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 § 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.
(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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suematsu et al. (JP 2013-133272 A).
Regarding claim 1, Suematsu teaches a SiSiC member (see Suematsu figure 1) comprising at least one long hole (see Suematsu figure 1) provided therein , the SiSiC member comprising:
a tubular region A (Suematsu 13) which is an outer peripheral region of the long hole; and
a tube exterior region B (Suematsu 15) which is a region outside the tubular region A (see Suematsu figure 1), wherein a content of Si simple substance in the tube exterior region B in terms of vol% is higher than a content of Si simple substance in the tubular region A in terms of vol % (Suematsu translation [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Suematsu as applied to claim 1 teaches the ratio of Si/SiC of the Si simple substance to SiC in the tube exterior region B is within a range of 5/95 to 70/30 (Suematsu translation [0019]) which encompasses the claimed range of 20/80 to 40/60. Examiner notes that Suematsu translation paragraph [0019] recites SiC/Si volume percent which can be used to calculate the volume ratios of Si/SiC above.
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.
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) 2, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu et al. (JP 2013-133272 A) in view of Hikita et al. (JP 2012-224523 A).
Regarding claim 2, Suematsu teaches the SiSiC member comprises a low porosity in tubular region A (Suematsu translation [0024]) which results in the lower content of Si simple substance.
Suematsu is silent regarding a ratio A/B of a diameter of the Si simple substance in the tubular region A to a diameter of Si simple substance in the tube exterior region B is less than 0.2.
However, Hikita teaches the diameter of the Si corresponds to the diameter of the impregnation path of the SiC material (Hikita translation page 2 paragraph 3) and that a diameter of Si spots exceeding 20 μm causes poor wear resistance (Hikita translation page 2 paragraph 3) and Si spots under 1 μm cause impregnation to fail.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood the selected porosity of the materials for regions A and B are a results effective variable that affect the diameter of the Si simple substance of regions A and B and would have optimized the porosity of the regions to produce SI diameters within the optimal range disclosed by Hikita while also preventing Si infiltration into the long hole resulting in an optimized ration of diameters of Si in regions A and B of less than 0.2. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 3, Suematsu teaches a SiSiC member (see Suematsu figure 1) comprising at least one long hole (see Suematsu figure 1) provided therein , the SiSiC member comprising:
a tubular region A (Suematsu 13) which is an outer peripheral region of the long hole; and
a tube exterior region B (Suematsu 15) which is a region outside the tubular region A (see Suematsu figure 1), wherein a content of Si simple substance in the tubular region A is between 5% and 70% of the volume (Suematsu translation [0019]and [0024]). Examiner notes that Suematsu translation paragraph [0019] discusses the SiC volume percent which can be used to calculate the volume of Si of region B and paragraph [0024] teaches an even lower Si content for region A which will fall within the claimed range since it is less than the volume in region A that falls within the claimed range.
Suematsu is silent regarding the diameter of the Si simple substance in the tubular region A.
However, Hikita teaches a SiSiC material wherein the diameter of Si particles is between 1 μm and 10 μm (Hikita translation page 2 paragraph 3) to provide an optimal combination of volume and wear resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Suematsu’s SiSiC member to incorporate Hikita’s teachings of Si particle size of under 10 μm to produce a predictable result of improved wear resistance.
Regarding claim 8, Suematsu and Hikita as applied to claim 3 teach a volume ratio of Si/SiC in the tube exterior region B is within a range of 5/95 to 70/30 (Suematsu translation [0019]) which encompasses the claimed range of 20/80 to 40/60. Examiner notes that Suematsu translation paragraph [0019] recites SiC/Si volume percent which can be used to calculate the volume ratios of Si/SiC above.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu et al. (JP 2013-133272 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stein (US 2015/0348816 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Suematsu as applied to claim 1 teaches the long hole has a diameter of 7mm (Suematsu translation paragraph [0036]) and a length of 170mm (Suematsu translation [0036]).
Suematsu is silent regarding the diameter of the hole being between 0.1mm to 2mm.
However, Stein teaches an electrostatic holding device (Stein 100) for use in semiconductor manufacturing that comprises a SiSiC body (Stein 13) comprising holes for insertion of rod-shaped heating elements (Stein 13A) that have a diameter of 2mm (Stein [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Suematsu’s SiSiC member to incorporate Stein’s teachings of a long hole of 2mm diameter for utilization with heating elements for use in semiconductor manufacturing applications.
Regarding claim 6, Suematsu as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the SiSiC member having a rod shaped heating element being inserted into the long hole and being utilized as part of a heating device.
However, Stein teaches an electrostatic holding device (Stein 100) for use in semiconductor manufacturing that comprises a SiSiC body (Stein 13) comprising holes for insertion of rod-shaped heating elements (Stein 13A) that have a diameter of 2mm (Stein [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Suematsu’s SiSiC member to incorporate Stein’s teachings of a long hole of 2mm diameter for utilization with rod shaped heating elements for use as a heating device in semiconductor manufacturing applications.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu et al. (JP 2013-133272 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Stein (US 2015/0348816 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Suematsu and Hikita as applied to claim 3 teach the long hole has a diameter of 7mm (Suematsu translation paragraph [0036]) and a length of 170mm (Suematsu translation [0036]).
Suematsu and Hikita are silent regarding the diameter of the hole being between 0.1mm to 2mm.
However, Stein teaches an electrostatic holding device (Stein 100) for use in semiconductor manufacturing that comprises a SiSiC body (Stein 13) comprising holes for insertion of rod-shaped heating elements (Stein 13A) that have a diameter of 2mm (Stein [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Suematsu’s SiSiC member to incorporate Stein’s teachings of a long hole of 2mm diameter for utilization with heating elements for use in semiconductor manufacturing applications.
Regarding claim 9, Suematsu and Hikita as applied to claim 3 are silent regarding the SiSiC member having a rod shaped heating element being inserted into the long hole and being utilized as part of a heating device.
However, Stein teaches an electrostatic holding device (Stein 100) for use in semiconductor manufacturing that comprises a SiSiC body (Stein 13) comprising holes for insertion of rod-shaped heating elements (Stein 13A) that have a diameter of 2mm (Stein [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Suematsu’s SiSiC member to incorporate Stein’s teachings of a long hole of 2mm diameter for utilization with rod shaped heating elements for use as a heating device in semiconductor manufacturing applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights