DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/171803, filed on 02/21/2023, which claims benefit of JP2022-058543, filed on 03/31/2022.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/31/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of JP2022-058543 application.
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al., US 20160358801 (hereafter Minami), and further in view of Fujii et al., US 20090169726 (hereafter Fujii).
Regarding claim 1,
A joined structure comprising: (Title teaches “joined body”)
a ceramic member having a wafer placement surface; (Paragraph [31] teaches “wafer-placing surface 12a on which a wafer W can be placed is formed on the ceramic substrate 12”)
an embedded electrode that is embedded in the ceramic member and has a shape extending along the wafer placement surface; (Paragraph [31] teaches “an electrostatic electrode 14 and a heater electrode 15 are embedded in the ceramic substrate 12 so as to be parallel to the wafer-placing surface 12a.”)
a metallic connection member embedded in a surface of the ceramic member that is opposite to the wafer-placement surface so as to reach the embedded electrode; and (Joint layer 50 and conductive tablet 22 in Fig. 2 comprise the metallic connection member)
PNG
media_image1.png
458
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Fujii
a metallic external energizing member joined to a surface of the connection member that is exposed to the outside with a joint layer interposed therebetween, (feeding terminal 40 with joint layer 43 in Fig. 2)
wherein the connection member has an arithmetic mean surface roughness 0076Ra of 6 to 16 μm. (Minami is silent about this.
Fujii teaches in paragraph [41] “When the surface of the bottom surface 4s of the bore region 4a is made rough, the top surface 3s of the terminal 3 is preferably made rough at the same time.” Here terminal 3 corresponds to the connecting member in instant claim. However, Fujii is silent about a surface roughness range for terminal 3.
Fujii teaches metal connection member 5 wherein “The connection member 5 is preferred to be surface roughness processed such that the surface roughness of the contact portion with the solder junction layer 6 of the connection member 5 including the lower end surface 5e of the connection member 5 is in a range of Ra=about 1 to about 3 .mu.m. The adhesive force to the solder junction layer 6 is further improved” in paragraph [50]. Here the claimed range of 6 to 16 μm is close to the range 3% in Fujii. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the surface roughness of the connection member to achieve Ra of 6 to 16 µm as taught in Fujii in the structure in Minami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “On the bottom surface 4s of the bore region 4a, in order to widen the contact area with the solder junction layer 6, the bottom surface 4s is preferably made rough. Thus, the anchor effect improves the adhesive force between the bottom surface 4s of the bore region 4a and the solder junction layer 6. For this reason, the connection strength between the connection member 5 and the bottom surface 4s of the bore region 4a is improved” as taught in paragraph [40] in Fujii.
Regarding claim 2,
The joined structure according to claim 1, wherein the connection member includes particles having an average particle diameter of 4 to 8 μm. (Paragraph [43] in Minami teaches “The porous body 54 is prepared by firing a compact of ceramic particles having an average diameter of, for example, 10 μm to 500 μm and preferably 20 μm to 100 μm.” Here the claimed range of 4 to 8 µm is close to the range 10 µm in Minami. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Regarding claim 3,
The joined structure according to claim 1, wherein the connection member is formed of a metallic porous body having a porosity of 5 to 20%. (Table 1 in Minami teaches porous body 54 with starting porosity of 21%. Here the claimed range of 20% is close to the range 21% in Minami. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Regarding claim 4,
The joined structure according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic member is made of aluminum nitride, and (Paragraph [32] in Minami teaches “The ceramic substrate 12 is a disk-shaped member composed mainly of a ceramic material such as alumina or aluminum nitride.”)
wherein the connection member is made of Mo, W, or a Mo-W-based alloy. (Paragraph [34] teaches “Examples of the material, of the tablets 22 include Mo, NbC, WC, Pt, and Nb.”)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami and Fujii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unno, US 20170069520 (hereafter Unno).
Regarding claim 5,
The joined structure according to claim 1, wherein the external energizing member has a proof tensile load of 120 kgf or more. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Unno teaches tensile break strength of 120 kgf or more in Table 1.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the external energizing member to withhold tensile load of 120 kgf or more as taught in Unno in the joined structure of Minami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The joined area between the connection member 16 and the externally conducting member 18 in each of the test examples 4 to 8 was much larger than that in the test example 1. This increase in the joined area enhanced the tensile break strength of each of the test examples 4 to 8 compared to that of the test example 1” as taught in paragraph [63] in Unno.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761