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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 13-14 recites the limitation "about" as part of a claimed range. The term "about" in claims 3, 5, 9 and 13-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" 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. In the claims, it is unclear as to what range of specific measurement with respect to the ranges the term “about" covers, thereby rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano et al. (US 20130200067), hereinafter: “Hirano”.
In Reference to Claim 1
Hirano teaches:
A method of fabricating a platen(10; P[0001]) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus(P[0002]), the method comprising:
depositing or otherwise forming a coating(4) on a heater(2) to form a coated heater(2,4), wherein
the heater comprises a metal wire on which the coating is formed(P[0033]);
placing the coated heater in powder(P[0034], P[0040]-P[0047]);
consolidating the powder into a cohesive mass to form a powder-based composite(1c; P[0043]); and
sintering the powder-based composite to form the platen(P[0044]), wherein the platen comprises the heater embedded in sintered ceramic material(P[0045]).
In Reference to Claim 2
Hirano teaches:
The method of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the coating is deposited on the heater using a technique selected from the group consisting of atomic layer deposition, chemical vapor deposition, electroplating, electroless plating, dip coating, thermal spraying or plasma spraying, and physical vapor deposition(thermal spraying, vapor deposition, sputtering; P[0040]).
In Reference to Claim 3
Hirano teaches:
The method of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the coating is deposited to a thickness of at least about 5 angstroms(0.01 to 10 µm; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 4
Hirano teaches:
The method of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the coating comprises a metal, metal oxide, an elemental metal, a metal nitride, or an intermetallic compound(titanium, aluminum, tantalum, zirconium, calcium, chrome, vanadium; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Hirano teaches:
A platen(10) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus(P[0001]), the platen comprising:
a coated heater(2,4) comprising a metal wire(2) with a coating(4) thereon(Fig 1-7); and
a sintered ceramic material, wherein the coated heater is embedded in the sintered ceramic material(P[0032-0034], P[0039-0047]; Fig 1-7).
In Reference to Claim 8
Hirano teaches:
A powder-based composite(1c) for use as a platen in a semiconductor processing apparatus(P[0044-0047]), the powder-based composite comprising:
a coated heater(2,4) comprising a metal wire(2) with a coating(4) thereon(Fig 1-7); and
an unsintered ceramic material(1a,1b), wherein the coated heater is embedded in the unsintered ceramic material(P[0032-0034], P[0043]); Fig 6).
In Reference to Claim 9
Hirano teaches:
The powder-based composite of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the coating has a thickness of at least about 5 angstroms(0.01 to 10 µm; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Hirano teaches:
The powder-based composite of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the coating comprises a metal(titanium, aluminum, tantalum, zirconium, calcium, chrome, vanadium; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 13
Hirano teaches:
The platen of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the coating has a thickness of at least about 5 angstroms(0.01 to 10 µm; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 15
Hirano teaches:
The platen of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the coating comprises a metal(titanium, aluminum, tantalum, zirconium, calcium, chrome, vanadium; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 17
Hirano teaches:
The platen of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the coating is an elemental metal(titanium, aluminum, tantalum, zirconium, calcium, chrome, vanadium; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 20
Hirano teaches:
The powder-based composite of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the coating comprises an elemental metal(titanium, aluminum, tantalum, zirconium, calcium, chrome, vanadium; P[0036]).
In Reference to Claim 21
Hirano teaches:
The powder-based composite of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the coating is a sacrificial coating comprising a sacrificial material(4,4a; P[0045]), and wherein carbon- and/or oxygen-containing components present during a sintering operation are more reactive with the sacrificial material than they are with the metal wire(4,4a reacts with the carbon content in 1c before the metal material of 2; P[0045]).
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) 11, 12, 16, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Shih et al. (US 20140295670), hereinafter: “Shih”.
In Reference to Claim 11
Hirano teaches:
The method of claim 1(see rejection of claim 11 above),
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the coating comprises two or more layers having different compositions.
Shih teaches:
An analogous coating(120,130, 140) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the coating comprises two or more layers having different compositions(120 is aluminum oxide, 140 is yttrium oxide; P[0016], P[0018], P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Shih to utilize a multi-layer coating having two or more layer with different compositions to increase resistance to corrosion(P[0008]).
In Reference to Claim 12
Hirano teaches:
The method of claim 1(see rejection of claim 11 above),
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the coating comprises two or more layers having different compositions.
Shih teaches:
An analogous coating(120,130, 140) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein depositing or otherwise forming the coating on the coated heater comprises:
depositing alternating layers of aluminum oxide(120) and yttrium oxide(140) on the coated heater through plasma electrolytic oxidation(120 is aluminum oxide, 140 is yttrium oxide; P[0016], P[0018], P[0020])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Shih to utilize alternating layers of aluminum oxide and yttrium oxide to increase resistance to corrosion(P[0008]).
Hirano in view of Shih fail to teach
Depositing the layers via atomic layer deposition.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary sill in the art to use atomic layer deposition to deposit the layers to reduce porosity in the coating, therein offering increased corrosion resistance, as compared to the porous nature of plasma electrolytic oxidation deposition.
In Reference to Claim 16
Hirano teaches:
The platen of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above),
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the coating comprises a metal oxide.
Shih teaches:
An analogous coating(120,130, 140) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the coating comprises a metal oxide(120 is aluminum oxide; P[0016], P[0018], P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Shih to use aluminum oxide as the coating in an effort to increase corrosion resistance(P[0008]).
In Reference to Claim 19
Hirano teaches:
The powder based composite of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above),
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the coating comprises a metal oxide.
Shih teaches:
An analogous coating(120,130, 140) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the coating comprises a metal oxide(120 is aluminum oxide; P[0016], P[0018], P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Shih to use aluminum oxide as the coating in an effort to increase corrosion resistance(P[0008]).
In Reference to Claim 22
Hirano teaches:
The powder based composite of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above),
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the coating is a barrier coating comprising a barrier material, and wherein carbon- and/or oxygen-containing components present during a sintering operation are less reactive with the barrier material than they are with the metal wire of the coated heater.
Shih teaches:
An analogous coating(120,130, 140) for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the coating is a barrier coating(140) comprising a barrier material(140 is yttrium oxide; P[0016], P[0018], P[0020]), and wherein carbon- and/or oxygen-containing components present during a sintering operation are less reactive with the barrier material than they are with the metal wire of the coated heater(interpreted as functional limitation).
The limitation “wherein carbon- and/or oxygen-containing components present during a sintering operation are less reactive with the barrier material than they are with the metal wire of the coated heater” is construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Shih to utilize yttrium oxide as a barrier layer to increase resistance to corrosion(P[0008]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano.
In Reference to Claim 14
Hirano teaches:
The platen of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the metal wire may have a thickness of 25 to 200 µm and width of 1 to 10 mm which results in a cross sectional area of .00005875 in^2 to 0.0003 in^2. Hirano also teaches the shape to be circular(P[0033]).
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the metal wire has a diameter between about 0.002- 0.05 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Hirano to replace the rectangular shaped metal wire with a circular shaped metal wire having an equivalent cross-sectional area because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Hirano teaches the metal wire may have a thickness of 25 to 200 µm and width of 1 to 10 mm which results in a cross sectional area of .00005875 in^2 to 0.0003 in^2. Hirano also teaches the shape to be circular(P[0033]).
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 metal wire of Hirano by replacing the rectangular shaped wire with the circular shaped wire having the equivalent area disclosed above. This results in a diameter between 0.0086 in. and 0.0195 in., which overlaps the claimed range. Furthermore, they function in the same manner, and which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be the use of a circular shaped wire to form the heater line to enable electric current to applied to the heater line to generate heat to heat the workpiece.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Divakar et al. (US 20020185487), hereinafter: “Divakar”.
In Reference to Claim 18
Hirano teaches:
The platen of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above),
Hirano fails to teach:
wherein the coating comprises two or more layers having different compositions.
Divakar teaches:
An analogous coating for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the coating comprises boron nitride(P[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirano to incorporate the teachings of Divakar to utilize boron nitride as the coating to increase resistance to corrosion(P[0032]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20080017632 A1
Maki; Seiichirou et al.
US 6204489 B1
Katsuda; Yuji et al.
US 10462850 B2
Hirano; Satoshi et al.
US 20210005480 A1
Divakar; Ramesh et al.
US 6731496 B2
Hiramatsu; Yasuji et al.
The above references are cited for teaching a method/platen/powder-based composite with features similar to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711