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 § 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 13 and 20 are 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.
Claim 13 is nonsensical. The frame is demountable for covering the frame? If the frame is demounted, how can it cover itself?
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the deflection elements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palm et al (EP 3690962) with references made to English equivalent (US 2022/0158022).
Palm discloses, regarding claim 1, A spacer device for a heating system for heating large-area substrates (See Figs 8-10), wherein the spacer device comprises: a frame (frame 13); and a covering supported by the frame and made of several intersecting flexible spacer elements (spacer elements 20, 22, 23, See Paragraphs [0102], Figs 8-11). Regarding claim 2, as the elements 20, 22, 23 are rods, they must be woven. (See Paragraph [0112]) Regarding claims 5 and 6, the spacers are made from glass threads/string. (See Paragraph [0039]). Regarding claim 8, Figs 7-11 show the frame being rectangular with the covering comprising longitudinal and transverse to the frame. Regarding claim 10, the frame is made from graphite or carbon fiber. (See Paragraph [0007], [0045]) Regarding claim 14, the heating system has a susceptor 5, with an upper and lower surface as shown in the figures, a spacer device 13 above the susceptor 5, as shown in Fig 2, an infrared radiation source 7 (See Paragraph [0084]) to heat the lower surface of the susceptor 5. Regarding claim 15, the heating system has a susceptor 5, with an upper and lower surface as shown in the figures, a spacer device 13 above the susceptor 5, as shown in Fig 2, an infrared radiation source 7 (See Paragraph [0084]) to directly heat the lower surface of the susceptor 5. Regarding claim 19, Figs 7-11 show several of the spacer elements being formed from a single string or cord. It is not clear if applicant is claiming all a single continuous string/cord, or if each spacer element is one string between each connection, compared to two parallel strings between each connection.
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) 3, 4, 7, 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palm et al (EP 3690962) in view of Ulrich (US 2007/0261956).
The teachings of Palm have been discussed above. Palm fails to disclose the claimed elastic modulus.
Ulrich discloses a set of spacers for holding a substrate. (See Abstract.) Ulrich describes the substrate carrier having a modulus of elasticity based on certain factors such as warpage and thermal expansion. (See Paragraph [0010])
It would have been obvious to adapt Palm in view of Ulrich to provide the E Modulus of at more 75 GPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, It would have been obvious to adapt Palm in view of Ulrich to provide the claimed fill factor since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, It would have been obvious to adapt Palm in view of Ulrich to provide the spacer element diameter and mesh size between adjacent spacer elements since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palm et al (EP 3690962) in view of Applied Materials (DE 202008013163) with references made to applicant provided machine translation.
The teachings of Palm have been discussed above. Palm fails to disclose the several deflection elements which are demountable for covering the frame.
Applied Materials discloses a frame having deflection elements 18, 25a, as shown in Figs 9 and 12. The deflection elements or projections serve to mount the frame in order to cover it with the carrier plate. It would have been obvious to adapt Palm in view of Applied Materials to provide the deflection elements for mounting the frame to another element such as the carrier plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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 W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights