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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/03/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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, 8-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima (US 20110247759 A1), and further in view of Yoon (KR 20200005139 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kitajima teaches a chuck system for supporting a substrate in a plasma processing chamber (abstract, substrate mounted on a mounting table), comprising:
a base plate (i.e. cylindrical susceptor 12, fig.3), comprising:
a substrate support region ([0026], wafer W is attracted to be held on the electrostatic chuck 23); and
a shoulder (i.e. focus ring mounting surface 39, fig.3) surrounding the substrate support region (e.g. 39 surrounds the region of 23 that supports W, fig.3);
a protective coating (i.e. heat transfer sheet 38, fig.3) on a surface of the base plate ([0030], provided at a contact surface (hereinafter, referred to as a "susceptor contact surface") 40 of the focus ring 25), wherein the protective coating covers at least part of the shoulder ([0030], which comes into contact with the stepped portion formed at the upper portion of the susceptor 12).
Kitajima does not teach, a layer of a silane coupling agent on the protective coating.
Yoon teaches in a similar field of endeavor of adhesive components for electrostatic chucks, a layer of a silane coupling agent (page 6, additive may be a silane coupling agent) on a protective coating (page 6, primary coating layer).
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 layer of a silane coupling agent on the protective coating in Kitajima, as taught by Yoon, as it provides the advantage of improved physical properties of electrostatic chuck such as corrosion resistance, heat resistance, wear resistance and plasma etching resistance less affected by direct external environment.
Regarding claim 8, Kitajima and Yoon teach the chuck system, as recited in claim 1, wherein the chuck system is an electrostatic chuck system (Kitajima, [0026], An electrostatic chuck 23 made of ceramic and having therein an electrostatic electrode plate 22).
Regarding claim 9, Kitajima and Yoon teach the chuck system, as recited in claim 1, wherein the base plate is electrically conductive (Kitajima, [0025], The susceptor 12 therefore functions as an electrode).
Regarding claim 10, Kitajima and Yoon teach the chuck system, as recited in claim 1, wherein the protective coating is a metal oxide containing coating (Kitajima, [0075], heat transfer sheet is an oxide, a nitride or a carbide ceramic filler. Specifically, the oxide includes alumina, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, silica or the like).
Regarding claim 11, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Kitajima and Yoon teach the method, as recited in claim 11, wherein the thermal spraying the protective coating thermal sprays a metal oxide containing coating (Yoon, page 9, the alumina thermal spray coating layer).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima (US 20110247759 A1) and Yoon (KR 20200005139 A), and further in view of Handa (US 20080266746 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kitajima and Yoon teach the method, as recited in claim 11.
Kitajima and Yoon do not teach, wherein the depositing the layer of a silane coupling agent, comprises brushing on a layer of silane coupling agent.
Handa teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electrostatic chuck, wherein the depositing the layer of a silane coupling agent, comprises brushing ([0056], an adhesive was applied to one side of an electrolytic copper foil (thickness 35 .mu.m) using a brush) on a layer of silane coupling agent ([0053], a primer containing a silane coupling agent).
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 depositing the layer of a silane coupling agent, comprises brushing on a layer of silane coupling agent in Kitajima and Yoon, as taught by Handa, as it provides the advantage of improved optimal and cost effective manner of applying coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 13-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Kitajima (US 20110247759 A1) and Yoon (KR 20200005139 A) teaches the chuck system, as recited in claim 1.
Kitajima and Yoon do not teach, wherein the layer of the silane coupling agent has a thickness in a range of a monolayer and 100 nm.
Prior art Yasseri (US 20190233658 A1), Vellore (US 20190115241 A1) and Handa (US 20080266746 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the layer of the silane coupling agent has a thickness in a range of a monolayer and 100 nm.”
Regarding claim 3, Kitajima (US 20110247759 A1) and Yoon (KR 20200005139 A) teaches the chuck system, as recited in claim 1.
Kitajima and Yoon do not teach, further comprising a gel layer on the layer of the silane coupling agent.
Prior art Yasseri (US 20190233658 A1), Vellore (US 20190115241 A1) and Handa (US 20080266746 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “further comprising a gel layer on the layer of the silane coupling agent.”
Claims 4-7 are indicated as allowable, as they depend on allowable claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the methos is indicated as allowable for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Claims 14-15 are indicated as allowable, as they depend on allowable claim 13.
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 06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights