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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Migita U.S. Patent Application 2011/0058303 (hereinafter “Migita”).
Regarding claim 1, Migita teaches a substrate fixing device (i.e. wafer support member 1)(fig.12)(refer also to electrostatic chuck 200)(figs.15 and 16)(refer also to [0132]) comprising: a base plate (i.e. base 3)(fig.12); an adhesive layer (i.e. first layer 91 and second layer 92)(fig.12) provided on the base plate (implicit)(refer to fig.12); a heat insulating layer (i.e. fourth layer 94)(fig.12) provided on the adhesive layer (implicit)(refer to fig.12); and an electrostatic chuck (i.e. insulating layer 5 and heat equalizer plate 15)(fig.12)(refer also to electrostatic chuck 200)(figs.15 and 16)(refer also to [0132]) provided on the heat insulating layer (implicit)(refer to figs.12, 15, and 16), wherein the electrostatic chuck includes a base (i.e. insulating layer 5)(figs.12, 15, and 16) and an electrostatic electrode provided in the base (i.e. electrode 21)(figs.15 and 16), and wherein the heat insulating layer has a lower thermal conductivity than the base and the adhesive layer (refer to [0064], [0102], [0103], [0106], [0109], [0111], [0128] and [0129]).
Regarding claim 2, Migita teaches the substrate fixing device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer is equal to or larger than a thickness of the heat insulating layer (refer to [0130]).
Regarding claim 3, Migita teaches the substrate fixing device according to claim 1, further comprising a heating element (i.e. heating resistor 23)(fig.15) provided in the base (implicit)(refer to fig.15).
Regarding claim 5, Migita teaches the substrate fixing device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer has a laminated structure in which a second adhesive layer (i.e. second layer 92)(fig.12) is laminated on a first adhesive layer (i.e. first layer 91)(fig.12)(refer also to [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Migita teaches the substrate fixing device according to claim 5, wherein the first adhesive layer is formed of an adhesive having a higher elastic modulus than the second adhesive layer (refer to [0068]).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. U.S. Patent Application 2013/0148253 (hereinafter “Komatsu”).
Regarding claim 4, Migita teaches the substrate fixing device according to claim 1, further comprising: component layer (i.e. layer 5a)(fig.16) provided between the base (i.e. layer 5b)(fig.16) and the heat insulating layer (refer to bonding layer 90)(fig.16); and a heating element (i.e. heating resistor 23)(fig.16) provided in the component layer (implicit), wherein the heat insulating layer has a lower thermal conductivity than the insulating resin layer (refer to [0064], [0102], [0103], [0106], [0109], [0111], [0128] and [0129]); however, Migita does not teach wherein the component layer is an insulating resin. However, Komatsu teaches wherein the component layer is an insulating resin (refer to heat resisting layer 24)(fig.1)(refer also to [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Migita to include the insulating resin of Komatsu to provide the advantage of using a material capable of withstanding the heat generated by the heating element without damage or excessive expansion.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takemoto et al. U.S. Patent Application 2018/0047604 (hereinafter “Takemoto”).
Regarding claim 7, Migita teaches the substrate fixing device according to claim 1; however, Migita does not teach wherein the adhesive layer and the heat insulating layer annularly expose an outer peripheral portion of the base plate, and wherein a sealing material that covers an outer peripheral surface of the adhesive layer and the heat insulating layer is provided on an annularly exposed region of the outer peripheral portion of the base plate. However, Takemoto teaches wherein the adhesive layer and the heat insulating layer annularly expose an outer peripheral portion of the base plate (refer to seal member 50)(fig.7), and wherein a sealing material (i.e. seal member 50)(fig.7) that covers an outer peripheral surface of the adhesive layer and the heat insulating layer (implicit) is provided on an annularly exposed region of the outer peripheral portion of the base plate (implicit). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Migita to include the sealing material of Takemoto to provide the advantage of preventing the insulating layers from being subjected to plasma that may lead to erosion (refer to Takemoto [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838