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
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosuke et al (JP 2015-191837) in view of Leeser (US 2019/0346838) and Natsuhara et al (US 2004/0188413).
Yosuke discloses the substrate holder claimed including a ceramic base member (3) having an upper surface and a lower surface, a plurality of electrodes (5/7; shown by a plurality of circular sections) embedded in the ceramic base member, at least one conductive member (X1/Y1; also, see Figure 8), a plurality of connecting parts (vias α/β) each of which has an end electrically connected to one of the electrodes, a land (AX/AY) electrically connected to the at least one conductive member, and a plurality of terminals (11/15) each of which has an end electrically connected to one of the land, the conductive member, or the electrodes, and Yosuke further shows the land that overlaps with one of the plurality of terminals at a first position and overlaps at a second position, different from the first position, with one of the plurality of connection parts, the plurality of electrodes as illustrated in Figure 8. But, Yosuke does not explicitly show that the reduced resistance value is smaller than the resistance of the plurality of electrodes with a number of terminals being smaller than two times the number of plurality of electrodes wherein an end of at least one of the plurality of terminals is connected to one of the plurality of electrodes without the at least one conductive member.
Yosuke discloses for a resistance value between the connecting part and the terminal where the conductive member is provided therebetween is made smaller (that is with a reduced electric resistance; para 0008) that suppresses heat generation/conduction. As the plurality of electrodes is used as a heater for generating heat while the conductive member between the connecting part and the terminal is made to reduce electric resistance to suppress heat generation, the resistance value between the connecting part and the terminal would be made smaller than that of the plurality of electrodes so that heat generation is predictably suppressed in the area where heat generation is not desired.
Leeser shows it is known to provide a plurality of electrodes/heaters wherein a number of terminals connected to the plurality of electrode is smaller (three) than two times the number of the plurality of electrodes (e.g., 4 = 2 x 2 electrodes) wherein there can be a common terminal C connected to both of the plurality of electrodes (also, see Figures 4 and 5).
Natsuhara discloses it is known to connect a plurality of electrodes/heaters (2 and 3) with a plurality of terminals (7) wherein one end of the terminals is connected to the electrode (2) without a conductive member (shown by a lead circuit 4) as illustrated in Figure 3.
In view of Leeser and Natsuhara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Yosuke with a number of terminals that can be less than two times the number of electrodes that reduces a total number terminals while providing independent control of the plurality of electrodes/heaters as known in the art wherein one end of the plurality of terminals can be directly connected to one of the plurality of electrodes without a need of a conductive member (lead circuit) to make a simple electrical connection with one end of the plurality of electrodes/heaters.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosuke in view of Leeser and Natsuhara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akatsuka et al (US 2011/0062144) and Yamaguchi (US 2002/0112820).
Yosuke in view of Leeser and Natsuhara discloses the substrate holder claimed including Yosuke disclosing the electrodes and the conductive member that can be made of tungsten W or molybdenum Mo but does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of electrodes and at least a part of the conductive member are a mesh of a wire selected from a group of consisting of tungsten, molybdenum, or an alloy thereof.
Akatsuka discloses it is known to provide an heater electrode that is made of a mesh of a wire selected from molybdenum (para 0058).
Yamaguchi discloses it is known to provide a conductive member that can be made of a net mesh selected from molybdenum (para 0036).
In view of Akatsuka and Yamaguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Yosuke, as modified by Leeser and Natsuhara, with the plurality of electrodes and at least a part of the conductive member that are made of a mesh/net of wire selected from molybdenum, tungsten, or alloy thereof that can predictably provide and withstand high heating temperatures for processing or heat a substrate as known in the art.
With respect to claim 3, Akatsuka discloses that the molybdenum mesh wire has a diameter/thickness of 0.12 mm (para 0058) which overlaps the claimed range of .03 mm to .2 mm, and Yamaguchi also discloses for the molybdenum wire having a diameter of .2 mm (para 0036) which overlaps the claimed range.
With respect to claim 4, Yosuke discloses that the conductive member having the land is made of a metallization of W tungsten or Mo molybdenum wherein such material is of which melting point is not less than 2000 C, and Akatsuka and Yamaguchi discloses that a substrate holder made of a ceramic base can be made of aluminum nitride which is well known in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Akatsuka discloses for a tubular shaft (40) joined to a lower surface of a ceramic base member wherein a plurality of terminals is arranged within the tubular shaft, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Yosuke, as modified by Leeser and Natsuhara, with a tubular shaft that protects the terminals from being exposed to high heating temperatures as the terminals are safely and conveniently routed through the tubular shaft.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosuke et al (JP 2015-191837) in view of Takemoto et al (US 2022/0157636) and Natsuhara et al (US 2004/0188413).
Yosuke discloses the method claimed including a plurality of ceramic bodies/green sheets (3; para 0015), arranging a plurality of electrodes (5/7) on one surface of the ceramic body/green sheet, at least one conductive member (e.g., X1) arranged on another ceramic body/green sheet with a connecting part (α), which is formed by vias, arranged between the plurality of electrodes and the conducive member, arranging a land (AX) that makes a contact with the conductive member (X1), and forming a stack body of the ceramic bodies/green sheets which are pressure bonded or laminated (para 0048). Also, see Figure 4. But, Yosuke does not disclose forming a cutout in one conductive member wherein one of the plurality of electrodes is exposed via the cutout, and Yosuke does not disclose performing an uniaxial hot press baking of the stacked body.
Takemoto discloses it is known to provide a plurality of electrodes (151; para 0046) along with at least one conductive member (e.g., 161) wherein the conductive member includes a cutout (161b; also see Figures 8 and 9) that exposes at least one of the plurality of electrodes form a stack body via the cutout as illustrated in Figure 9.
Natsuhara discloses it is known to provide a stacked body of a ceramic molded body wherein the stacked body is subjected to hot pressing (para 0064) for laminating and bonding a plurality of ceramic molded bodies/sheets. Also, see para 0065-0068.
In view of Takemoto and Natsuhara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Yosuke with the conductive member that can be further provided with a cutout that exposes at least one of the plurality of electrodes so that an electrical connection can be made to the one of the plurality of electrodes via the cutout through the conductive member, and it would have been obvious to adapt the stacked body of Yosuke that is subjected to hot pressing heating or baking as taught by Natsuhara that is known to bond and laminate the ceramic mold bodies/sheets into an assembled substrate holder and that the land is further exposed for making a contact with the conductive member so that terminals can be predictably connected to the conducive member to supply electric power there through.
With respect to claim 7, Natsuhara discloses a ceramic shaft joined to a lower surface of the stacked ceramic body made of aluminum nitride (see Figure 7), and it would have been obvious to adapt Yusuke with the ceramic shaft for protection of the terminals (11/15) that is connected to the conductive member, which overlaps with the land, to supply electric power thereto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the newly recited claim recitation in claim 1, it is noted that Natsuhara is further applied for the teaching of an end of at least one plurality of terminals that is connected to an end of one of the plurality of electrodes without at least one conductive member as stated in the ground of rejection.
For claim 6, it is noted that Takemoto is further applied for the teaching of forming a cutout in a conductive member which allows for electrical connection to the heater electrodes.
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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights