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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is noted that the use of a parenthesis is reserved for a reference numeral and not for a specific claim scope such as (900 º C) or (1,000 º to 1,300 º C) as recited. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 10-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites a range of 900 º C to 1,000 º C to 1300 º C which can be interpreted to include the broader range of 900 º C to 1300 º C and the narrower range of 900 º C to1000 º C. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 that is subjected to a heat treatment or annealing process that includes a temperature range of 1000º C to 2000º C (which is subsequently cooled after being heated) that overlaps a temperature range between recrystallization temperature of molybdenum and tungsten which includes a temperature between 900º C to 1,000 C -1,300º C to suppress growth of crystal grains as claimed. 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% with narrower annealing temperature range of 900º C to 1,000 C -1,300º C.
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 the ceramic body is heated to 1,100 º C to 1,200 º C (column 5, lines 32-45), which is encompassed with the claimed range of 900º C to 1,000 C-1,300º C and that cracks were prevented in the ceramic body (see the comparison between Figure 1 and Figure 3) where the resistive element made of the claimed molybdenum-tungsten is placed in the ceramic body (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 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 as the connecting member is subjected to the heat treatment or annealing process which would suppress growth of crystal grains that would predictably prevent or eliminate cracks in the substrate body for prolonged effective use of the substrate for heating substrates as known in the art. It is also noted that the recitation of the annealing process including the specified temperature range as claimed renders the claim as a product by process wherein the patentability of the product is based on the product by itself and not the process by which the product is made (MPEP 2113).
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 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Nobori, Applicant argues that Nobori discloses for the firing temperature that is in the range of 1000 º C to 2000 º C which shows a broader range than that of the recited temperature range of 900 º C to 1,000 º C -1300 º C wherein the prima facie case of obviousness is rebuttable where the claimed range is shown to be critical or that the claimed range yields unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Applicant then argues that the annealing process of the claimed substrate in such claimed temperature range solves the problem of the brittleness of tungsten in the molybdenum-tungsten alloy caused by the growth of crystal grains in the molybdenum-tungsten alloy. It is noted that while Nobori discloses for the broader range than that of the claimed range, it is further noted that Ushikoshi discloses for the subjecting the molybdenum-tungsten alloy with the claimed range, i.e., 1,100 º C to 1,200 º C (as disclosed in column 5, lines 32-45 of Ushikoshi) is within the claimed range of 900º C to 1,000 C-1,300º C wherein Ushikoshi further discloses for preventing cracks in the ceramic substrate which is the same objective that Applicant desires to achieve and thus anticipates or teaches for the recited suppression of growth of crystal grains as claimed (also, see MPEP 2131.03 wherein the claim is anticipated when a specific example is within a claimed range) Thus, the combination of Nobori in view of Ushikoshi is deemed to meet the claimed invention including the anneal process by which the product is made. Furthermore, it is noted that such claimed anneal process renders the claim as a product by process wherein the patentability of the product is based on the product by itself and not the process by which the product is made (MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Steven W. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights