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
Claims 15-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 7-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (USPGPub2016/0230281).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches that it is known to provide a substrate support assembly comprising a heater body that may comprise aluminum nitride, a known dielectric material [0036-0037] wherein a heater electrode is embedded in the plate and wherein the support may comprise an RF mesh and ground electrode as cited above. Further Lin teaches wherein the plate may be further cooled by a series of channels within the plate that may be fed by a gas wherein the gas flow may function as claimed [0042] although the prior art need merely be capable of functioning as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, aluminum nitride is a ceramic material.
Regarding claim 3, the plate of Lin is further positioned upon a shaft (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, item (310) reads upon an RF connector as claimed [0040] and is positioned relative to the shaft in the manner claimed.
Regrading claim 7, an “edge electrode” is not defined by the current application in any manner giving it meaning above that of the ground electrode or heater electrode of Lin as cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches that it is known to provide a substrate support assembly comprising a heater body that may comprise aluminum nitride, a known dielectric material [0036-0037] wherein a heater electrode is embedded in the plate and wherein the support may comprise an RF mesh and ground electrode as cited above. Further Lin teaches wherein the plate may be further cooled by a series of channels within the plate that may be fed by a gas wherein the gas flow may function as claimed [0042] although the prior art need merely be capable of functioning as claimed. Further Lin teaches the use of a showerhead assembly as claimed [0032] wherein the substrate support assembly may be arranged relative to the showerhead assembly as claimed wherein the device may further comprise lift pins functioning as claimed [0031].
Regarding claim 9, aluminum nitride is a ceramic material.
Regarding claim 10, item (310) reads upon an RF connector as claimed [0040] and is positioned relative to the shaft in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 13, an “edge electrode” is not defined by the current application in any manner giving it meaning above that of the ground electrode or heater electrode of Lin as cited above.
Regarding claim 14, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Lin teaches the use of plasma in his invention and the prior art plasma deposition apparatus is reasonably capable of CCP processing as claimed.
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.
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.
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) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (USPGPub 2016/0230281) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-14 above and further in view of Thach et al. (USPGPub 2014/0177213).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Lin are as shown above. Lin fails to teach wherein the RF connector is a coaxial connector provided with an outer shield and an RF rod. However, Thach teaches it is known to provide electrostatic chucks for plasma treatment operations that are to be coupled to RF power sources with a coax delivery line comprising an insulting tube encased in a metal rod further encased in another insulating tube [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide power to the RF mesh of Lin in the same way as provided by Thach because Thach shows that his materials provided for the power provision are known in the same field of endeavor to be suitable for the same intended purposes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Lin are as shown above. Lin fails to teach wherein the RF connector is a coaxial connector provided with an outer shield and an RF rod. However, Thach teaches it is known to provide electrostatic chucks for plasma treatment operations that are to be coupled to RF power sources with a coax delivery line comprising an insulting tube encased in a metal rod further encased in another insulating tube [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide power to the RF mesh of Lin in the same way as provided by Thach because Thach shows that his materials provided for the power provision are known in the same field of endeavor to be suitable for the same intended purposes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (USPGPub 2016/0230281) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-14 above and further in view of Parkhe et al. (USPGPub 2013/0088808).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Lin are as shown above. Lin fails to teach the use of porous plug as claimed. However, Parkhe teaches that porous plugs may be employed in the gas channels of an electrostatic chuck device for the purpose of providing a desired gas flow rate within the channels of the chucking device [0027-0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the porous plugs of Parkhe in the invention of Lin in order to control the gas flow rate of the chucking mechanism of Lin as guided by Parkhe.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Lin are as shown above. Lin fails to teach the use of porous plug as claimed. However, Parkhe teaches that porous plugs may be employed in the gas channels of an electrostatic chuck device for the purpose of providing a desired gas flow rate within the channels of the chucking device [0027-0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the porous plugs of Parkhe in the invention of Lin in order to control the gas flow rate of the chucking mechanism of Lin as guided by Parkhe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717