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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modification of Kouno directed towards the media injection speed would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because “Kouno and Mistubishi differ both in the purpose of their blasting treatment” (page 5 arguments). Examiner kindly reminds Applicant that the teachings of Mase, not Mitsubishi, were relied upon for the injection speed. Nonetheless, Mase and Kouno describe similar operating conditions, including but not limited to, pressure (see [0148-0152] of Kouno, [0064] of Mase), particle diameter (see [0147] of Kouno, [0061] of Mase), material of the workpiece (see [0063] of Kouno and [0051] of Mase), and reduction of chipping/cracking generation (see [0151] of Kouno, [0081] of Mase). Furthermore, Mase identifies the ejection pressure as a result effective variable (see prior art rejection below), wherein the rationale of modifying Kouno to be within the claimed range is explained within the context of result effective variables, i.e. as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0010] indicating the injection speed “may” be within the claimed range.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuono (US 20170243778) in view of Mitsubishi (JP-6684147-B2)and in further view of Mase (US 20190283212).
Regarding claim 11, Kouno discloses a method for manufacturing a component made of a hard brittle material (see abstract and Figures 5A-5C), the method comprising:
a step of preparing a base material made of a hard brittle material (see [0017] regarding the materials of the electrostatic chuck); and
a step of embossing the base material (wherein under broadest reasonable interpretation, embossing imparts creating a raised pattern on a surface; see at least [0027-0030], see Figures 5A-5C; [0134-0139]),
wherein a protrusion (30) protruding in a first direction and a bottom surface (19a) surrounding the protrusion are formed on the base material by the embossing (see Figure 5C regarding the protrusions 30, bottom 19a of the placement surface 19),
wherein the bottom surface extends in a plane defined by a second direction intersecting the first direction and a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction (wherein bottom surface 19a extends in a horizontal plane which is orthogonal with the vertical direction of extension of the protrusion 30),
wherein the step of embossing comprises a step of forming a mask pattern on the base material (see [0138]: wherein a mask 51 having a predetermined pattern shape is formed on the placement surface 19) and a step of blasting the base material on which the mask pattern is formed ([0139]: wherein sand blasting processing is carried out; see also [0136]),
wherein the base material is an aluminum nitride base material ([0017]: wherein the electrostatic chuck has a placement surface which includes an aluminum nitride; wherein electrostatic chuck portion comprises placement plate 11 that surfaces as a placement surface 19 on which specimen W is placed, as well as supporting plate 12, and components 13 and 14, see [0054]; wherein [0057] discloses that elements 11 and 12 comprise an aluminum nitride; see also [0063]),
wherein a particle diameter of shot media used for the blasting is 38 μm or less ([0147]: wherein the particle diameters of the media are 400 meshes and under, which is 37 μm or less; see also [0153]).
However, Kouno is silent regarding the side surface shape/bottom of the protrusion reflecting a parabolic equation, wherein the parabolic equation’s constants are limited within a range. Kouno does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom surface and a side surface of the protrusion continuous with the bottom surface satisfy a relationship of z = Ax2 - Bx in a cross section defined by the first direction and the second direction when the first direction is represented by z and the second direction is represented by x, wherein A is 0.089 to 0.200 and B is 0.050 to 0.955, and
wherein a constituent material of the mask pattern is an acrylic urethane resin, wherein an injection speed of shot media used in the blasting is 120 meters per second to 200 meters per second, wherein an injection angle of shot media used for the blasting is set at 90 degrees.
However, Kouno does specifically contemplate several dimensions and configurations as they relate to the shape of the protrusion(s). The diameters (D1-D4) of the protrusion in Figure 3B correlate with a position along the x axis, and the heights (H1-H3, H/2) correlate with a position in the y direction, wherein there is a gradual change in shape (see Figure 3B). The cross sectional area at (D2, H2) is 100-110% of the area located at(D1, H1), see [0116]. The cross sectional area at (D3, H3) is 100-120% of the area located at (D1, H1), see [0118]. The cross sectional area at (D4, H/2) is 100-140% of the area located at (D1, H1), see [0121-0122]. These percentage correlations directly affect the outer circumferential profile of the protrusion, i.e. the side surface(s) of column portions 32 which slope into the foot portion(s) 34 and the bottom surface(s) 19a. Kouno also suggests that the slope of the circumferential surface of the column portion 32 may change in the height direction in at least [0108], while noting that the foot portion (34) smoothly connects the bottom portion 19a and the column portion 34 in [0109]. Examiner notes that a parabolic function has different radii of curvature at instant locations, i.e. different slopes of curvatures at respective locations. Kouno also suggests that the slope of the column portion may be decreased, i.e. a slope closer to the vertical direction, in at least [0152]. Kouno also experiments with the shape of the protrusions by changing several variables (see [0172-0173], table 2)
Examiner notes that in a parabolic equation, the constant A controls 1) the direction in while a parabola opens and 2) the width of the parabola; constant B controls the location of the parabola, without altering the physical shape of the parabola. The width of a parabola (i.e. A) directly affects the slope(s) of lines taken at instantaneous points on the parabola. As pointed out above, Kouno experimentally alters the cross sectional shape of the protrusions by taking into consideration variables including at least the foot portion (34), base surface (19a), and slope of the column portion (32), noting that the slope may change in the height direction. Kouno notes that over time, the protrusions (30) are abraded after general use; see at least [0111]. The abrasive wear is illustrated within Figure 4, see [0112-0115]. The selections of dimensions/shape of the protrusion are done so in order to sure the shape of the front end portion (131) remains almost unchanged when compared to the original shape (31), see [0113]. This is done so in order to at least prevent changes in the contact area between the protrusions and the workpieces over time, and thus changes in thermal conduction characteristics which would require replacement of the chuck; see [0116], [0119], [0124], [0155], [0021], [0010].
Therein exists a relationship between the profile shape of the protrusions and a result of effecting change in at least thermal conductivity after wear of the protrusions. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim are described in the prior art in accordance with evaluating the design of protrusions, the claim limitation is recognized as a result effective variable based on routine experimentation. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success when formulating the parabolic equation and constants within a range, as the Figures of Kouno not only emulate a parabola, but Kouno also describes the protrusion shape with specificity in regards to slope and configurations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protrusions of Kouno to reflect wherein the bottom surface and a side surface of the protrusion continuous with the bottom surface satisfy a relationship of z = Ax2 − Bx in a cross section defined by the first direction and the second direction when the first direction is represented by z and the second direction is represented by x, and wherein A is 0.089 to 0.200 and B is 0.050 to 0.955 since it has been held that “where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the claimed material limitation, i.e. wherein a constituent material of the mask pattern is an acrylic urethane resin, Mitsubishi teaches of a patterned resin layer provided as a mask material, wherein sandblasting is then performed; see at least pages 1 and 2 of the background art section of the English translation; wherein page 2 teaches that the resin composition comprises at least a resin and a urethane acrylate compound; wherein page 3 describes the urethane acrylate compound, wherein page 6 describes the blend of materials within the resin composition.
Kouno does not disclose the acrylic urethane mask material; however, use of appropriate materials is well known in the art of substrates to use materials since these materials perform well within the CMP environment, are stable, and resist wear. Kouno is nonspecific about the type of photo sensitive mask material, wherein Mitsubishi provides a specific mask material that is photosensitive. Kouno suggests alternatives in at least [0138-0140]. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined in the resin materials for the mask as taught by Mitsubishi, into the invention of Kouno, since it is known in the art that these are materials which perform well within the CMP environment, are stable and resists wear, and thus would have yielded predictable results of holding a workpiece/wafer during polishing and there would be reasonable expectations of success.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Mase teaches an injection speed of shot media used in the blasting may be set to a desired speed and energy, according to the purpose for treatment, the abrasive being employed, the workpiece, and other conditions (see at least [0062], [0064]), and wherein an injection angle of shot media used for the blasting is set at 90 degrees (see at least [0065], [0074]; see also table 1 regarding the first blasting, wherein the ejection angle is specifically 90 degrees; see also table 2 regarding the ejection angle of the first blasting comprising 90 degrees).
As described in at least [0062] and [0064], the speed of shot media is described as a result effective variable in that changing the speed of the shot media changes the outcome of the protrusion(s). The ejection angle is also determined according to the shape and size of the surface to be treated ([0065]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Kouno to have an injection speed within the claimed range of 120 meters per second to 200 meters per second, as it involves adjusting the speed, and incorporation of the suggested ejection angle (which Kouno is silent on). Furthermore, Kouno also suggests adjusting other parameters as necessary to achieve the desired protrusion, including the pressure in [0148], [0150], and [0152]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kouno to have an injection speed of shot media used in blasting to be 120 meters per second to 200 meters per second, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0010] indicating the injection speed “may” be within the claimed range.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the suggested ejection angle of Mase into the invention of Kouno. Kouno is silent regarding the positioning of the nozzle, and Mase provides an angle which ensures production of the protrusions, and beneficially provides a way in which the protrusions can be formed with ease (see [0036] of Mase), thus motivating one to emulate the operating conditions of Mase.
Regarding claim 14, Kouno in view of Mitsubishi and Mase teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Kouno does not explicitly teach wherein an injection distance of the shot media is set to 5 to 20 times a diameter of an injection nozzle.
However, previously mentioned Mase teaches wherein an injection distance of the shot media is set to 5 to 20 times a diameter of an injection nozzle (see table 1: first blasting, wherein the nozzle diameter is 8 mm, and the ejection distance is 80mm, i.e. the distance is 10 times the diameter; see also table 2 teaching the same numerical configurations in the first blasting step; see also [0065], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mase, including the ejection distance as contemplated, into the invention of modified Kouno. Mase describes that the ejection distance is adjustable according to the purpose for treatment and the shape of the workpiece, the abrasive being employed, the material of the workpiece, and other operational conditions. Mase and Kouno describe similar operating conditions, including but not limited to, pressure (see [0148-0152] of Kouno, [0064] of Mase), particle diameter (see [0147] of Kouno, [0061] of Mase), material of the workpiece (see [0063] of Kouno and [0051] of Mase), and reduction of chipping/cracking generation (see [0151] of Kouno, [0081] of Mase). Thus, providing an ejection distance as taught by Mase into the invention of Kouno would be obvious, not only to answer the silence of Kouno regarding the distance, but in order to achieve a desired workpiece result. This modification would be recognized as using a suggested or known ejection distance, to improve a similar blasting method in the same manner, and would achieve predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723