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
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 311ha(311), have two references pointing to the same component, if “ha” is meant to be a subset it should be bracketed with a larger ledger denoting “311h”. Further, the numberings are not consistent between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 when pointing to the components, specifically 311ha and 313ha. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coupling member” in claim 12 and connection member in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 3156031 to Kondo.
Kondo teaches:
Regarding claims 8 and 18
A substrate processing system comprising : a chamber providing a process space (vacuum chamber for 10, described in ¶ [0020], but “not shown”); and a substrate supporting apparatus (10) placed in the chamber to support a substrate (see support of wafer “w”), wherein the substrate supporting apparatus comprises: a heating plate (12, 16, 14); a radio frequency (RF) electrode (16a) in the heating plate (Fig. 2); a heater in the heating plate (14); an RF delivery (60,52) structure in contact with a bottom surface of the RF electrode (Fig. 2); and a heater power delivery structure (56,48), which is in contact with the heater and is spaced apart from the RF delivery structure in a horizontal direction (Figg. 2), the heating plate comprises: a first insertion hole (see hole in which 60 is placed), which is recessed into the heating plate from a bottom surface of the heating plate to expose the bottom surface of the RF electrode (note how 60 is in contact with 16a in Fig. 2); and a second insertion hole, which is recessed into the heating plate from the bottom surface of the heating plate to expose the heater (see hole in which 56 is placed) and is spaced apart from the first insertion hole in the horizontal direction (Fig. 2), the RF delivery structure comprises an RF rod (60), which is vertically extended and includes a portion that is inserted in the first insertion hole (Fig. 2), the heater power delivery structure comprises a heater power rod (56), which is vertically extended and includes a portion that is inserted in the second insertion hole, and each of the RF rod and electrode and the heater power rod comprises molybdenum (¶ [0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 9
Wherein the heater is placed vertically below the RF electrode (at least portions of such as shown by 16a, being higher than 14a in Fig. 2) and the heater includes two or more heating lines (14a,14b), which are provided to enclose a portion of the RF delivery structure in plan view (Fig. 3 shows that the heater structure encircles, thus “encloses” all structures of the heating place).
Regarding claim 10
Wherein a length of the RF rod is longer than a length of the heater power rod (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 19
further comprising: an RF power supplying device configured to supply an RF power to the RF delivery structure; and a heater power supplying device configured to supply a heating power to the heater power delivery structure. While neither of these structures are explicitly shown they are described as providing RF and heat in operation (¶s [0014-0017] and [0021]) as such there must necessarily be a source of power for the electric heater and RF for the RF rod.
Regarding claim 20
Wherein the substrate supporting apparatus further comprises a protection shaft (24) which encloses the RF rod and the heater power rod (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo.
Regarding claim 11
Kondo teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein a diameter of the second insertion hole is larger than a diameter of the first insertion hole.
However, Applicant teaches no synergistic or unexpected or altered function from this arrangement. In fact Applicant explicitly states in paragraph 40 that such an arrangement is not critical – “However, the embodiments are not limited.” As such it would have been an obvious matter of changing the relative dimensions of the components to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. In support of this conclusion it is noted that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and claimed invention is nothing more than a recitation of relative dimensions that do not provide any unexpected or synergistic results or a change in function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 17
Kondo teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the heater power delivery structure is provided in plural and the plurality of heater power delivery structures are spaced apart from each other in the horizontal direction.
As Kondo already discloses a heater power delivery structure which is spaced apart from other delivery structures (see mapping above), and since Applicant does not assert that having a plurality of spaced apart heater supply structures provides any synergistic or unexpected result beyond the providing additional heat power, it would have been nothing more than an obvious duplication of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed invention. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the duplication of structures while retaining their function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach an insertion coupling member and filler in the configuration required in claims 12-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights