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
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species A-1), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 12, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A-2, B-2, C-1, D-1, and E-3 in the reply filed on August 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter between each of the species are sufficiently related that a thorough search of any one species would encompass a search of the remaining species. This is not found persuasive because a primary form of evidence of a burden on the examiner is a showing of divergent subject matter. Such is the case here. The Specification clearly and expressly teaches that each of the species (Species A-1, A-2; Species B-1, B-2; Species C-1, C-2, C-3; Species D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4; Species E-1, E-2, E-3) are divergent and separate embodiment from the remaining species (paragraphs 37 and 107; Figures 1 and 2; Figures 4A – 4C; 8A – 8D; 9A – 9C). A search for any one species would not require a search of the non-elected species. Having to perform multiple, non-overlapping searches in a single application would indeed be a burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 13 each recite each of the limitations “about 1 micrometer” and “about 5 micrometers.” Examiner notes that “about” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitations are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 – 9, 11, and 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0336711) in view of Arai (Korean Patent Number 2022-0074776 A, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Hu teaches an apparatus comprising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate (figure 4a, element 410 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; paragraph 85); a passivation layer formed on a surface of the base structure, wherein the passivation layer provides corrosion resistance for the substrate holder with respect to at least one process chemistry (figures 4a and 4b, element 412 being the ‘passivation layer’ and ‘surface’; paragraphs 93 – 95).
However, Hu do not teach further providing a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating on the passivation layer. Arai teaches an apparatus comprising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate (figure 9, element 1 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; machine translation, paragraph 15); and a DLC coating formed on a surface of the base structure, wherein the DLC coating provides wear resistance for the substrate holder (figures 1 – 6, element 5 being the ‘DLC coating’; machine translation, paragraphs 28 – 41 and 44 – 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the passivation layer of the base structure of Hu with a DLC coating, as taught by Arai, because Arai teaches that a DLC coating provides the benefit of increasing the wear resistance of the base structure (machine translation, paragraphs 34 and 44).
As to claim 2, Hu teaches that the substrate holder comprises a chuck (paragraph 85).
As to claim 4, Hu teaches that the passivation layer comprises an oxide (paragraphs 32 and 95).
As to claim 6, Hu does not expressly teach the thickness of the passivation layer. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to form passivation layers in a thickness having a range between 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers so as to ensure sufficient thickness to provide the benefit of corrosion resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the passivation layer of Hu with a thickness between 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers to ensure the passivation layer provides the benefit of corrosion resistance.
As to claim 7, Hu teaches that the surface of the base structure is a textured surface (paragraph 89).
As to claim 8 Hu teaches a system (abstract) comprising: a substrate holder to receive a substrate (figure 4a, element 410 being the ‘substrate holder’; paragraph 85); an optical detector located above the substrate holder (figure 4a, element 430 being the ‘optical detector’; paragraph 87); wherein the substrate holder comprises: a base structure (figure 4a, element 410 being the ‘base structure’; paragraph 85); a passivation layer formed on a surface of the base structure, wherein the passivation layer provides corrosion resistance for the substrate holder with respect to at least one process chemistry (figures 4a and 4b, element 412 being the ‘passivation layer’ and ‘surface’; paragraphs 93 – 95).
However, Hu do not teach further providing a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating on the passivation layer. Arai teaches an apparatus comprising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate (figure 9, element 1 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; machine translation, paragraph 15); and a DLC coating formed on a surface of the base structure, wherein the DLC coating provides wear resistance for the substrate holder (figures 1 – 6, element 5 being the ‘DLC coating’; machine translation, paragraphs 28 – 41 and 44 – 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the passivation layer of the base structure of Hu with a DLC coating, as taught by Arai, because Arai teaches that a DLC coating provides the benefit of increasing the wear resistance of the base structure (machine translation, paragraphs 34 and 44).
As to claim 9, the discussion of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 11, the discussion of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 13, the discussion of claim 6 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 14, the discussion of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, Hu teaches a method comprising: forming a passivation layer on a surface of a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the passivation layer provides corrosion resistance for the substrate holder with respect to at least one process chemistry (figures 4a and 4b, element 412 being the ‘passivation layer’ and element 410 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; paragraphs 85 and 93 – 95).
However, Hu do not teach further forming a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating on the passivation layer. Arai teaches a method comprising: forming a DLC coating on a surface of a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the DLC coating provides wear resistance for the substrate holder (figures 1 – 6 and 9, element 5 being the ‘DLC coating’ and element 1 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; machine translation, paragraphs 15, 28 – 41, and 44 – 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the passivation layer of the base structure of Hu with a DLC coating, as taught by Arai, because Arai teaches that a DLC coating provides the benefit of increasing the wear resistance of the base structure (machine translation, paragraphs 34 and 44).
As to claim 16, Hu teaches that forming the passivation layer comprises using a reactive laser process to form the passivation layer on the surface (paragraph 105).
As to claim 17, Hu teaches forming the base structure using an additive manufacturing process (paragraph 105), wherein forming the passivation layer comprises using a reactive laser process that is performed during the additive manufacturing process (paragraph 105).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Arai as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Culic (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0343599).
As to claim 3, Hu teaches that the base structure comprises a metal (paragraph 26). However, Hu does not teach the metallic base structure comprising aluminum. Culic teaches an apparatus compromising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate (figure 1, element 108 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; paragraph 14). Culic further teaches that the base structure comprises aluminum (figure 1, element 108; paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the metallic base structure of Hu from aluminum, as taught by Culic, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that such a metallic material is appropriate for forming a passivation layer and DLC layer thereon, as taught by Hu in view of Arai.
As to claim 5, Hu teaches that the base structure comprises a metal (paragraph 26). However, Hu does not teach the metallic base structure comprising aluminum. Culic teaches an apparatus compromising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate (figure 1, element 108 being the ‘base structure’ and ‘substrate holder’; paragraph 14). Culic further teaches that the base structure comprises aluminum (figure 1, element 108; paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the metallic base structure of Hu from aluminum, as taught by Culic, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that such a metallic material is appropriate for forming a passivation layer and DLC layer thereon, as taught by Hu in view of Arai.
Hu further teaches that the passivation layer comprises an oxide of the metal of the base structure (paragraph 95). Therefore, when the base structure comprises aluminum, as taught by Hu in view of Culic, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the passivation layer of Hu comprises an aluminum oxide.
As to claim 10, the discussion of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 12, the discussion of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 18, while Arai teaches forming the DLC coating, Arai does not teach forming an interlayer and forming the DLC coating on the interlayer. Culic teaches a method comprising: forming a DLC coating on a surface of a base structure of a substrate holder (figure 3, steps 302 – 308; paragraphs 7 and 22 – 23), wherein forming the DLC coating comprises: forming an interlayer (figure 3, step 306; paragraph 23); and forming the DLC coating on the interlayer (figure 3, step 308; paragraph 23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the DLC coating of Hu in view of Arai on an interlayer, as taught by Culic, because Culic teaches that an interlayer provides the benefit of increasing adhesion between the bast structure and the DLC coating (paragraph 23).
As to claim 20, Culic teaches that forming the interlayer comprises forming a titanium-based interlayer (paragraph 23). Arai teaches that forming the DLC coating comprises forming a silicon-doped DLC material on the base structure (machine translation, paragraph 45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poiesz (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0292947) teaches an apparatus comprising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate; and a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating form on a surface of the base structure, wherein the DLC coating provides wear resistance for the substrate holder.
Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0063035) teaches an apparatus comprising: a base structure of a substrate holder, wherein the substrate holder is to receive a substrate; and a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating form on a surface of the base structure, wherein the DLC coating provides wear resistance for the substrate holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 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, Thomas 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights