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 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.
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 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe US20160111315 and Kawase US20220181183 further in view of Yoshikawa US11521885B2.
Regarding claim 1, Parkhe discloses a member (Parkhe; 505; fig 5) for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: a ceramic plate (Parkhe; 515; fig 5; section [0058]) that has an upper surface including a wafer placement surface (Parkhe; topmost face of 515; fig 5); and a porous plug (Parkhe; 534; fig 5; section [0078]) that has an upper surface that is exposed from the wafer placement surface, that is press-fitted and secured in a plug insertion hole that extends through the ceramic plate in an up-down direction, and that allows gas to flow (Parkhe; 534 below gas channel 532; fig 5; section [0078]) and wherein the ceramic plate (Parkhe; 515; fig 5; section [0058]) has a conductive base on a lower surface (Parkhe; 550; fig 5; sections [0074]-[0076]).
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose the porous plug including resin though this is a common method for manufacturing such plugs.
Kawase teaches a porous plug made with resin (Kawase; 21 and 22; figs 3A-4B; sections [0065]-[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous plug of Parkhe to include a resin such as that present in Kawase. As explained in the disclosure of Kawase “…because these resins exhibit high water-repellency performance…” and “… therefore the efficiency of removing contamination adhered inside the porous composite can be increased…” given these reasons one skilled in the art could make this modification as required by the particular application.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose a plug press-fitted from the upper surface of the ceramic plate wherein the resin porous plug is partially embedded within the conductive base.
Yoshikawa teaches a plug (Yoshikawa; 63; fig 6B) press-fitted from the upper surface of the ceramic plate (Yoshikawa; 31; fig 6B) wherein the resin porous plug is partially embedded within the conductive base (Yoshikawa; 10; fig 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parkhe to include the plug configuration of Yoshikawa which Yoshikawa states is “easily replaceable” and allows for an extended serviceable life of the substrate fixing device over the conventional structures.
Regarding claim 6, Parkhe discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the wafer placement surface has a large number of small projections (Parkhe; upper surface of 515; fig 5) that support a wafer, and wherein the upper surface of the resin porous plug is lower than upper surfaces of the small projections (Parkhe; 534 depicted lower than top surface of 515; fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, Parkhe discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the upper surface of the resin porous plug is flush with a reference surface of the wafer placement surface on which the small projections are not formed or is lower than the reference surface by 0.5 mm or less (Parkhe; 534 depicted lower than top surface of 515; fig 5).
Parkhe is silent as to the distances in relation to the plug and the surface of the ceramic plate though does list several different thicknesses of the various components (sections [0049] and [0059])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified that the distances in relation to the plug and the “reference surface” of the ceramic member are a result effective variable and would have been a matter of routine optimization to arrive at the claimed distances prior to the effective filing date absent any evidence of unexpected results obtained by applicant. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Parkhe discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Parkhe does not explicitly disclose the resin porous plug comprising a resin porous material selected from the group consisting of PTFE, PPS, PEEK and PEKK.
Kawase teaches a resin porous plug comprising a resin porous material selected from the group consisting of PTFE, PPS, PEEK and PEKK (Kawase; plugs 21 and 22 may be made with PTFE; figs 3A and 4A; section [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous plug of Parkhe to include a resin such as that present in Kawase. As explained in the disclosure of Kawase “…because these resins exhibit high water-repellency performance…” and “… therefore the efficiency of removing contamination adhered inside the porous composite can be increased…” given these reasons one skilled in the art could make this modification as required by the particular application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6-7 have been considered but are moot due to a new grounds of rejection.
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 DUSTIN J TRUJILLO whose telephone number is (703)756-4705. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 M-Th.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/D.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722