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
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 2006/0205585 A1) in view of Masayuki (JP 2016-086081 A) and Hattori (US 2008/0100985 A1).
Regarding Claims 20-22, Mori teaches a ceramic joined body (Abstract; Fig. 5) comprising a pair of ceramic plates (Item 11 and 13), where an electrode that is interposed between the pair of ceramic plates (Item 12), and an insulating layer that is disposed in a periphery of the electrode layer between the pair of ceramic plates and integrally formed with one of the plates. (Edge of 13), such the insulating layer and the ceramic plates comprise the same material. Mori does teach the insulating layer and ceramic plates can comprise Al2O3. (Abstract).
Mori does not specifically teach the insulating layer and the pair of ceramic plates comprise the same insulating material and the same conductive material of the claimed composition.
Masayuki teaches a ceramic body for use in electrostatic chucks (Abstract), where the ceramic insulating body is formed from an insulating material of aluminum oxide, and dispersed conductive material, including SiC, Mo, W, and Ta (Paragraph 0010, 0028-0030). Masayuki teaches this composition for the ceramic cover for the electrodes provides the advantage of excellent gas, heat and shock resistance without negatively affecting the necessary volume resistivity to operate as an electrostatic chuck. (Paragraph 0025, 0030).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use claimed material taught by Masayuki as the insulating layer and ceramic plate in Mori to improve resistances without degrading volume resistivity necessary to operate as an electrostatic chuck.
Mori and Masayuki do not specifically teach the electrode is formed of a composite sintered body of an insulating ceramic and particles of a conductive material.
Hattori teaches an electrode for an electrostatic chuck, where the electrode comprises a sintered body of an insulating ceramic of Al2O3 and a particles of a conductive material. (Paragraph 0022, 0032, 0041). Hattori teaches this composition for the electrode allows for a balanced CTE between the surrounding plates and insulating layers, which reduces the chance of cracking and destroying the chuck. (Paragraph 0033-0034). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to form the electrode of Mori with the claimed structure to reduce the chance of cracking the chuck during high temperature operation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, and 9-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,538,748 in view of Masayuki
Regarding Claim 1-7 and 9-22, Patent teaches the ceramic joined body, where the joint surface is considered the integrally formed insulating layer, except for the insulating layer and ceramic plates being formed of both an insulating material and a conductive material.
Masayuki teaches a ceramic body for use in electrostatic chucks (Abstract), where the ceramic insulating body is formed from an insulating material of aluminum oxide, and dispersed conductive material, including SiC, Mo, W, and Ta (Paragraph 0010, 0028-0030). Masayuki teaches this composition for the ceramic cover for the electrodes provides the advantage of excellent gas, heat and shock resistance without negatively affecting the necessary volume resistivity to operate as an electrostatic chuck. (Paragraph 0025, 0030).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use claimed material taught by Masayuki as the insulating layer and ceramic plate in Patent to improve resistances without degrading volume resistivity necessary to operate as an electrostatic chuck.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered
Applicant’s arguments regarding the density of the electrode have been found persuasive and the §103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights