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 and 2 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2025, 05/16/2025, and 02/17/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. U.S. Patent Application 2023/0087660 (hereinafter “Ishikawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches an electrostatic chuck (i.e. electrostatic chuck 112)(figs.3 and 4) comprising: a dielectric substrate (i.e. ceramic member 112a)(figs.3 and 4) including a placement surface (i.e. central area 110a)(figs. 3 and 4) on which an object to be attracted is placed (i.e. substrate W)(fig.3); an attraction electrode (i.e. electrostatic electrode 115a)(fig.4) provided inside the dielectric substrate (implicit)(refer to fig.4) and an RF electrode (i.e. bias electrode 116a)(fig.4) provided inside the dielectric substrate (implicit)(refer to fig.4), wherein the RE electrode is provided in a range where an outer circumferential edge of the RF electrode is positioned inside an outer circumferential edge of the attraction electrode when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the placement surface (implicit)(refer to fig.4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonekura et al. U.S. Patent Application 2009/0308538 (hereinafter “Yonekura”).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa teaches the electrostatic chuck according to claim 1; however, Ishikawa does not teach wherein the dielectric substrate is formed with a seal ring which is an annular protrusion with a tip serving as a part of the placement surface, and at least part of the seal ring overlaps the attraction electrode when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface. However, Yonekura teaches wherein the dielectric substrate is formed with a seal ring (i.e. 102b)(fig.2) which is an annular protrusion (implicit)(refer to fig.2) with a tip serving as a part of the placement surface (implicit)(refer to fig.2), and at least part of the seal ring overlaps the attraction electrode when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface (implicit)(refer to seal ring 102b and electrostatic electrode 103)(fig.2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrostatic chuck of Ishikawa to include the seal ring and placement of the attraction electrode of Yonekura to provide the advantage of providing a tight seal between the wafer and the seal ring through the electrostatic attraction to prevent backside gas from escaping.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho et al. U.S. Patent Application 2025/0226257 (hereinafter “Cho”) teaches a portion of each of the RF electrode (114C)(fig.2) and the attraction electrode (114A)(fig.2) overlapping the seal ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights