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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 9-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election (of species (i), a first species, including a plug having the configuration depicted in Figures 3 and 6-9) was made and Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 11, 2025.
Comment on Claim Language
It is noted that claim 1 as amended June 3, 2026 is directed to an “electrostatic chuck comprising” (i.e., uses open language) “a plug” and also sets forth “the plug having a top surface, a bottom surface, and a plug passage, the plug passage extending between the top and bottom surfaces of the plug”, and goes on to recite “wherein a top surface of the plug includes a boss positioned at a central region of the top surface, and at least a portion of the plug passage extends through the boss”. It is noted that as disclosed, the top surface is 260 (see paragraph 0043 and Figures 3 and 6, for example), and boss 266 is provided thereon, and the internal flow passage or “plug passage” 302 is shown as extending into/through at least a portion of the boss 266 in at least Figures 3 and 7. See also paragraphs 0043-0045. That being said, it is noted that while the plug passage does 302 extend “between” the top 260 and bottom 262 surfaces of the plug 200, the portion of the plug passage 302 that extends between the disclosed top 260 and bottom 262 surfaces of the plug 200 does not extend “through the boss” 266. It is noted that, particularly given the open language “comprising”, the changes to claim 1 (to recite that “at least a portion of the plug passage extends through the boss”) are not considered to constitute new matter, i.e., since the claimed plug passage is not limited to only “extending between the top and bottom surfaces of the plug”. In particular, note that the plug 200 has a top surface 260, a bottom surface 262, and a plug passage 302, the plug passage 302 (having a portion) extending between the top 260 and bottom 262 surfaces of the plug 200, wherein the top surface 262 “includes” a boss 266 positioned at a “central region” (as broadly claimed) of the top surface 260, and at least a portion (i.e., the portion of 302 located above surface 260 and extending through 302 as shown in Figures 3 and 7) of the plug passage 302 extends through the boss 266.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide (literal) antecedent basis for the limitation of claim 1 that sets forth that the top surface of the plug includes a boss “positioned at a central region of the top surface, and at least a portion of the plug passage extends through the boss”. Should Applicant wish to keep this language in the claim, Applicant may wish to consider amending paragraph 0043, for example, to add text thereto to provide literal antecedent basis in the specification for this claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In particular, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and sets forth “wherein the top surface of the plug includes a boss”. However, it is noted that claim 1 as amended June 3, 2026 likewise includes the limitation “wherein the top surface of the plug includes a boss”. Thus, claim 6 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3 and 5-6, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0242063 to Wakabayashi et al. (hereinafter, “Wakabayashi”).
Wakabayashi teaches an electrostatic chuck (150/200; see Figures 1-3 and at least paragraphs 0006, 0015, 0019, 0023, 0026, and 0032, for example) comprising:
a chuck body (202) having a chucking electrode (154) disposed between a substrate support surface (226, for supporting substrate 122) and a bottom surface (216) (see Figures 1-3, as well as paragraphs 0006, 0015, 0019, 0026-0027, and at least claims 9 and 16 of Wakabayashi), the chuck body (202) having a cavity (208, or at least the portion of 208 that is below 336; see Figures 2-3) open to the bottom surface (216) (see Figures 2-3 and 0026-0029 and 0034, for example) and the (aforedescribed) chuck body having at least one body gas passage (336; see Figure 3 and at least paragraphs 0038 and 0015, 0019, 0021, and 0023, for example) extending from the (aforedescribed) cavity (208, or at least the portion of 208 that is below 336) to the substrate support surface (226) (see Figures 3, 2, for example); and
a plug (302) disposed in the (aforedescribed) cavity (208, or at least the portion of 208 that is below 336; see Figures 2-3) (see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0032-0038, for example), the plug (302) having a top surface (such as, for example, 312; see Figures 3-4 and paragraphs 0033 and 0038, for example), a bottom surface (320; see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraph 0034, for example), and a plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410), the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) extending “between” the top (312) and bottom (320) surfaces of the plug (302) (see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0034-0035, 0038, 0006-0007, and at least claims 9-20, and particularly claims 9 and 16, of the reference), the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) having a length (i.e., a length along the helical path of the passage 318, or a length along the helical path of 318 plus a length along one or more of the areas 406, for example) greater than a distance (such as the vertical distance in Figures 3-4) defined between the top (312) and bottom (320) surfaces of the plug (302) (by virtue of the fact that the path 318 is helical; see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0034-0035, 0038, 0006-0007, and at least claims 9-20, and particularly claims 9 and 16, of the reference), wherein the top surface (such as, for example, 312) of the plug (302) “includes” (to the extent that the top surface 260 of the plug of the present application can be considered to itself “include” the boss 266, as opposed to the top surface having a boss thereon) a boss (two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404, or two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404 in combination with 310) (see Figures 3-4 and paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0037-0038, for example) positioned at a “central region” (as broadly claimed, noting, for example, that each of 310 and 404, 404, 404, 404, are located at a “region” of the top surface 312 that is “central” at least in that each of 310, 404, 404, 404, 404 are spaced from the outer circumference of 312, as can be seen in at least Figures 4 and 3) of the top surface (312), and at least a portion (such as 406) of the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) extends through the (aforedescribed) boss (two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404, or two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404 in combination with 310) (see Figure 4 and at least paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 2, the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) is open to an outer diameter sidewall (316) of the plug (302) (see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0006, 0034, and 0037-0038, for example).
Regarding claim 3, the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) has a helical geometry (at 318, see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0034-0035, 0038, 0006-0007, and at least claims 9-20, and particularly claims 9 and 16, of the reference) .
Regarding claim 5, the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) has a width (such as the width labeled as W in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below) extending more than a third of a diameter of the outer diameter sidewall (316) of the plug (302). See Figure 4 and Figure 3, for example.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
476
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (W)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 6, the top surface (such as, for example, 312) of the plug (302) “includes” (to the extent that the top surface 260 of the plug of the present application can be considered to itself “include” the boss 266, as opposed to the top surface having a boss thereon) a boss (310) (two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404, or two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404 in combination with 310) (see Figures 3-4 and paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0037-0038, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 7-8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0242063 to Wakabayashi et al. (hereinafter, “Wakabayashi”), or, in the alternative, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0242063 to Wakabayashi et al. (hereinafter, “Wakabayashi”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of the article “Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3 Ceramic Properties” by Accuratus (posted online at https://accuratus.com/alumox.html, copyright 2013) (hereinafter “Accuratus”).
Wakabayashi teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claim 8, Wakabayashi also teaches that the plug 302 comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or Aluminum Nitride (AlN) “or any other suitable material” (paragraphs 0029, 0032). It is noted that both Al2O3 (also known as “alumina”) and AlN are both ceramic materials. (See, for example, paragraph 0038 of the present specification, which teaches that alumina is a ceramic, and paragraph 0042 of the present specification, which teaches that AlN is a ceramic.)
Regarding claim 7, it is inherent that Al2O3 and AlN are both dielectric materials.
However, in the alternative, regarding claims 7-8, while Wakabayashi teaches that the plug 302 comprises a ceramic, i.e., aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or Aluminum Nitride (AlN), “or any other suitable material” (paragraphs 0029, 0032), Wakabayashi does not expressly teach that the plug 302 material is a “dielectric”.
However, attention is directed to Accuratus, which teaches that Al2O3 (also known as alumina or aluminum oxide) has “excellent dielectric properties from DC to GHz frequencies” (see page 1 of Accuratus), teaches that alpha phase alumina is strong, stiff, has high hardness, refractoriness, and good thermal properties, and also has “excellent dielectric properties”, all of which “make it the material of choice for a wide range of applications” (Accuratus, page 1), and teaches that 94% Aluminum Oxide, 96% Aluminum Oxide, and 99.5% Aluminum Oxide are dielectric materials (see the charts on pages 2-3, which provide teachings of the dielectric strength and dielectric constants of each of these specific versions of aluminum oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the alumina (Al2O3) plug taught by Wakabayashi out of a specific version of alumina (Al2O3) that is a dielectric as taught by Accuratus, noting that such versions of alumina are desirable for a variety of reasons, including their high strength and stiffness, as well as their good thermal properties, refractoriness, and “excellent dielectric properties”, all as taught by Accuratus (pp. 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous (and present) rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0242063 to Wakabayashi et al. (hereinafter, “Wakabayashi”), Applicant has stated (on pages 8-9 of the reply filed 6/3/2026):
Applicant submits that Wakabayashi fails to teach or disclose "wherein the top surface of the plug includes a boss positioned at a central region of the top surface, and at least a portion of the plug passage extends through the boss," as recited in amended claim 1.
Wakabayashi discloses that "[a]n outer surface 316 of the core 302 includes a helical channel 318 extending from a lower surface 320 of the core 302 towards the peripheral ledge 306" (see Wakabayashi, [0033]). Wakabayashi further states that "the peripheral ledge 306 extends from the central protrusion 310 to the outer surface 316 of the core 302" (see Wakabayashi, [0033], Figs. 3 and 6).
Although Wakabayashi discloses a central protrusion 310, the disclosed gas flow path of Wakabayashi is formed by the helical channel 318 positioned along the outer surface 316 of the core 302 and extending toward the peripheral ledge 306. Wakabayashi does not disclose or suggest that any portion of the gas flow path or helical channel extends through the central protrusion 310 itself. Rather, the central protrusion 310 and the helical channel 318 are disclosed as separate and distinct structures.
Accordingly, Wakabayashi fails to disclose "wherein the top surface of the plug includes a boss positioned at a central region of the top surface, and at least a portion of the plug passage extends through the boss," as recited in amended claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
However, such is not persuasive. As noted above in the present rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Wakabayashi, Wakabayashi teaches:
a plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410), the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) extending “between” the top (312) and bottom (320) surfaces of the plug (302) (see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0034-0035, 0038, 0006-0007, and at least claims 9-20, and particularly claims 9 and 16, of the reference), the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) having a length (i.e., a length along the helical path of the passage 318, or a length along the helical path of 318 plus a length along one or more of the areas 406, for example) greater than a distance (such as the vertical distance in Figures 3-4) defined between the top (312) and bottom (320) surfaces of the plug (302) (by virtue of the fact that the path 318 is helical; see Figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 0034-0035, 0038, 0006-0007, and at least claims 9-20, and particularly claims 9 and 16, of the reference), wherein the top surface (such as, for example, 312) of the plug (302) “includes” (to the extent that the top surface 260 of the plug of the present application can be considered to itself “include” the boss 266, as opposed to the top surface having a boss thereon) a boss (two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404, or two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404 in combination with 310) (see Figures 3-4 and paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0037-0038, for example) positioned at a “central region” (as broadly claimed, noting, for example, that each of 310 and 404, 404, 404, 404, are located at a “region” of the top surface 312 that is “central” at least in that each of 310, 404, 404, 404, 404 are spaced from the outer circumference of 312, as can be seen in at least Figures 4 and 3) of the top surface (312), and at least a portion (such as 406) of the plug passage (318+406, alternatively, 318+406+410) extends through the (aforedescribed) boss (two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404, or two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404 in combination with 310) (see Figure 4 and at least paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0037-0038).
Thus, the claim language in question is met.
As a side note, to the extent that Applicant is intending to argue (in the above-quoted arguments from pages 8-9 of the 6/3/2026 response) that the present claim language requires gas flow through the claimed “plug passage”, it is firstly noted that the claims do not include any language requiring such. That said, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apparently that the plug passage be required to have gas flow therethrough) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That being said, it is noted that Wakabayashi actually does teach that gas flows through the plug passage 318+406 (or alternatively, the plug passage 318+406+410), including through the portion(s) 406, 410 thereof that extend through the boss (two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404, or two or more of the raised boss portions 404, 404, 404, 404 in combination with 310). See, in particular, see paragraph 0037, which teaches that “the plurality of raised portions 404 define a plurality of radial channels 406 therebetween that are fluidly coupled to the upper annular channel 332”, paragraph 0038, which teaches that “the gas flow path extends from the helical channel 318 to the upper surface 226 of the dielectric plate 202 via the upper annular channel 332, the plurality of radial channels 406, the inner annular channel 410¸ and a gap between each of the gas openings 336 and the outer surface 338 of the central protrusion 310”, and paragraph 0034, which teaches that “[T]he helical channel 318 at least partially defines a gas flow path through the plug 220”, and “the gas flow path extends from the lower surface 214 of the metallic base plate 204 to the upper surface 226 of dielectric plate 202 via the helical channel 318”, for example.
Applicant has indicated that their arguments re the Wakabayashi reference likewise apply to the rejected dependent claims. Likewise, the foregoing responses to those arguments apply re the rejected dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, it is noted that in the Information Disclosure Statement filed May 18, 2026, Applicant cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0086400 to Samir, which shows/teaches plugs having passages of similar configuration to those of the present invention (see, for example, Figures 9A-15B, for example).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights