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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4 of co-pending Application No. 19/034,362 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 19/035,506
Co-pending Application 19/034,362
1. An electrostatic chuck comprising:
a dielectric substrate including a placement surface on which an object to be attracted is placed;
an attraction electrode provided inside the dielectric substrate; and
a base plate joined to the dielectric substrate, wherein
when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the placement surface, the dielectric substrate includes a protrusion section which protrudes outward from a surface to be joined of the base plate, and
a part of the attraction electrode is provided in the protrusion section.
1. An Electrostatic chuck comprising:
A dielectric substrate including a placement surface on which an object to be attracted is placed;
2. an attraction electrode provided inside the dielectric substrate,
1. a base plate joined to the dielectric substrate; wherein
The dielectric substrate includes a protrusion section protruding outward beyond a joined surface of the base plate when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the placement surface,
2. a part of the attraction electrode is provided in the protrusion section.
2. The electrostatic chuck according to claim 1, further comprising:
an RF electrode provided inside the dielectric substrate, wherein when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface, the RF electrode is provided in a range where an outer circumferential edge of the RF electrode does not protrude from an outer circumferential edge of the attraction electrode.
1. an RF electrode provided inside the dielectric substrate,
4. wherein the RF electrode is provided in a range where an outer circumferential edge of the RF electrode does not protrude beyond an outer circumferential edge of the attraction electrode when vided from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redeker et al. Publication No. US 2003/0180459.
Regarding claim 1, Redeker discloses an electrostatic chuck comprising:
a dielectric substrate [Fig. 3, electrostatic chuck 32; par. 0026] including a placement surface [Fig. 3, substrate receiving surface 70; par. 0029] on which an object to be attracted is placed;
an attraction electrode [Fig. 3, chucking electrode 66] provided inside the dielectric substrate [par. 0029]; and
a base plate [Fig. 3, pedestal 60; par. 0027] joined to the dielectric substrate, wherein when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the placement surface, the dielectric substrate includes a protrusion section which protrudes outward from a surface to be joined of the base plate [Fig. 3, the electrostatic chuck 32 includes a protrusion section which protrudes outward from a surface to be joined of the pedestal 60 as shown], and
a part of the attraction electrode is provided in the protrusion section [Fig. 3, part of the chucking electrode 6 is provided in the protrusion section as shown].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redeker et al. Publication No. US 2003/0180459, in view of Ishikawa et al. Publication No. US 2023/0087660. Regarding claim 2, Redeker further comprises an RF electrode [Fig. 3, RF electrode 64; par. 0029] provided inside the dielectric substrate.
However, Redeker does not disclose that when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface, the RF electrode is provided in a range where an outer circumferential edge of the RF electrode does not protrude from an outer circumferential edge of the attraction electrode.
Ishikawa discloses an electrostatic chuck, comprising: a dielectric substrate [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, ceramic member 112a] including a placement surface [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, 110a]; an attraction electrode [Fig. 4, electrostatic electrode 115a; par. 0028]; an RF electrode [Fig. 4, RF electrode 116a] provided inside the dielectric substrate; wherein when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface, the RF electrode is provided in a range where an outer circumferential edge of the RF electrode does not protrude from an outer circumferential edge of the attraction electrode [as shown].
Redeker and Ishikawa are analogous electrostatic chucks comprising attraction electrodes and RF electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an RF electrode that does not protrude from the outer edge of the attraction electrode, for the benefit of limiting unwanted secondary plasma discharges and preventing dangerous arcing at the wafer edge.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redeker et al. Publication No. US 2003/0180459, in view of Yonekura et al. Publication No. US 2009/0308538.
Regarding claim 3, Redeker does not disclose a seal ring a distal end of which is an annular protrusion serving as a part of the placement surface is formed in the dielectric substrate, and when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface, at least a part of the seal ring is overlapped with the attraction electrode.
Yonekura teaches wherein the dielectric substrate is formed with a seal ring [Fig. 2, 102b] 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 [Fig. 2, 103] when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface [as shown in Fig. 2].
Redeker and Yonekura are analogous electrostatic chucks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the seal ring and placement of the attraction electrode as modified by Yonekura, into Redeker, for the benefit of providing a tight seal between the wafer and the seal ring through the electrostatic attraction to prevent backside gas from escaping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 4: The prior art does not disclose that when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the placement surface, the base plate includes a first part serving as a part overlapped with an outer circumferential edge of the placement surface, and a second part serving as a part on a further outer circumferential side relative to the first part, a coolant flow path through which a coolant is able to flow is formed inside each of the first part and the second part, and the coolant flow path is formed in a manner that a cooling performance for the first part is set to be higher than a cooling performance for the second part. This feature in combination with the rest of the claim limitations is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHARTI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8659. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 AM - 5 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, 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.
DHARTI PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/DHARTI H PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights