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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to 1-8, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2015/0377571 to Hiroki is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2015/0377571 to Hiroki.
In regards to Claim 1, Hiroki teaches a baseplate 4, 6 Fig. 1-6 of a substrate support assembly comprising: a cavity between an upper region, a lower region, and sidewalls of the baseplate (space within 4, AS, that is occupied by 6); a plurality of pillars 22, 24 arranged in the cavity between the upper and lower regions (top of 6/bottom of 2 and bottom of 6/top of 8), wherein the pillars extend from a bottom of the cavity to a top of the cavity (as it is the space bounded by the top of 6 and the bottom of 6; an inlet 26 to supply a liquid to the cavity [0042]; and an outlet 28 to vent vapor of the liquid [0029-0106].
In regards to Claim 3, Hiroki teaches the cavity is cylindrical and a height of the cavity is less than a diameter of the cavity, as shown in 6 Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 4, Hiroki teaches the pillars are cylindrical, as shown in Fig. 3.
In regards to Claim 5, Hiroki teaches the pillars are cylindrical and extend vertically from a bottom of the cavity to a top of the cavity, as shown in Fig. 2
In regards to Claim 6, Hiroki teaches the baseplate and the cavity are cylindrical and wherein the cavity extends radially along a diameter of the baseplate, as shown in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 7, Hiroki teaches the inlet is smaller in size than the outlet, as 20 forms part of the outlet and is larger than 22a,b Fig. 4a-4c.
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0377571 to Hiroki in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0249911 to Yamaguchi et al.
The teachings of Hiroki are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 2, Hiroki does not expressly teach the pillars are coated with a wicking material, but does teach that 6 is made of metal [0039].
Yamaguchi teaches a baseplate 18a, 18b Fig. 11 of a substrate support assembly CS Fig. 11 comprising: a cavity VP between an upper region (in blue), a lower region (in yellow), and sidewalls (in red) of the baseplate; a plurality of pillars PP arranged in the cavity between the upper and lower regions; an inlet RT and JO to supply a liquid to the cavity; and an outlet RK and DLu, DLd to vent vapor of the liquid, [0034-0154].
PNG
media_image1.png
376
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi teaches the pillars are coated with a wicking material, as the pillars and 18b are made out of aluminum [0040], which is supported by the instant application [0100], which teaches the wicking material can be aluminum, the outer aluminum surface of PP is considered suitable material for the pillar coating.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a pillar analogous to that of Hiroki out of wicking coated pillars, as taught by Yamaguchi, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 2.
In regards to Claim 8, Hiroki teaches the inlet is adjacent to a bottom of the cavity and but does not expressly teach wherein the outlet is adjacent to a top of the cavity.
Yamaguchi teaches the inlet JO is adjacent to a bottom of the cavity and wherein the outlet DLu is adjacent to a top of the cavity, as shown in Fig. 11.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04-VI (c). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Hiroki to place the outlet on the top, as per the teachings of Yamaguchi. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights