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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gottheim et al (2019/0385907).
In re Claims 1, 12, and 20, Gottheim teaches a system as seen in Figure 1 comprising: a non-flat substrate (111, paragraph 41); and an electrostatic chuck comprising: an electrode (196, paragraph 41); and a dielectric layer (195, paragraph 41)located on the electrode; wherein at least the dielectric layer is located between the non-flat substrate and the electrode (as seen in Figure 1); wherein, when a voltage is applied to the electrode, the electrode is configured to generate an electrostatic force sufficient to at least partially flatten the non-flat substrate (paragraph 157).
In re Claim 2, Gottheim teaches the voltage applied to the electrode is configured to generate the electrostatic force sufficient to flatten the non-flat substrate such that a surface of the flattened substrate is substantially in contact with a surface of the electrostatic chuck (paragraph 157).
In re Claim 9, Gottheim teaches the substrate is an in-process wafer (paragraph 21).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottheim et al (2019/0385907) in view of Okita et al (2018/0240697).
In re Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, Gottheim teaches a single electrode 196 and does not teach a gap having a width in the ranges as claimed.
Okita teaches that an electrode 119 of an electrostatic chuck can be either monopolar or bipolar type (paragraph 56). Okita further teaches that when implemented as a bipolar type, the electrode is separated by a gap of about 0.5-3mm (paragraph 67). Okita teaches that with the bipolar type, an additional component such a holding sheet is not required to be charged to provide the attractive force (paragraphs 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the electrode of Gottheim as a bipolar type electrode with a gap as taught by Okita, since Okita teaches that the bipolar type electrode does not require additional charging of a separate component to provide the chucking force.
Additionally, the claimed ranges for the width of the gap is considered to overlap with the range as taught by Okita to a degree that one skilled in the art would expect them to have the same properties such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In re Claims 5 and 15, Gottheim teaches the dielectric layer contacts the electrode as seen in Figure 1.
Claim(s) 6-8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottheim et al (2019/0385907) in view of Ito et al (2008/0106842).
In re Claims 6-8, 16, and 17, Gottheim fails to teach a surface coating or its roughness ranges as claimed.
Ito teaches forming a surface coating 43 on top of a dielectric of an electrostatic chuck to prevent a dielectric breakdown of the chuck over a long period of time (paragraphs 11 and 37), wherein the coating has a roughness of about 0.6-0.8 micrometers (paragraph 45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a surface coating as taught by Ito, since Ito teaches that by doing so the dielectric breakdown of the chuck can be prevented.
Additionally, the claimed ranges for the roughness are considered close enough to those taught by Ito to a degree that one skilled in the art would expect them to have the same properties such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottheim et al (2019/0385907).
In re Claims 10, 11, 18, and 19, Gottheim teaches that the chuck flattens the substrate from a non-flat shape (paragraph 157), but does not specifically teach that the non-flat shape is concave and/or convex.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the chuck of Gottheim is capable of flattening a substrate that is of either convex or concave shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Thienvu 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights