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 1-6 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 (IDS) were submitted on 07/29/2024, 12/26/2024 and 01/29/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 lines 2-3, “ceramic to an observation range” should be -- ceramic in an observation range--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (JP 2020004748 A), and further in view of Ueki (JP 2013077702 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji teaches a holding apparatus (abstract, An electrostatic chuck) comprising:
a holding substrate (i.e. ceramic member 10, fig.2) that has a first surface (i.e. suction surface S1, fig.2) on which an object is to be held (page 3, the wafer W held on the suction surface S1) and a second surface opposite the first surface (i.e. ceramic-side bonding surface S2 is on opposite side compared to S1, fig.2), the holding substrate including a plate member (page 2, The ceramic member 10 is, for example, a plate member) that contains a ceramic as a main component (page 2, is formed of ceramics) and an electrode layer (i.e. chuck electrode 40 and heater electrode 50, fig.2) that is disposed in the plate member (page 2, Inside the ceramic member 10, a pair of chuck electrodes 40 formed) (page 3, inside the ceramic member 10, a heater electrode 50 formed), that contains a conductive material as a main component (page 3, containing a conductive material), and that contains the ceramic as a sub-component (page 4, The chuck electrode 40 and heater electrode 50 each include alumina as a ceramic material),
wherein the plate member includes a first dielectric layer that is disposed on a surface of the electrode layer facing the first surface (e.g. portion of 10 between 40 and S1, fig.2) and in which a content of the main component is 99% by mass or more (page 4, The ceramic member 10 has a purity of aluminum oxide (alumina, Al .sub.2 O .sub.3 ) of 99.8% or more), and a second dielectric layer that is disposed on a surface of the electrode layer facing the second surface (e.g. portion of 10 between 50 and S2, fig.2) and in which a content of the main component is 99% by mass or more (page 4, The ceramic member 10 has a purity of aluminum oxide (alumina, Al .sub.2 O .sub.3 ) of 99.8% or more).
Tsuji does not teach, wherein a fractal dimension D of the surface of the electrode layer facing the first surface is 1.18 or more.
Ueki teaches in a similar field of metal foil lamination, a fractal dimension D of a surface of the electrode layer facing the first surface is 1.18 or more (abstract, fractal dimension of a profile line on the surface on the side to be laminated to the base material in a cross section of the copper foil 10 is in a range of 1.020-1.400).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the fractal dimension D of the surface of the electrode layer facing the first surface is 1.18 or more in Tsuji, as taught by Ueki, as it provides the advantage of better adhesion of metal foil to ceramic layer,while maintaining high definition of the electrode pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji and Ueki teach the holding apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein an area ratio of the ceramic in an observation range that is set at a center of the electrode layer in a cross-section of the electrode layer in a thickness direction is 30% or less (Tsuji, page 4, the chuck electrode 40 is preferably higher than 20%, and more preferably 45% or less) (Tsuji, page 5, The content of alumina in the heater electrode 50 is 10 area% or more and 30 area% or less).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji and Ueki teach the holding apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the ceramic is not present in a form in which the ceramic connects the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer to each other in the cross-section of the electrode layer (e.g. ceramic 11 is not present in the same form in regions other than 40, as compared to ceramics in region 40, fig.5) (e.g. ceramic 11 is not present in the same form in regions other than 50, as compared to ceramics in region 50, fig.6).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji and Ueki teach the holding apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein an area ratio of the electrode layer to the first surface is 80% or more when the plate member is viewed in plan view (page 4, ratio of the area of the chuck electrode 40 in the second virtual plane L2 to the area of the ceramic member 10 in the second virtual plane L2 is preferably 80% or more. It is preferably 90% or less).
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for the same reason as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected for the same reason as stated above for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 03/03/2026