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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobori et al (US 2021/0120633) in view of Ushikoshi et al (US 5,683,606).
Nobori shows the heating apparatus claimed including a body (20) comprising aluminum nitride (AlN; para 0044), a first heating element (22) located in an inner region of the body, a second heating element (26) located in an outer region surrounding the inner region, a third heating element (24) configured to transmit current to the second heating element across the inner region of the body, and a connecting member/terminal (25) electrically interconnecting the second heating element and the third heating element wherein the connecting member is made of molybdenum-tungsten alloy (as the connecting member is made of refractory metal including tungsten-molybdenum alloy; para 0046 and 0049) and placed at a predetermined position within the body, and Nobori further shows that the connecting member is subjected to a heat treatment process that includes a temperature range of 1000º C to 2000º C (which is subsequently cooled after being heated) that encompasses subjecting the connecting member to a temperature range between recrystallization temperature of molybdenum and tungsten (which includes a temperature between 900º C to 1,300º C as disclosed on page 22, lines 8-13 of the specification). But, Nobori does not disclose the connecting member having the molybdenum-tungsten alloy containing molybdenum in a proportion of 40-80% and tungsten in a proportion of 20-60%.
Ushikoshi shows it is known to provide a ceramic body comprising aluminum nitride (AlN) body with an embedded resistive heating element that is made of molybdenum-tungsten alloy with a content of molybdenum (Mo) that ranges from 50 to 100% which respectively provides tungsten (W) in the range up to about 50% which encompasses and overlaps the claimed proportion as claimed (column 3, lines 28-32; and column 7, lines 59-62 which discloses an examples of Mo 50%/W50% and Mo70%/W30%) wherein cracks were prevented in the ceramic body where the resistive element having the claimed molybdenum-tungsten is placed (column 2, lines 56-60).
In view of Ushikoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nobori with the connection member that is made of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy in the proportion of molybdenum and tungsten alloy claimed so that any propagation of cracks in the ceramic body near the connection member is predictably prevented or eliminated to prolong the use of the substrate heating apparatus as desired without cracks.
With respect to claim 2, Nobori shows the connecting member that is in a spherical or a ball-like shape (para 0084) but does not show a partially spherical shape as claimed. However, Nobori does not limit the connecting member to any specific examples as long as the connecting member is shaped with no edges (or having chamfered round edges) to suppress or prevent cracks or fractures in the body (para 0015) when the heating elements are connected by the connecting member. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nobori with the connecting member shaped in a partial spherical shape or any other suitable shape as a matter of design choice that allows an electrical connection between the second heating element and the third heating element is effectively made that suppresses occurrence of cracks due to any stress on the body during its manufacturing or molding process.
With respect to claims 3-5, Nobori discloses that the connecting member that can be elliptical or rectangular parallel piped shaped (para 0084), and it would have been obvious to adapt the connecting member as an oval shape or a cylindrical shape as a matter of obvious design choice to reduce any stress on the body and predictably reduce any occurrence of cracks or fractures wherein Nobori further shows the connecting member that includes vertically formed openings with opposite inner surfaces (shown by holes 251, 252) on to which the second heating element and the third heating element would be fixedly inserted as the heating elements are in contact thereon (also see Figure 5; para 0049) such that a longitudinal axis of the connecting member is disposed perpendicular and parallel to a substrate seating portion of the body (also, see Figures 6A-6E).
With respect to claim 14, Nobori shows the first, the second and the third heating element that are made of a refractory metal which includes a molybdenum and tungsten alloy (para 0046, 0047 and 0048).
With respect to claim 15, it is noted that claim 15 recites for a heat treatment process that renders the claim as a product by process wherein the patentability of the claim is not based on the process but is determined based on the product/structure itself which is shown by Nobori which includes the first heating element, the second heating element, and the third heating element as claimed. Also, see MPEP 2113.
With respect to claim 16, as Ushikoshi discloses for the embedded resistive heating element that is made of molybdenum-tungsten alloy with a content of molybdenum (Mo) that ranges from 50 to 100% which respectively provides tungsten (W) in the range up to about 50% which encompasses and overlaps the claimed proportion as claimed (column 3, lines 28-32; and column 7, lines 59-62 which discloses an examples of Mo 50%/W50% and Mo70%/W30%) wherein cracks were prevented in the ceramic body where the resistive element having the claimed molybdenum-tungsten is placed (column 2, lines 56-60). It would have been obvious for the heating element made of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy is provided in the proportion of molybdenum and tungsten alloy claimed so that any propagation of cracks in the ceramic body near the heating element is predictably prevented or eliminated to prolong the use of the substrate heating apparatus as desired without cracks.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobori in view of Ushikoshi as applied to claims 1-5 and 14-16 above and further in view of Kitabayashi et al (US 2018/0096868).
With respect to claim 10, Nobori in view of Ushikoshi discloses a heating element connector (41; Figure 2) connected to an end of the first heating element (22) to transmit power supplied from a power supply (31) but does not show that the heating element connector is made of molybdenum-tungsten alloy.
Kitabayashi discloses it is known to provide a terminal (40) that is made of molybdenum and tungsten alloy (para 0039).
In view of Kitabayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nobori as modified by Ushikoshi with the heating element connector that is made of molybdenum-tungsten alloy that is known to be high heat resistant that can withstand high heating temperature in which the heating apparatus is exposed to for its proper heating operation as known in the art.
With respect to claim 11, it is noted that claim 11 recites for a heat treatment process that renders the claim as a product by process wherein the patentability of the claim is not based on the process but is determined based on the product itself which is shown by Nobori and Ushikoshi as modified by Kitabayashi. Also, see MPEP 2113.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Nobori shows the structure/apparatus including the connecting member as modified by Kitabayashi wherein Nobori further shows a heating treatment process which includes heating temperatures of 1000º to 2000º C (which is subsequently cooled after being heated) that encompasses subjecting the connecting member to a temperature range between recrystallization temperature of molybdenum and tungsten (which is disclosed to be in the range of 900º to 1300º C; lines 8-13 on page 22 of the specification). It is also noted that Nobori as modified by Kitabayashi shows the apparatus/structure as claimed wherein the process recited (i.e., the heating treatment process including anneal process) renders the claims as product by process claims wherein patentability of the claim is not based on the process but is determined based on the product itself. Also, see MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobori in view of Ushikoshi as applied to claims 1-5 and 14-16 above and further in view of Wang et al (US 6,538,872).
With respect to claim 12, Nobori in view of Ushikoshi discloses for a radio-frequency (high frequency) electrode embedded in the body (20) for generating plasma (para 0083) but does not explicitly show the high-frequency electrode is made of molybdenum-tungsten alloy as claimed.
Wang shows it is known to provide a substrate heating apparatus with a rf electrode unit (105) as a high-frequency electrode which is made of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy (column 12, line 64 to column 13, line 2) which can withstand high temperatures.
In view of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nobori as modified by Ushikoshi with the high frequency electrode that is made of an alloy of molybdenum and tungsten which would predictably withstand high heating temperature for proper heating operation of the heating apparatus as known in the art.
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that claim 13 recites for a heat treatment process including annealing process that renders the claim as a product by process wherein the patentability of the claim is not based on the process but is determined based on the product itself which is shown by Nobori and Ushikoshi as modified by Wang. Also, see MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Ushikoshi, Applicant argues that since Ushikoshi discloses for the ratio of molybdenum that needs to be not less than 50 atom% in the molybdenum-tungsten alloy, Ushikoshi teaches away the claimed proportion of a molybdenum-tungsten alloy containing molybdenum proportion of 40 to 80% and tungsten in proportion of 20 to 60%. This argument is not deemed persuasive since the disclosure of Ushikoshi as argued by Applicant would have at least 50% molybdenum (i.e., not less than 50%) with the remaining 50% being tungsten. It is noted that when the prior art range/proportion overlaps or lies inside the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05), and thus the Applicant’s argument is not deemed persuasive. Furthermore, it is noted both Nobori and Ushikoshi disclose that a ceramic body within which the molybdenum-tungsten alloy is placed therein is made of aluminum nitride as stated in the ground of rejection.
With regard to the recrystallization temperature, Applicant argue that Nobori discloses the firing temperature range of 1000 to 2000º C wherein the Applicant’s specification discloses for the recrystallization temperature is 1000 to 1300º C and that 1300 C is not an arbitrary upper boundary but such temperature range reduces risk of cracking in the molybdenum-tungsten which is a new and unexpected result. This argument is not deemed persuasive since there is no claim recitation regarding such temperature range, and it is also noted that Nobori as well as Ushikoshi has its objectives that suppress or prevent occurrence of crack in the ceramic plate, Nobori and Ushikoshi both have the same intended objective as that of the Applicant’s invention to suppress or prevent cracks in the heating apparatus which are not new or unexpected results. As noted above, when the prior art range/proportion overlaps or lies inside the range (which in this case disclosed in the specification), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) especially when there is the same intended results contemplated in the prior art as that of the Applicant’s intended objective.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights