Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/896,477

ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Priority
Oct 10, 2023 — JP 2023-175472
Examiner
POLLEY, CHRISTOPHER M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toto Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
460 granted / 631 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
655
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP 2019165184 A which has been machine translated). As to claims 1, 3, 4 and 5, Maeda discloses an electrostatic chuck device that comprises a bonding layer made of silicone-based material with a young’s modulus of less than 8 MPa so that the thermal expansion difference between the support plate (dielectric substrate, made of ceramic) and the base member can be absorbed and keep the durability of the bonding layer. Further the base member can be made of a metal material and there are though holes 17 located. However this reference is silent to the distance of the through holes with a central axis of the dielectric substrate and a central axis of each hole to satisfy the claimed equation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda and formed the through holes at a position of x being greater than 75mm as one ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the location of the through holes to provide the least stress on the chuck and allow for proper adhesion of the layers. Maeda discloses the same material is used for the bonding layer and that the goal of Maeda is to have a strong bonding layer that remains durable and can absorb the thermal expansion difference of the two layers when subjected to increasing and decreasing thermal cycles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to form a electrostatic chuck that meets the claimed equation absent unexpected results. As to claim 2, Maeda renders claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the diameter of the through holes being .2mm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the through holes to be less than .2 mm as one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the size of the hole to allow for the proper amount of cooling gas to be supplied. See MPEP 2144.06. Change in size. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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 M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742087
LUMINESCENT INK AND CERAMIC PRODUCT WITH A LABEL PRINTED WITH LUMINESCENT INK
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12734788
LAMINATED GLASS COMPRISING AN INTERLAYER FILM WITH INK APPLIED THEREON
4y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12733661
INKJET INK AND TABLET PRINTED MATTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12735602
DECORATIVE SHEET
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12735586
INK COMPOSITION FOR AN INKJET, A RECORDED MATERIAL, AND A RECORDING METHOD WITH AN INKJET
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 631 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month