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 1-16 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) was submitted on 07/30/2024. 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
Claims 1 and 8-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6, “the protrusion part” should be –the ring-shaped protrusion part--. Several instances in claim 1 require similar corrections.
Claim 8 line 5, “the first protrusion part” should be –the ring-shaped first protrusion part--. Several instances in multiple claims require similar corrections.
Claim 8 line 7, “the second protrusion part” should be –the ring-shaped second protrusion part--. Several instances in multiple claims require similar corrections.
Claim 10 line 2, “on the outer side” should be -- on an outer side--.
Claim 14 line 6, “the second dielectric layer” should be –the second ring-shaped dielectric layer--. Several instances in multiple claims require similar corrections.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cooke (US 20090284894 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cooke teaches an electrostatic device (abstract, an electrostatic chuck) comprising:
an electrostatic electrode layer (i.e. One or more electrodes 213, fig.2);
a dielectric layer (i.e. dielectric 212, fig.2) disposed on the electrostatic electrode layer ([0048], One or more electrodes 213 are formed in a first layer 214, which is covered by the dielectric 212);
a ring-shaped first protrusion part (i.e. protrusions 201, fig.2) (e.g. rounding length dimension 931, or top surface 929, fig.9A) (e.g. ring shape of 501, fig.5A) disposed on an edge of the dielectric layer ([0048], on the surface of the dielectric layer 212); and
a ring-shaped second protrusion part (i.e. protrusions 201, fig.2) (e.g. rounding length dimension 931, or top surface 929, fig.9A) (e.g. ring shape of 501, fig.5A) further protruding from the first protrusion part (e.g. 931 and 929 are adjacent to each other, fig.9A),
wherein
the first protrusion part or the second protrusion part forms a concave area (i.e. gaps 211, fig.2), and
the concave area is filled with a cooling gas ([0048], The dielectric layer 212 includes a gas seal annular ring 219 formed in its periphery).
Regarding claim 9, Cooke teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 8, wherein the second protrusion part is disposed on an outer side to surround the first protrusion part (e.g. 931 that faces exterior edge of 211, surrounds 929, fig.9A).
Regarding claim 10, Cooke teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 8, wherein the first protrusion part is disposed on an outer side to surround the second protrusion (e.g. 929 surrounds 931 that faces center of 211, fig.9A).
Regarding claim 11, Cooke teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 8, wherein the second protrusion part comprises a second inner protrusion part (e.g. 931 that faces exterior edge of 211, fig.9A) and a second outer protrusion part (e.g. 931 that faces center of 211, fig.9A) spaced apart from each other (e.g. 931 is spaced apparat by 929, fig.9A), and the first protrusion part is disposed between the second inner protrusion part and the second outer protrusion part (e.g. 929 is between round edges of 931, fig.9A).
Regarding claim 12, Cooke teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 8, wherein a height of the first protrusion part is 1/2 to 19/20 (e.g. 0.7802 um, fig.9A) of a height of the second protrusion part ([0059], the height of the protrusion should be 5 microns).
Regarding claim 13, Cooke teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 8, wherein a height of the second protrusion part is 5 micrometers to 20 micrometers ([0059], the height of the protrusion should be 5 microns).
Regarding claim 14, Cooke teaches an electrostatic device (abstract, an electrostatic chuck) comprising:
an electrostatic electrode layer (i.e. One or more electrodes 213, fig.2);
a first dielectric layer (i.e. dielectric 212, fig.2) disposed on the electrostatic electrode layer ([0048], One or more electrodes 213 are formed in a first layer 214, which is covered by the dielectric 212); and
a second ring-shaped dielectric layer (i.e. protrusions 201, fig.2) (e.g. ring shape of 501, fig.5A) disposed on an edge of the first dielectric layer ([0048], on the surface of the dielectric layer 212),
wherein
the second dielectric layer forms a concave area (i.e. gaps 211, fig.2) in a form of an air gap ([0052], leaving a gap 211 between the protrusions for helium or other gas), and
the concave area is filled with a cooling gas ([0048], The dielectric layer 212 includes a gas seal annular ring 219 formed in its periphery).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Cooke (US 20090284894 A1) teaches an electrostatic device (abstract, an electrostatic chuck) comprising:
an electrostatic electrode layer (i.e. One or more electrodes 213, fig.2);
a dielectric layer (i.e. dielectric 212, fig.2) disposed on the electrostatic electrode layer ([0048], One or more electrodes 213 are formed in a first layer 214, which is covered by the dielectric 212); and
a ring-shaped protrusion part (i.e. protrusions 201, fig.2) (e.g. ring shape of 501, fig.5A) formed on an edge of the dielectric layer ([0048], on the surface of the dielectric layer 212),
wherein
the protrusion part forms a concave area (i.e. gaps 211, fig.2),
the concave area is filled with a cooling gas ([0048], The dielectric layer 212 includes a gas seal annular ring 219 formed in its periphery), and
the protrusion part comprises a surface treatment area (i.e. surface 932, fig.9B) ([0075], FIGS. 9A and 9B are graphs of a cross-sectional profile of a protrusion on an electrostatic chuck) on which a roughening treatment has been performed ([0075], machine polishing, for example using machine pad polishing).
Cooke does not teach, the protrusion part comprises a flat area and a surface treatment area.
Prior art Grimard (US 5903428 A), Lin (US 20150294891 A1), Ishihara (US 20100046134 A1) and Mizuno (JP 2004022888 A) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “the protrusion part comprises a flat area and a surface treatment area”.
Claims 2-7 are allowed, as they depend on allowed claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, Cooke (US 20090284894 A1) teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 14.
Cooke does not teach, wherein a second dielectric constant of the second dielectric layer is smaller than a first dielectric constant of the first dielectric layer.
Prior art Grimard (US 5903428 A), Lin (US 20150294891 A1), Ishihara (US 20100046134 A1) and Mizuno (JP 2004022888 A) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “a second dielectric constant of the second dielectric layer is smaller than a first dielectric constant of the first dielectric layer.”
Regarding claim 16, Cooke (US 20090284894 A1) teaches the electrostatic device as set forth in claim 14.
Cooke does not teach, wherein second electrical conductivity of the second dielectric layer is smaller than first electrical conductivity of the first dielectric layer, and second electrical conductivity of the second dielectric layer is smaller than electrical conductivity of an air gap.
Prior art Grimard (US 5903428 A), Lin (US 20150294891 A1), Ishihara (US 20100046134 A1) and Mizuno (JP 2004022888 A) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “second electrical conductivity of the second dielectric layer is smaller than first electrical conductivity of the first dielectric layer, and second electrical conductivity of the second dielectric layer is smaller than electrical conductivity of an air gap.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 03/04/2026