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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III (claims 15-20) in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/26. Newly added claims 21-26 appears to readable on the elected Group III is acknowledged.
An OA on the merits of claims 15-20 and 21-26 as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as in claim 15 entirely must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that ¶ [0105] discloses the tool but no reference or drawing number representing such tool as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract should have been revised to reflect a tool invention
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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) 15-17 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jeong (US 20210125813).
Jeong discloses the claimed semiconductor manufacturing tool comprising:
an electrostatic chuck (ESC) 101 (see Fig. 1);
a first electrode electrically coupled to the electrostatic chuck (see discussion at the end section of ¶ [0019] for the voltage terminal which disposed through the ESC 101 representing the claimed first electrode, respectively); and
an edge ring 102 extending over the electrostatic chuck, wherein the edge ring comprises a coil embedded in a dielectric material (see Fig. 1, and discussed in ¶ [0019]).
Limitations of claims 16-18 are also met by Jeong (in light of discussion in ¶ [0019] see bottom section).
As applied to claims 21-26 (see similar discussion as claims 15-18 above) with the exception of where “the coil extending over the ESC” (see Fig. 1 of the Jeong which discloses the configuration as set forth in claim 21) includes the coil 102 extending over the ESC (see Fig. 1, depicts that coil 102 being extended over the ESC 101, respectively).
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.
In an Alternatively, Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jeong in view of Chuang et al.
If it is argued that the Jeong does not teach a first electrode electrically coupled to the electrostatic chuck (ESC). Then refer to the Chuang (see Fig. 2, depicts an electrode 52 as first electrode electrically coupled to the ELS 64, respectively). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Chuang’s teaching as noted above onto the invention of Jeong in order to form a device tool having the above configurations, facilitate operation would improve. The motivation for the combination can be obtained from either reference since both is in same endeavor field invention.
Limitations of claims 16-18 are also met by the modified of Jeong / Chuang et al (see discussion above).
As applied to claim 19, refer to Fig. 2 of the Chuang et al which discloses “wherein a portion of the first electrode 52 is located within an edge portion of ECS 64 and further refer to Fig. 1 of the Jeong for the arranging of wherein the coil 102 is located over the portion of the first electrode or voltage terminal as discussed in ¶ [0019], bottom section)”, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Chuang’s teaching as noted above onto the invention of Jeong in order to form a device tool having the above configurations by utilizing the known and available semiconductor tool. No inventive effort would have been required to make a combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had the necessary technological capabilities to have incorporated the arranging electrode from Chuang into the tooling of Jeong without major modification.
Claim 20 does not further limit the claimed tool since it is directed to a material entity of the dielectric material. The subject-matter of claim 20 is therefore not inventive when departing from Jeong/Chuang. The skilled person would incorporate such material from a host of available materials without exercising any inventive skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights