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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Second Species, claims 2, 5-8, and 14-20 in the reply filed on October 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
However, after further review the examiner has determined that there is not a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species. Since all of the claims include common subject matter relating to an electrostatic chuck, searches directed to the claims of First Species and Second Species would clearly overlap each other and when searching and examining the claims of First Species, the examiner will encounter the subject matter of Second Species and vice-versa. Therefore, a separate search would not be required.
Therefore, the restriction requirement between First Species and Second Species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on September 30, 2025 is hereby withdrawn, and all the claims are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 13, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the bonding layer directly contacts the electrode layer” and claim 21 recites “a charge barrier layer located between the bonding layer and the electrode layer” which renders the claims indefinite. A question is raised, how is possible to have the bonding layer directly contacts the electrode layer if a charge barrier layer is located between the bonding layer and the electrode layer?
For purposes of the examination, the limitations of claim 16 has been interpreted “the bonding layer directly contacts a charge barrier layer and the charge barrier layer directly contacts the electrode layer” and the limitations of claim 21 have been interpreted as the applicant intended.
Examination Notice
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 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.
(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) 1-7, 9-11, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 11,031,272 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Chen teaches an electrostatic chuck (100c – Fig. 3) comprising:
a dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3);
a bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3);
a charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3);
an electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3); and
an isolator layer (110 – Fig. 3);
wherein the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) is located between the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3) and the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3);
wherein the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) is located between the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) and the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3);
wherein the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3) is located between the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) and the isolator layer (110 – Fig. 3) so that electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3) does not directly contact the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 2, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the dielectric layer directly (140a – Fig. 3) contacts the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 3, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) directly contacts the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 4, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) directly contacts the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 5, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3) directly contacts the isolator layer (110 – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 6, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) comprises a non-electrically conductive polymeric material (col. 4, lines 7-8, “Teflon, epoxy, or combinations thereof”).
With regard to claim 7, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) comprises at least one of a fluorinated ethylene propylene, a perfluoroalkoxy alkane, a polytetrafluoroethylene (col. 4, lines 7-8, “Teflon”), or any combination thereof.
Examiner Note: It is well known in the art that Teflon is the brand name for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
With regard to claim 9, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) is a continuous layer of a non-electrically conductive material (claim 4, lines 1-5).
With regard to claim 10, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) comprises a metal oxide (claim 4, lines 1-5, “aluminum oxide Al2O3) deposited by atomic layer deposition (col. 2, lines 57-58).
With regard to claim 11, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3) has a thickness of 25 µm to 500 µm (col. 4, lines 20-22).
With regard to claim 14, Chen teaches an electrostatic chuck (100c – Fig. 3) comprising:
a dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3);
a bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3);
an electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3); and
an isolator layer (110 – Fig. 3);
wherein the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) is located between the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3) and the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3);
wherein the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3) is located between the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) and the isolator layer (110 – Fig. 3);
wherein the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3) does not directly contact the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 15, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3) directly contacts the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 16, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) directly contacts a charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) and the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) directly contacts the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 17, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3) directly contacts the isolator layer (110 – Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 18, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) comprises a non-electrically conductive polymeric material (col. 4, lines 7-8, “Teflon, epoxy, or combinations thereof”).
With regard to claim 19, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) comprises at least one of a fluorinated ethylene propylene, a perfluoroalkoxy alkane, a polytetrafluoroethylene (col. 4, lines 7-8, “Teflon”), or any combination thereof.
With regard to claim 21, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches a charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) located between the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) and the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3).
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(s) 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,031,272 B2) in view of Liu (US 2023/0136703 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) covers the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3); but do not teach a surface roughness of an upper surface of the bonding layer is less than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the electrode layer.
Liu teaches the bonding layer covers the electrode layer such that a surface roughness of an upper surface of the bonding layer is less than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the electrode layer ([0014] lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrostatic chuck of Chen, to have the bonding layer covers the electrode layer such that a surface roughness of an upper surface of the bonding layer is less than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the electrode layer, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce the amount of charge being transferred from the electrode to the bonding layer during use.
With regard to claim 20, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) covers the electrode layer (120a – Fig. 3); but do not teach a surface roughness of an upper surface of the bonding layer is less than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the electrode layer.
Liu teaches the bonding layer covers the electrode layer such that a surface roughness of an upper surface of the bonding layer is less than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the electrode layer ([0014] lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrostatic chuck of Chen, to have the bonding layer covers the electrode layer such that a surface roughness of an upper surface of the bonding layer is less than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the electrode layer, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce the amount of charge being transferred from the electrode to the bonding layer during use.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,031,272 B2).
With regard to claim 12, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the thickness of the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3) is greater than a thickness of the bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) (claim 17, lines 1-3); and the dielectric layer (140a – Fig. 3) has a thickness of 25 µm to 500 µm (col. 4, lines 20-22); but do not teach that bonding layer (150a – Fig. 3) has a thickness of 10 µm to 200 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the bonding layer has a thickness of 10 µm to 200 µm, in order to increase a breakdown voltage of the electrostatic chuck (col. 4, lines 12-15); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,031,272 B2) in view of Stone (US 2015/0214087 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the charge barrier layer (130a – Fig. 3) but do not teach a thickness of 100 nm to 1 µm.
Stone teaches the bonding layer (202 – Fig. 2A) has a thickness of 10 µm to 200 µm ([0033] lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrostatic chuck of Chen, to have the bonding layer has a thickness of 10 µm to 200 µm, as taught by Stone, in order to prevent charge leakage while providing effective clamping force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
Bae (US 10,601,346 B2) teaches an electrostatic chuck 1000 adsorbs a substrate 10 having a quadrangular shape in a planar view as an adsorption target. The substrate 10 is provided with four corners 11 in a planar view; the electrostatic chuck 1000 includes a main body portion 100, a transparent cushion layer 200, a first adhesive layer 300, an insulation layer 400, an electrode layer 500, a second adhesive layer 600, and a dielectric layer 700; the main body portion 100 includes a body portion 110 and a transparent resin portion 120.
Chen (US 10,665,493 B1) teaches an electrostatic chuck including a body, an electrode, at least one dielectric layer, and a composite dielectric layer is provided. The electrode is present on the body. The dielectric layer is present on and covers the electrode. The composite dielectric layer is present on the dielectric layer. The composite dielectric layer includes a polymer layer and a plurality of inorganic dielectric particles. The inorganic dielectric particles are distributed within the polymer layer, and a permittivity of the inorganic dielectric particles is greater than a permittivity of the polymer layer. A resistivity of the dielectric layer is greater than a resistivity of the composite dielectric layer.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicolas Bellido whose telephone number is (571) 272-5034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Monica Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-1838. 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 (57) 272-1000.
/N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/MONICA LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838