DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not depict or present the shielding plates directly connected to the carrier inner plates. The term is not use in regard to this in the specification and directly means in immediate physical contact. Claim 15 further attempts to require that the direct contact is via one or more rods, however, using said rods is not direct contact as commonly understood.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the shielding plates directly connected to the carrier inner plates must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Suzuki teaches a holding apparatus for holding multiple substrates comprising:
- carrier inner plates parallel to each other for holding substrates on either side – see the inner supports including two substrates as per of Fig. 16 and
- carrier outer plates parallel to the inner plates for supporting a substrate only on its inner surface, see outer plates on the outer edges with one substate, and
- shielding plates space apart from the outer plates and shade the outer plates – see heat insulating plates 213. As it is placed into system per Fig. 17, the elements of Fig. 16 are unified and the shielding plates connected to the inner/outer plates indirectly.
The requirement of “in a plasma assisted deposition” is merely an intended use but in any case, Suzuki teaches a plasma system [0059].
The Office holds the position that “directly” connected is not supported and that rods intervening does not meet the requirement of “direct” contact, but in any case, the rejection over Suzuki is made based on the fact that applicants claim “direct” contact between the elements with an intervening rod and therefore this interpretation is applied. Suzuki teaches the elements connected as depicted in Figs. 16-17 including parts 212 and the bottom plate which are broadly equivalent to the claimed “rods”.
Regarding claim 2, the plates are arranged as claimed / parallel.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 14, the teachings do not include the claimed dimensions but generally the selection of size and shape is not patentable, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. In this case one would alter the size and shape so long as the dimensions resulted in the requirements of shielding as described. There are no claimed limitations on what difference in size is required.
Regarding claim 4, the shield plates are free of electrical contact as presented.
Regarding claim 7-9 and 12, Suzuki is silent on the composition of the plates, but per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a particular material for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, to form the plates of one or more materials, including the materials such as graphite and/or metal, would have been obvious without a showing of criticality of using multiple materials and including graphite in the parts.
Regarding claim 10, the shielding plates do not include cutouts.
Regarding claims 15, as argued above– the shielding plates are connected.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Seo (2006/0137607).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the teachings of Suzuki do not include a cooling structure on the heat shields – but Seo teaches that on a heat dissipation plate for use in a substrate processing apparatus it is useful to include heat dissipation fins [0056]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the heat dissipation fins of Seo on the heat shields of Suzuki. Both elements are generally to prevent the transfer of heat and Seo teaches that the fins (understood generally as “rib-like” structures) are useful for removing heat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered, the Office does not agree that applicant’s have support for the ‘direct’ connection as now claimed. Further, the amendment to claim 15 requiring rods to ‘directly’ connect the two parts completely contradicts the meaning of “directly”. The term is not used in the specification in order to support any alternative definition.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the rejection was maintained by applying applicants interpretation, per claim 15 of “directly” including rods in between the shielding plates and inner/outer plates. It is also further noted that the term “rod” is not specifically limiting in particular wherein the original term in the German application, Stange, would imply parts such as a pole, post, bar, beam or stem as well as a rod.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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. 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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights