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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (11,410,868) in view of Gopalan et al (2023/0238267A1).
Sato discloses an electrostatic chuck (fig. 1, 100) comprising: a dielectric substrate 30; a base plate 50 formed of a metal material; and a bonding layer 30b bonding the dielectric substrate and the base plate 50.
The device taught by Sato differs from the claims by not being said to have the feature of at least a portion of the base plate 50 facing the bonding layer 30b is covered with a ceramic film, and a surface of the ceramic film is a bonded surface, and the bonded surface satisfies at least one of a first condition or a second condition below: first condition: arithmetic average height (Sa) ≤ 1.5 μm, second condition: root mean square height (Sq) ≤ 2.0 μm, and at least one of a third condition or a fourth condition below: third condition: maximum valley depth (Sv) ≥ 20.0 μm, fourth condition: maximum height (Sz) ≥ 20.0 μm.
Gopalan et al discloses methods for electrostatic chuck ceramic surfacing that ensures proper planarizing of a ceramic film layer (see Abstract) and recites Sa parameters measured in microns and Sz parameters with specific surface specifications said to reduce chucking abnormalities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing the invention to combine the teachings of Gopalan into the teachings of Sato to meet the claims because both teachings are directed to the construction and function of electrostatic chuck devices used for substrate or wafer handling, with Gopalan teaching controlling ceramic surface specifications to reduce chucking abnormalities.
With regard to the Sz limitation of claim 2, the Gopalan teaching recites an Sz of less than 10 microns which would be less than the recited 100 microns.
With regard to claim 3, thermal spraying to form a ceramic film is disclosed in Sato at col.9, line 7 as conventional practice in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: the measurement of a specific area to obtain the value of each of the parameters Sa,Sq,Sv and Sz has not been taught or been fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN W JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
SWJackson
September 16, 2026
/STEPHEN W JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights