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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Amended claims 1, 4-5, 9, 13 are noted.
The amendment dated 06/18/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendment to the claims. In view of said amendments, a portion of the 112 rejection and the prior art rejection have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
In claim 1 line 2, from which claims 2-8 depend, the term “low friction coating” is deemed a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The same issue applies to line 4 and elsewhere. In addition, the same issue applies to independent claim 9, from which claims 10-15 depend, and elsewhere.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108842133 (see English Translation) in view of Liu et al. (2022/0063035) and Yoshida et al. (2007/0218660).
CN’133 teaches a method for forming a patterned electrostatic chuck (title) in which a patterned organic gel mask is used to form a DLC film layer on a ceramic substrate using ion beam technology (abstract). However, the reference fails to teach embossments.
Liu teaches a electrostatic chuck with embossments that comprise diamond-like carbon (title). Specifically, the embossments are made of multiple deposited layers (abstract). The diamond like carbon are deposited using a mask (0027). It would have been obvious to use embossments in the electrostatic chuck in CN’133 depending on the desired used of the final product with the expectation of success because Liu teaches of using diamondlike embossments in an electrostatic chuck.
With respect to the newly added limitation of a plurality of embossments extending upwards from a flat top surface, Yoshida teaches a diamond film formation method (title) in which diamond is formed on the mask and the surface (0071-0072) in which a material 1a extends from the support table 11 (0068 and Figure 10). To utilize embossments that extend from a top flat surface in CN’133 would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Yoshida teaches of extending a material on a support table.
Regarding claim 2, CN’133 teaches a diffusion layer (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, CN’133 teaches DLC (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches CVD (0021).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches plasma enhanced CVD (0021).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches a mask with multiple openings (0027).
Regarding claim 7, the applicant requires optimizing spread. Liu teaches a pattern of multiple embossments with multiple openings (0027), which would vary the spread.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108842133 (see English Translation) and Liu et al. (2022/0063035) and Yoshida et al. (2007/0218660) and further in view of JP 2009-105386 (see English Translation). The combination of CN’133/Liu/Yoshida fails to teach the aperture configuration.
JP’386 teaches an electrostatic chuck apparatus (title) having a surface embossment pattern (abstract) in which there is an inclined angle and a vertical angle (p.5 last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to utilize angles in the aperture in the combination with the expectation of success because JP’386 teaches of using angles in the embossment pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant first argues that the term low friction coating is not an indefinite term because it is defined as one which generates fewer particles and/or creates a smoother surface (p.5 second paragraph).
The examiner disagrees. The examiner questions how a coating which generates fewer particles and a smooth surface can be defined as a low friction coating. For example, the examiner is unable to ascertain how generating fewer particles defines what low friction is. More importantly, what is the difference between a coating and a low friction coating? How can one skilled in the art tell the difference. For example, if a coating generates 10 particles and a low friction coating generates 5 particles, one skilled in the art can determine how low friction is being defined. At the present time, the term is still indefinite and the rejection is being maintained.
Applicant argues that the embossments are part of the electrostatic chuck and not being deposited (pp.6-7).
The examiner agrees and notes the citation of Yoshida which teaches material 1a extends from the support table 11 (0068 and Figure 10).
Applicant next argues that a shadow mask is not taught (p.7 second paragraph).
The examiner disagrees. Liu teaches of depositing diamond like carbon using a mask (0027).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 07/18/2026
Prosecution Insights