DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending in the current office action.
The current office action is non-final due to new grounds of rejection being presented.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murokawa (JP2017-224710A) in view of Sasaki et al. (PGPub# US2012/0281334 A1) and Hayashi et al. (PGPUb# US2013/0183503 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Murokawa teaches a focus ring placement table (figure 1 and 2) comprising: an annular ceramic heater (e.g., outer ceramic member 60) on which a focus ring 70 is placed; a metal base (e.g., base plate 20, wherein base plate 20 is, for example, a circular flat plate-like member having a diameter larger than that of the inner ceramic member 10, and is formed of a composite material composed of ceramics and an aluminum alloy) (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 27-37); an adhesive element (e.g., bonding layer (adhesive layer) 30, wherein as the organic adhesive contained in the bonding layer 30, various organic adhesives such as silicone resins, acrylic resins, and epoxy resins can be used, but relatively high heat resistance and soft silicone resins) bonding the metal base and the ceramic heater (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 27-37); an inner-peripheral-side protective element 82/84 disposed between the metal base and the ceramic heater and bonded to an inner peripheral portion of the adhesive element(e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 27-37); and an outer-peripheral-side protective element 86 disposed between the metal base and the ceramic heater and bonded to an outer peripheral portion of the adhesive element (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 27-37), and wherein the adhesive element is made of an organic adhesive such as silicone resin, acrylic resin, or epoxy resin with possible additional additives (par. 31).
Murokawa does not explicitly teach wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the adhesive element is equal to or smaller than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the inner-peripheral-side protective element and is equal to or greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the outer-peripheral-side protective element, and that the inner-peripheral-side protective element, and the outer-peripheral-side protective element each comprise a respective epoxy resin, acrylic resin or silicone resin and that each element are respectively of differing compositions.
However, Sasaki teaches a similar focus ring table (fig. 1). Saskai teaches an adhesive layer 24 surrounded by an inner/outer protective element 28. Sasaki teaches that the elements 24 and 28 can be made of a heat resistant and oxygen plasma resistant material such as silicon resin, epoxy resin, and acrylic resin. (par. 45, 54-56)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the materials of Sasaki, for the protective elements of Murokawa, as the materials are known to provide heat and oxygen plasma resistance to the materials used in a focus ring apparatus. (par. 54-56) It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected any/different materials such as those taught by Murokawa and Sasaki (epoxy resin, acrylic resin or silicone resin) as they are art recognized functionally equivalent materials for use in manufacturing elements of focus rings.
The combination of Murokawa and Sasaki does not explicitly teach wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the adhesive element is equal to or smaller than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the inner-peripheral-side protective element and is equal to or greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the outer-peripheral-side protective element, and that the inner-peripheral-side protective element.
However, Hayashi teaches thermal expansion coefficient concerns when dealing with materials used for focus rings. (par. 3-8) Hayashi teaches that utilizing materials with mismatched thermal expansion coefficients results in cracking and breakage. (par. 17) Hayashi teaches that matching material coefficients of thermal expansion coefficients resolves the problem. (par. 22,26) Hayashi teaches that the matching can be withing a range of .1%. (par. 58-61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the adhesive element, and inner/outer protective elements of Murokawa in view of Sasaki with materials with a coefficient of thermal expansion equal/matched to one another to avoid cracking and breakage issues as taught by Hayashi. (par. 22, 26)
Regarding claim 2, Murokawa does not explicitly teach wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the adhesive element is smaller than the coefficient of thermal expansion of the inner-peripheral-side protective element and is greater than the coefficient of thermal expansion of the outer- peripheral-side protective element.
However, Hayashi teaches thermal expansion coefficient concerns when dealing with materials used for focus rings. (par. 3-8) Hayashi teaches that utilizing materials with mismatched thermal expansion coefficients results in cracking and breakage. (par. 17) Hayashi teaches that matching material coefficients of thermal expansion coefficients resolves the problem. (par. 22,26) Hayashi teaches that the matching can be withing a range of .1%. (par. 58-61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the adhesive element, and inner/outer protective elements of Murokawa in view of Sasaki with materials with a coefficient of thermal expansion within .1% of one another to avoid cracking and breakage issues as taught by Hayashi. (par. 22, 26) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a thermal expansion coefficient as claimed as long as the coefficients are within .1% of each other as taught by Hayashi. See MPEP 2144.05 II. as the teaches that coefficient of thermal expansion is a result effective variable with regards to control of breakage and cracking of focus rings.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murokawa (JP2017-224710A), Sasaki et al. (PGPub# US2012/0281334 A1) and Hayashi et al. (PGPUb# US2013/0183503 A1), in view of Aoto (JP2020-119997A).
The combination of Murokawa, Sasaki, and Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the metal base includes an insulating film on a lateral surface of the metal base and on at least each of regions of a surface of the metal base where the inner-peripheral-side protective element and the outer-peripheral-side protective element are formed, the surface facing the ceramic heater.
However, Aoto discloses the metal base includes an insulating film (e.g., film 10) on a lateral surface of the metal base and on at least each of regions of a surface of the metal base where the inner-
peripheral-side protective element and the outer-peripheral- side protective element are formed, the surface facing the ceramic heater (e.g., para 21, 28, 29, 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murokawa/Sasaki/Hayashi in view of Aoto in order to cover the surface of the base so that the surface of the base is not directly exposed inside the processing container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761