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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 10, 12 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima (US 20030075537).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Okajima
Regarding claim 10, Okajima teaches a ceramic heater (10A) comprising:
a ceramic plate (2A, [0037] the plate shaped substrate may be a known ceramic) that has a wafer placement surface ([0071] semiconductor wafer to be mounted on the mounting face)
a main resistance heating element (4) that is disposed parallel with the wafer placement surface in the plate (Fig. 2 [0029] heating element 4 parallel to surface 2A) that is wired from one of a pair of main terminals ([0030] terminals 7) in a one-stroke pattern (Fig. 1), that reaches the other of the pair of main terminals ([0030] terminals 7) and that has a coil shape ([0041] shape of the heating element may be coil)
a sub resistance heating element (3) that is disposed in the ceramic plate on substantially the same plane as the main resistance heating element (4, Fig. 1 heating elements 3 and 4 being on the same plane) that complements heating with the main resistance heating element (4) at points on the ceramic plate (2A) at which temperature singularly decreases (Fig. 1 [0030] the first heating element 3 is provided in a first zone 17 and the second heating element 4 is provided in a second zone 16, where temperature singularly decreases in zone 16 in regards to heating element 4), and that has a two-dimensional shape ([0041] shape of the heating element may be ribbon, mesh, plate or film, being 2 dimensional),
wherein the main resistance heating element (4) extends from the one of the pair of main terminals ([0030] terminals 7), is folded at folded portions (4b), and reaches the other of the pair of main terminals ([0030] terminals 7, Fig. 1); and
wherein the sub resistance heating element (3, 8A) is of a ribbon shape ([0041] shape of the heating element may be ribbon) and is linearly (8A, Fig. 1 where portion 8A of 3 is linear) disposed in a space void of the main resistance heating element (4, Fig. 1) between where a pair of folded portions (4b) of the main resistance heating element (4) face each other (Fig. 1 where linear portions 8A are between folded portions 4b) and without contacting or connecting to the main resistance heating element (Fig. 1, heating elements 3 and 4 not contacting or connecting).
Okajima does not teach wherein the sub resistance heating element is linearly disposed across substantially an entire diameter of the ceramic plate in a space void of the main resistance heating element between where each and every pair of folded portions of the main resistance heating element face each other. However, applicant has not stated that there is any unexpected or synergetic results for the positioning of the sub resistance heating element across substantially the entire diameter for the ceramic plate . As such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the sub resistor of Okajima to have the dimensions claimed as when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a scaling or dimension which does not provide a new or unexpected result a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Okajima teaches the ceramic heater according to Claim 10, wherein the sub resistance heating element (3) is wired from one of a pair of sub terminals ([0031] terminal 6A Fig. 1) in a one-stroke pattern (Fig. 1)and reaches the other of the pair of sub terminals ([0031] terminal 6A Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Okajima teaches the ceramic heater according to Claim 10, wherein the sub resistance heating element contains ceramics ([0041] the heating element may be a conductive material such as carbon, TiN or TiC, where TiN and TiC are ceramic).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okajima (US 20030075537) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Muneishi (US20200275528).
Regarding claim 11, Okajima teaches the ceramic heater according to claim 10, but is silent on wherein the sub resistance heating element forms a parallel circuit together with the main resistance heating element.
Muneishi teaches wherein the sub resistance heating element forms a parallel circuit together with the main resistance heating element ([0106] FIG. 7 is a circuit diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration for the portions mainly concerned with the power supply among the various functional parts shown in FIG. 6, where resistance heating elements 2Ba, 2Bb, 2Bc, and 2Bd form a parallel circuit).
Okajima and Muneishi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ceramic heaters. It would have been obvious to have modified Okajima to incorporate the teachings of Muneishi to have the main and sub heating elements form a parallel circuit in order to allow the power to both the main and sub heating elements be supplied individually (Muneishi [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 3/23/2026 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 10 under Okajima have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okajima being modified by scaling or dimension which does not provide a new or unexpected result a finding of prima facie obviousness as now presented (see MPEP §2144.04). As applicant now claims, the sub resistance heating element is disposed substaintailly across the entire diameter of the ceramic plate, however applicant’s specification does not explicitly show this embodiment as being necessary and improvement on the placement of the sub resistance given the many embodiments, as shown by example in applicant’s Figs. 3-7.
Conclusion
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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/3/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights