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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, the phrase “configured to be inserted into …” is unclear and indefinite (e.g., it does not appear to recite the structure/element of the device since it generally refers to something that is in the future or yet/NOT to occur).
Re claim 1, the phrase “a head provided a tone end of the body and configured to be come into contact …” is unclear and indefinite (e.g., it does not recite the structure/element of the device, it generally refers to something that is in the future or yet/NOT to occur).
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al., US Patent No. 10,490,436 B2.
Re claim 1. Ghosh et al. disclose a lift pin comprising: a body 120 (e.g., fig. 1)/202 (e.g., fig. 2A/2E) configured to be inserted into a through hole 118 (e.g., fig. 1) formed in a susceptor 110 (e.g., fig. 1); and a head 204 (e.g. fig. 2E) provided at one end of the body 120 and configured to be come into contact with a rear surface of a wafer 101 (e.g., fig. 1), wherein an upper surface of the head 204 (e.g., fig. 2E) is formed to have a concavo-convex structure 234/203 (e.g., fig. 2E, especially col. 5, lines 46-62 “The projections 234 may be any suitable shape such as rectangular, rhombus, square, hemispherical, hexagonal, triangular protrusions or mixtures of differently shaped protrusions”), see figs. 1- 3 and cols. 1-8 for more details.
Ghosh et al. disclosed above; although the exact recitations “respective convex parts of the concavo-convex structure have a height of 0.5 to 1.5µm” of the instant claims is not explicitly stated by Ghost et al. in the related text. However, col. 4, lines 45-50 of the cited prior art shows the top surface 203 having a surface roughness of about 1.0 microns or less (e.g., it appears that the surface roughness could equate to the height of the structure); therefore, the instant claim appears to be Prima Facie obvious over Ghosh et al. Col. 5, lines 54-60 further shows having a physical diameter and/or a height “T”.
Furthermore, the height range of the instant claim and/or the radius range of claim 3 are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as temperature, thickness and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any height range and/or radius range suitable to the device of Ghost et al. in order to optimize the device.
Further in this regard, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. - height of 0.5 to 1.5µm) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although the exact recitations “glassy carbon” of the instant claims 7 are not explicitly stated by Ghost et al. in the related text. Col. 3, lines 60-65 shows using stainless steel, which typically might contain a small amount of carbon. In addition, using the glassy carbon (Re claim 7) material for the lift pine have been well-known in the semiconductor art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig - saw puzzle." 65 USPQ at 301.).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use any suitable material for the lift pin in the device of Ghost et al. in order to enhance the thermal conductivity etc.
Re claim 2. The lift pin according to claim 1, Ghosh et al. disclose wherein the upper surface of the head 204 forms a curved surface (e.g., fig. 2E, hemispherical, hexagonal, triangular protrusions or mixtures of differently shaped protrusions) configured to be convex towards the rear surface of the wafer (fig. 1/2E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons herein above.
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 JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights