having a plurality of magnet units including first and second magnet units arranged in corresponding first and second areas of the plate is a known suitable alternative configuration of a plate configured to hold a mask and because Hong further teaches that the spacing between each magnet unit is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask (Hong: para. [0041], [0048-53]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the spacing of each magnet unit to enable optimized holding of the mask for optimal substrate processing.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.
Regarding claim 2, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between one of the first magnet units and one of the second magnet units adjacent to the one of the first magnet units is greater than the first distance.
However, Hong further teaches that each of the plurality of magnet units are adjustable/movable (i.e. the spacing between each magnet unit is adjustable, see arrows Fig. 2-6) to affect the magnetic strength applied to the mask (para. [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0053]). In other words, Hong teaches that the spacing of the magnet units is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask. Without evidence of unexpected results, the spacing between each magnet unit cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the spacing between each magnet unit of the first magnet units and the second magnet units because Hong further teaches that the spacing between each magnet unit is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask (Hong: para. [0041], [0048-53]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the spacing of each magnet unit to enable optimized holding of the mask for optimal substrate processing.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.
Regarding claim 3, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above Hong further teaches wherein the second magnet units (comprising 142 disposed at an outer region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) comprise first sub-magnet units (i.e. a subset of the magnets 142 disposed at an outer region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) spaced apart from each other at the second distance and a second sub-magnet units (comprising a different subset of the magnets 142 disposed at an outer region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) spaced apart from each other at a third distance.
Ko in view of Hong as applied above does not explicitly teach the third distance is greater than the second distance, and wherein the first sub-magnet units are closer to the first magnet units than the second sub-magnet units are.
However, Hong further teaches that each of the plurality of magnet units are adjustable/movable (i.e. the spacing between each magnet unit is adjustable, see arrows Fig. 2-6) to affect the magnetic strength applied to the mask (para. [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0053]). In other words, Hong teaches that the spacing of the magnet units is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask. Without evidence of unexpected results, the spacing between each magnet unit cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the spacing between each magnet unit (i.e. first sub-magnet unit, second sub-magnet unit, and first magnet units) because Hong further teaches that the spacing between each magnet unit is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask (Hong: para. [0041], [0048-53]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the spacing of each magnet unit to enable optimized holding of the mask for optimal substrate processing.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.
Regarding claim 4, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 3 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between one of the first magnet units and one of the second magnet units adjacent to the one of the first magnet units is greater than the second distance.
However, Hong further teaches that each of the plurality of magnet units are adjustable/movable (i.e. the spacing between each magnet unit is adjustable, see arrows Fig. 2-6) to affect the magnetic strength applied to the mask (para. [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0053]). In other words, Hong teaches that the spacing of the magnet units is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask. Without evidence of unexpected results, the spacing between each magnet unit cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the spacing between each magnet unit (i.e. first magnet units and second magnet units) because Hong further teaches that the spacing between each magnet unit is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic force applied to the mask (Hong: para. [0041], [0048-53]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the spacing of each magnet unit to enable optimized holding of the mask for optimal substrate processing.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.
Regarding claim 5, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein a magnetic flux density of the first magnet units is smaller than a magnetic flux density of the second magnet units.
However, Hong further teaches the magnetic flux density (i.e. magnetic force strength) is a result-effective variable which affects how strongly the mask is held to the magnet units (comprising 142, Fig. 1-8) (para. [0041]-[0044]). Without evidence of unexpected results, the magnetic flux density/magnetic force strength cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the magnetic flux density/magnetic force strength of the first magnet units and the second magnet units because Hong teaches the magnetic flux density/magnetic force strength is a result-effective variable which affects how strongly the mask is held to the magnet units wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the magnetic flux density/magnetic force strength of the first magnet units and the second magnet units to enable optimized holding of the mask for optimal substrate processing.
Regarding claim 6, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above Ko further teaches wherein the electrostatic chuck (comprising 110, Fig. 4-6) has a first electrode area (comprising wiring portion 111, Fig. 4-6) and a second electrode area (comprising wiring portion 112, Fig. 4-6) different from the first electrode area (comprising 111, Fig. 4-6)(para. [0049]. [0053], [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding limitation “wherein, when viewed on a plane, the first electrode area and the first area overlap with each other” since the first electrode area (Ko: comprising 111, Fig. 4-6) is in a central area it would obviously overlap with the first area/central area of the plate. Thus, the combination would meet claim 6 limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 6 wherein Ko further teaches a driver (comprising power source 120, Fig. 1,4-6, 10) configured to independently control a voltage (i.e. amount of electricity supplied is controlled differently) applied to each of the first electrode area (comprising 111, Fig. 4-6) and the second electrode area (comprising 112, Fig. 4-6) (para. [0065]). Thus, the combination would meet claim 7 limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Ko in view of Hong teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Hong further teaches at least one of the first magnet units and the second magnet units comprises a permanent magnet (para. [0041]). Thus, the combination meets claim 8 limitations.
Regarding independent claim 9, Ko teaches a deposition apparatus (comprising thin film deposition apparatus including chamber 400, Fig. 1, para. [0047]; Fig. 10, para. [0077]) comprising:
a base substrate (comprising substrate 10, Fig. 1 and 10, para. [0047],[0077];
an electrostatic chuck (comprising electrostatic chuck unit 100 including chuck body 110, Fig. 1 and 10, para. [0049], [0077]) on the base substrate (comprising 10, Fig. 1 and 10), the electrostatic chuck (comprising 110, Fig. 1, 4-6, 10) having a first electrode area (comprising wiring portion 111, Fig. 4-6) and a second electrode area (comprising wiring portion 112, Fig. 4-6) different from the first electrode area( para. [0049]. [0053], [0064]-[0073]);
a driver (comprising power source 120, Fig. 1,4-6, 10) configured to independently control a voltage (i.e. amount of electricity supplied is controlled differently) applied to each of the first electrode area (comprising 111, Fig. 4-6) and the second electrode area (comprising 112, Fig. 4-6) (para. [0065]); and
a plate (comprising magnet unit 140 including yoke plate 142 and magnet 141, Fig. 10, para. [0077]) on the electrostatic chuck (comprising 110, Fig. 10), the plate(comprising 140, Fig. 10) having a magnet (comprising 141, Fig. 10).
Ko does not explicitly teach the plate having a first area in which first magnet units are arranged and a second area in which second magnet units are arranged.
Examiner notes that the plate (comprising 140 including 142, Fig. 10) of Ko is configured to hold a mask (para. [0077]).
However, Hong teaches a plate (comprising mask fixing part 140 including plate 144, Fig. 1-6) configured to hold a mask (comprising 20, Fig. 2, para. [0039]), wherein the plate (comprising 144, Fig. 1-6) comprises a plurality of magnet units (comprising 142, Fig. 1-6) wherein the plate (comprising 144, Fig. 1-6) has a first area (i.e. a central area) in which first magnet units (comprising 142 disposed in a central region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6) are arranged and a second area (i.e. an outer area) in which second magnet units (comprising 142 disposed in an outer region of the plate 144, Fig. 1-6). Hong further teaches that each of the plurality of magnet units are adjustable/movable (i.e. the spacing between each magnet unit is adjustable, see arrows Fig. 2-6) to affect the magnetic strength applied to the mask (para. [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0053]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plate to include a plurality of first magnet units arranged in a first area (i.e. central area) of the plate and a plurality of second magnet units arranged in a second area (i.e. outer area) of the plate because Hong teaches that a plate configured to hold a mask having a plurality of magnet units including first and second magnet units arranged in corresponding first and second areas of the plate is a known suitable alternative configuration of a plate configured to hold a mask.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2017/0076968 A1) teaches an electrostatic chuck having a first electrode area (comprising one of 1301- 1306, of 141, 142, Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A-2D) and a second electrode area (comprising a different one of 1301- 1306 of 141, 142, Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A-2D) different from the first electrode area and a driver (comprising power supply 120, Fig. 1A and 1B) configured to independently control a voltage applied to each of the first electrode area and the second electrode area (para. [0022]-[0024]).
Lee (KR20200116565A) teaches a plate including magnet units wherein too weak a magnetic force from the magnet unit would cause wrinkling of the mask due to gravity but too strong a magnetic force from the magnet unit would cause wrinkling of the mask due to the applied magnetic force from the magnet unit (para. [0128], Fig. 1-9, 11-13).
Miyazaki (JP2020094244A) teaches a plate including magnet units wherein having the spacing between magnet units is a result-effective variable which affects the magnetic flux/attractive force (Fig. 1-10, para. [0036]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights