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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “suck a to-be-treated object”. The examiner suggests amending to --to suction a workpiece--.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the depth of the first channel located outside the channel member" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears applicant is trying to claim an additional channel located outside the channel member. The examiner suggests amending the claim to --wherein the depth of the first channel located inside the channel member is greater than a depth of a channel located outside the channel member-- to avoid confusion with the first channel in the channel member.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “greater than the depth of the second channel located outside the channel member” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears again that applicant is trying to claim an additional channel located outside the channel member (a third channel member). The examiner suggests amending the claim to -- wherein the depth of the second channel located inside the channel member is greater than a depth of a channel located outside the channel member-- to avoid confusion with the first channel and the second channel in the channel member.
Applicant may want to consider amending all the dependent claims and recite a first, second, third and fourth channel as any future amendments to the claims could become further confusing (i.e. second channel recited in claim 7 and a channel located outside the channel member in claim 3; if claim 3 was amended into claim 1 would claim 7 then be irrelevant?).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. US 2019/0013231.
Yamaguchi discloses a channel member comprising: a dense ceramic body (500, 502, 503) including an upper surface (50U) and a lower surface (50d) with a thickness of 50 mm or more (Lbp = 3.33mm to 720mm;
L
b
p
=
L
z
.
9
t
o
.
1
=
L
x
t
o
6
*
L
x
.
9
t
o
.
1
; wherein Lx = 3 to 12mm; see ¶0135 and ¶0143) between the upper surface and the lower surface and having an area in a plan view equal to or greater than an area of a circle with a diameter of 300 mm (radius of 150mm; ¶0106), wherein the dense ceramic body (500) comprises a first channel inside (55), wherein a depth (Lz) of the first channel is greater than a width (Lx) of the first channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
458
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi discloses wherein the diameter is 300mm but does not specify wherein the diameter is 350mm. However, it would have been obvious to modify the diameter of Yamaguchi to 350mm as a mere design consideration through routine engineer. Furthermore, wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
As for claim 2, the modified Yamaguchi teaches wherein the depth of the first channel is at least twice the width of the first channel (Larger than 1 and less than 6 times the size ¶0135).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, the modified Yamaguchi teaches in Fig. 12a wherein the depth of the first channel (55) located inside the channel member is greater than the depth of a first channel (56) located outside the channel member.
As for claim 4, the modified Yamaguchi teaches wherein the upper surface and the lower surface are parallel to each other, and the first channel (55) is parallel to the upper surface and the lower surface.
As for claim 5, the modified Yamaguchi teaches wherein the first channel includes a first convex portion (55c) connecting an upper surface (55U) and a side surface (55S) of the first channel (55).
As for claim 7, the modified Yamaguchi teaches a second channel (56 or 57) between the first channel (55) and the upper surface. Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the depth of a channel being greater than the width of a channel has an influence, wherein the in-plane temperature uniformity of the object to be processed W is improved (¶0140). Yamaguchi does not specify wherein the second channel depth is greater than the width, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the depth and width of the second channel of Yamaguchi as claimed in order to improve in-plane temperature uniformity.
As for claim 8, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the depth of the second channel is at least twice the width of the second channel (Larger than 1 and less than 6 times the size ¶0135).
As for claim 9, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the depth of the second channel (56 or 57) located inside the channel member is greater than the depth of the second channel (53 or 14) located outside the channel member (.5mm to 7mm; thickness of 11; ¶0079).
As for claim 11, Yamaguchi teaches wherein “a difference between the influence of the turbulent flow in the connection portion 55C and the influence of the turbulent flow near the connection portion 55C can be suppressed by making the connection portion 55C of the upper surface 55U and the side surface 55S curved. Thereby, the in-plane temperature uniformity of the object to be processed W can be improved” (¶0156). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the second channel of Yamaguchi to include a second convex portion connecting an upper surface and a side surface of the second channel in order to improve in-plane temperature uniformity of an object being processed.
As for claim 13, Yamaguchi teaches a channel member comprising: a dense ceramic body (500) including an upper surface and a lower surface with a thickness of 50 mm or more between the upper surface and the lower surface and having an area in a plan view equal to or greater than an area of a circle with a diameter of 350 mm, wherein the dense ceramic body comprises three or more laminated layers (welded or brazing, ¶0082 and ¶0160) of ceramic substrates (50a, 50b, 50c), except for a ceramic substrate on the uppermost layer (50c, 504, Fig. 13), each of the ceramic substrates include a channel (51, 52, 55, 57), and for the ceramic substrates including a channel (51, 52, 55, 57), a ceramic substrate located above is laminated on the ceramic substrate located below, and a depth of the channel of the ceramic substrate located above is greater than a width of the channel of the ceramic substrate located above, and is greater than half of a thickness of the ceramic substrate located above (see Figs. 1 and 13).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. US 2019/0013231 in view of Sekiya US 2019/0111547.
As for claim 10, Yamaguchi teaches an electrostatic chuck provided with temperature control via a plurality of channels (55, 56 or 57). Yamaguchi does not specify wherein the dense ceramic body (500) includes a plurality of suction holes () for connecting the first channel (55) and the upper surface to suck a to-be-treated object.
PNG
media_image4.png
434
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Sekiya teaches a electrostatic chuck having a plurality of channels (42) connected to a vacuum source (43) for suction of an object (201) to be treated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the channel member of Yamaguchi to include a vacuum source and suction hole formed on the ceramic body as taught by Sekiya in order to provide additional means of securing the workpiece to the dense ceramic body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723