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 with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 05/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have a separate status in the art, and/or different fields of search including different text search strategies and text search queries. Examination burden comes from developing and analyzing synonyms for each different species. Examination burden would also increase exponentially in subsequent actions as the subject matter further diverges due to increasing specificity of the separately claimed elements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/15/2025.
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.
The term “large number” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how many protrusions are necessary as written. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 is also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noorbakhsh US20200411355.
Regarding claim 1, Noorbakhsh discloses a member (Noorbakhsh; 150; fig 5) for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, comprising: a ceramic plate (Noorbakhsh; 202; fig 5) that has an upper surface (Noorbakhsh; 226; fig 5) including a wafer placement surface; a porous plug (Noorbakhsh; 502; fig 5) that is disposed in a plug insertion hole (Noorbakhsh; 208; fig 5) penetrating the ceramic plate in an up-down direction, and allows gas to flow; an insulating lid (Noorbakhsh; 514; fig 5) that is provided in contact with an upper surface of the porous plug, and exposed to the wafer placement surface; and a plurality of pores penetrating the insulating lid in an up-down direction (Noorbakhsh; 518; fig 5).
Regarding claim 2, Noorbakhsh discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the insulating lid is a thermal spray film or a ceramic bulk body (Noorbakhsh; cap 514 is ceramic; fig 5; section [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Noorbakhsh discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the insulating lid and the porous plug have circular outlines, and an outer diameter of the insulating lid is larger than an outer diameter of the porous plug (Noorbakhsh; cap 514 and plug 502 are circular; fig 5; section [0045]).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorbakhsh US20200411355 in view of Shirashi CN111128837 further in view of Matyushkin US20240404798.
Regarding claim 3, Noorbakhsh discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim.
Noorbakhsh does not explicitly disclose wherein the wafer placement surface has a large number of small projections that support a wafer, an upper surface of the insulating lid is at a same height as a reference surface of the wafer placement surface, the reference surface being not provided with the small projections,
Shirashi teaches wherein the wafer placement surface has a large number of small projections that support a wafer (Shirashi; 13; fig 18), an upper surface of the insulating lid is at a same height (Shirashi; ceramic lid 90a at reference surface 14; fig 18) as a reference surface of the wafer placement surface, the reference surface being not provided with the small projections.
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 ceramic platform of Noorbakhsh to include the projections of Shirashi the reasons for which, paraphrased from Shirashi, are that the ratio between the projections and the grooves as well as the shape of both can contribute to better control of the temperature of the workpiece. (see page 7 of translation, paragraph that begins “by appropriate selection…”)
Noorbakhsh as modified by Shirashi does not explicitly disclose the pores having a length of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less in an up-down direction.
Matyushkin teaches pores having a length of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less in an up-down direction (Matyushkin 128; fig 1; section [0022]).
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 Noorbakhsh to include the pore length of Matyushkin for the reason Matyushkin states paraphrased here “This design is meant to reduce arcing in the chamber and it is believed that a high number of thin tube sections does this advantageously and increases the lifespan of the chuck and associated parts. Section [0024]”
Regarding claim 4, Noorbakhsh discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the insulating lid is a ceramic bulk body (Noorbakhsh; 514; fig 5; section [0041]).
Noorbakhsh does not explicitly disclose having a rear surface bonded to the ceramic plate via an adhesive layer.
Matyushkin teaches a lid having a rear surface bonded to a ceramic plate (Matyushkin; 124 bonded to 108 by 112; fig 1)
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 Noorbakhsh to include the bonding of Matyushkin which is the application of a known technique to bond the lid and the plug together. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorbakhsh US20200411355 in view of Senda US20210249236.
Regarding claim 5, Noorbakhsh discloses the member for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Noorbakhsh is silent as to the size of the pores.
Senda teaches a lid wherein the pores have a diameter of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less, and the insulating lid is provided with the pores that are five or more in number (Senda; 20a; fig 3A; section [0023]).
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 Noorbakhsh to include the pore size of Senda for the purpose stated in Senda and paraphrased here “By machining the diameter of the fine holes to 100 μm or less, abnormal discharge by the plasma can be prevented. In addition, conductance of helium gas injected into the plasma space from the fine holes can be secured.” Section [0023]
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights