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
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2002/0076559 A1) in view of Otsuka et al (US 2009/0233192 A1).
With regards to claim 13, Sato discloses quartz glass body doped with Al2O3 (i.e., Al) to a concentration of 3.0 % by weight, which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 3 wt. % (Sato: para. [0014] and [0051]-[0054] claims 1 and 4). The claimed phrase “for use in a plasma-assisted semiconductor manufacturing process” constitutes an intended use. It is submitted that this limitation is met as Sato discloses the structural features necessary to meet this intended use (i.e., a quartz glass doped with a dopant according to the present specification). Alternatively, it is noted that the claimed intended use is rather broad, and technically, any glass, including the doped quartz glass, could be used to transport an object into and out of a plasma-assisted semiconductor manufacturing apparatus. It is further noted that the Al of Sato is a dopant according to the present claims and the present specification, and therefore, the Al dopant of Sato is expected to meet the claimed functional properties (i.e., capable of reacting with fluorine to form a fluoride compound, wherein the fluoride compound has a boiling point higher than that of SiF4). Since no other dopants are disclosed in the Al2O3-doped quartz glass of Sato, it is concluded that aluminum is the sole dopant.
Sato does not appear to disclose its surface microhomogeneity as defined by a surface roughness value of less than 20 nm after the surface has been subjected to dry-etching.
Otsuka is directed to a doped quartz glass substrate comprising an alumina dopant and having a roughness of preferably not more than 5 nm after pre-polishing and a roughness of not more than 0.15 nm after a finishing step, the finishing step being a gas cluster ion beam etching step (i.e., a dry etching step) (Otsuka: para. [0190]-[0191]). Otsuka acknowledges that use of gas cluster ion beam etching (i.e., dry etching) removes waviness (i.e., reduces roughness) (Otsuka: abstract; para. [0033], [0094], [0101], and [0191]). Otsuka teaches that such a roughness is indicative of a glass substrate with a high degree of flatness, which is required for the manufacture of optical elements (Otsuka: para. [0060]-[0062]). Sato and Otsuka are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of alumina-doped quartz glasses. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the roughness range of Otsuka (i.e., not more than 0.15 nm after dry etching) for the doped quartz of Sato, in order to enable improved manufacture of optical elements (see above discussion). This range overlaps the claimed range of less than 20 nm, there by establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 14, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the roughness range of Otsuka (i.e., not more than 0.15 nm after dry etching) for the doped quartz of Sato, in order to enable improved manufacture of optical elements (see above discussion). This range overlaps the claimed range of less than 15 nm, there by establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has removed the indefinite phrase “as specified in the description,” and therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. In addition, it is agreed that Sato is silent with regards to a surface roughness with an Ra value of less than 20 nm after dry etching, and therefore, the grounds of rejection over Sato have been withdrawn.
However, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are now made over the combination of Sato and Otsuka.
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights