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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claim 1 is amended.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 6/29/2026 with respect to the rejection of present claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (US 2004/0016792; “Fujii”) in view of Wang et al. (US 6,490,146; “Wang) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on Wang in view of newly found prior art reference Zeller (US 2013/0305673).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 6,490,146; “Wang) in view of Zeller (US 20130305673).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a joined body (100, Fig. 6, col. 8, lines 32-65, and col. 14, lines 4-46) in which a first member (115) and a second member (175) are joined together via a joining portion (joining portion 250, Fig. 6, Col. 14, lines 4-46) including a metal layer (250) (Fig. 6, col. 8, lines 32-65, the joining portion includes bonding layer 250 of suitable materials include metal, aluminum, copper, meeting the claimed limitations),
- wherein the first member and the metal layer have respective through holes formed in the first member and the metal layer, respectively, and communicating with each other (see annotated Fig. 6 for reference to the through holes, meeting the claimed limitations).
Wang further teaches the laminated layers having a plurality of through holes penetrated through the laminated members (see annotated Fig. 6, the laminate include a plurality of through holes there through), wherein a tubular member (tube/tubular members 380, see annotated Fig. 6, col. 14, lines 60-65) is disposed between an inner side portion of the through hole and in an interior portion of the laminated layers, in particular, one end portion of the tubular member (380) is disposed in the through hole formed in the first member (element 100), and the other end portion of the tubular member (380) is disposed in the through hole formed in the second member (element 175, see annotated Fig.6, col. 15, lines 1-10). Wang teaches tubes 380 align the through holes across multiple layers and that comprise an outer diameter that allows them to be held in place substantially without the use of an adhesive (col. 15, lines 1-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang does not specifically teach its metal layer is being formed from metal fibers and having a plurality of pores communicating with each other, as instantly claimed.
Zeller teaches a metal layer formed of from metal fibers and having a plurality of pores communicating with each other (para [0014] [0015] [0032]) that provides uniform mechanical strength, uniform permeability and provides uniform surface for bonding (para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view the teachings of Zeller, to replace the metal layer in the joined body of Wang with a metal layer being formed from metal fibers and having a plurality of pores communicating with each other as taught by Zeller (para [0014] [0015] [0032]), for the benefit of uniform mechanical strength, uniform permeability and provides uniform surface for bonding as taught by Zeller (para [0032]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory joint body that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches in its joined body, a through hole communicating with the through holes formed in the first member and the metal layer, respectively, is formed in the second member (see annotated Fig.6, col. 15, lines 1-10, the through hole formed in the second member, meeting the claimed limitations).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Wang as discussed above teaches a joint body includes the tubular member, but does not specifically teach the tubular member is formed of the same material as the metal layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Wang, to include and select suitable material for the tubular member as desired, such as metal material, of which is of the same material as the metal layer, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory joint body that is the same as instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable material for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6 and 14 and 17, Wang teaches a joined body configuration include laminated members (first member 100, bonding member 250, second one end portion of the tubular member is disposed in the through hole formed in the first member, and the other end portion of the tubular member is disposed in the through hole formed in the second member (175, Fig. 6, Col. 14, lines 4-46), and the laminated layers having a plurality of through holes penetrated through the laminated members (see annotated Fig. 6, the laminate include a plurality of through holes there through), wherein a tubular member (tube/tubular members 380) is disposed between an inner side portion of the through hole and in an interior portion of the laminated layers (see annotated Fig. 6, col. 14, lines 60-65). In particular, in Wang, the tubular member has a circular cross section taken perpendicular to an axial direction of the tubular member (see Fig. 6, col. 14, lines 60-65), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Wang teaches a holding apparatus comprising the joined body (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 65-67, col. 4, lines 1-55), wherein the second member has a placement surface on which an object to be held is placed (see Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 65-67, col. 4, lines 1-55), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches an electrostatic chuck comprising the holding apparatus (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 65-67, col. 4, lines 1-55), wherein the second member has an electrostatic attraction electrode (105, see Fig. 8a) disposed therein (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 65-67, col. 4, lines 1-55), meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 13-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zeller as applied to claims 1-2 above, further in view of Koizumi (US 7,556,065).
The limitations of claims 1-2 are taught by Wang in view of Zeller as discussed above.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Wang as discussed above teaches a joint body includes the tubular member, but does not specifically teach the inclusion of a bellows portion is formed along a circumference of the tubular member to extend in a circumferential direction.
Koizumi teaches metal bellow tube (101) that is suitable for placing inside of a tubular article (102), of which the metal bellow tube provides improved bending fatigue resistance and provides improved strength (col. 3, lines 20-30, col. 9, lines 35-55, Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
510
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Wang in view the teachings of Koizumi, to include a bellows portion as taught by Koizumi along a circumference of the tubular member to extend in a circumferential direction in the joint body as taught by Koizumi (col. 3, lines 20-30, col. 9, lines 35-55), for the improved bending fatigue resistance and improved strength as taught by Koizumi, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory joint body that is the same as instantly claimed, in claims 4 and 9.
Regarding claims 13-14, Wang as discussed above in rejection to claims 2 and 4 teaches a joint body includes the tubular member, but does not specifically teach the tubular member is formed of the same material as the metal layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Wang, to include and select suitable material for the tubular member as desired, such as metal material, of which is of the same material as the metal layer, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory joint body that is the same as instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable material for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Wang as discussed above rejection to claim 4 teaches a joint body includes the tubular member. Wang teaches a joined body configuration include laminated members (first member 100, bonding member 250, second one end portion of the tubular member is disposed in the through hole formed in the first member, and the other end portion of the tubular member is disposed in the through hole formed in the second member (175, Fig. 6, Col. 14, lines 4-46), and the laminated layers having a plurality of through holes penetrated through the laminated members (see annotated Fig. 6, the laminate include a plurality of through holes there through), wherein a tubular member (tube/tubular members 380) is disposed between an inner side portion of the through hole and in an interior portion of the laminated layers (see annotated Fig. 6, col. 14, lines 60-65). In particular, in Wang, the tubular member has a circular cross section taken perpendicular to an axial direction of the tubular member (see Fig. 6, col. 14, lines 60-65), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a holding apparatus comprising the joined body (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 65-67, col. 4, lines 1-55), wherein the second member has a placement surface on which an object to be held is placed (see Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 65-67, col. 4, lines 1-55), meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights