DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 05/11/2026 without traverse of Group I, species I-2, sub-species I-2A1 & I-2B3, claims 9-10 & 15-16 for further examination. Claims 1-8, 11-14 & 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating element” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections
5. 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 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.
6. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
9. Claims 9-10 & 15-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller et al. (US 20200157678 A1) hereinafter Schaller in view of Natsuhara et al. (US 2003/0066608 A1) hereinafter Natsuhara (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Schaller & Natsuhara are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 9, Schaller discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1A-5C), comprising:
a susceptor (538) comprising a first surface and a second surface (see fig 5A-5C), and a plurality of through-holes (536) extending from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the susceptor (538) comprises a first ceramic material ([0035]-[0036]; [0038]-[0040]; fig 5A-5C),
a plurality of lift pins (300), wherein each lift pin (300) is disposed within a respective through-hole (536) from the plurality of through-holes (536), and wherein each lift pin (300) comprises a second ceramic material ([0027]; [0033]-[0036]; [0050]; fig 5A-5C; clm 7), however Schaller does not disclose comprising one of aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or aluminum oxide.
Natsuhara discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-8), comprising: a susceptor (1) comprising a first surface and a second surface (see fig 1-8) wherein the susceptor (1) comprises a first ceramic material comprising one of aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or aluminum oxide ([0038]-[0039]; [0054]; [0057]; fig 1-8). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the susceptor (1) comprises a first ceramic material comprising one of aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or aluminum oxide in the apparatus of Schaller, because Natsuhara teaches the use of wherein the susceptor (1) comprises a first ceramic material comprising one of aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or aluminum oxide as suitable for forming the susceptor since: aluminum oxide is a comparatively low cost material; aluminum nitride and silicon carbide, which have high thermal conductivity, are advantageous for achieving uniform distribution of temperature when heating is done with heater circuits provided therein; as silicon nitride has high strength, the ceramic material is minimally damaged by heat shock caused by rapid temperature fluctuations ([0038]).
As regards to claim 10, it is noted that claim 10 is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since modified Schaller’s apparatus is similar to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
As regards to claim 10, Schaller discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1A-5C), a susceptor (538) comprising a first surface and a second surface (see fig 5A-5C), and a plurality of through-holes (536) extending from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the susceptor (538) comprises a first ceramic material ([0035]-[0036]; [0038]-[0040]; fig 5A-5C), however Schaller does not disclose doped with a dopant comprising one of silicon nitride, magnesium oxide, or beryllium oxide.
Natsuhara discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-8), comprising: a susceptor (1) comprising a first ceramic material, wherein the first ceramic material can be doped with a dopant comprising one of silicon nitride ([0038]-[0039]; [0054]; [0057]; fig 1-8). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the first ceramic material can be doped with a dopant comprising one of silicon nitride in the apparatus of Schaller, because Natsuhara teaches the use of wherein the first ceramic material can be doped with a dopant comprising one of silicon nitride as suitable for forming the susceptor since as silicon nitride has high strength, the ceramic material is minimally damaged by heat shock caused by rapid temperature fluctuations ([0038]).
As regards to claim 15, Schaller discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1A-5C), wherein each lift pin (300) is formed from an alloy of aluminum oxide ([0027]; [0050]; fig 5A-5C; clm 7).
As regards to claim 16, Schaller discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1A-5C), wherein the susceptor (538) comprises a heating element embedded within the susceptor (538) ([0035]; fig 5A-5C), however Schaller does not disclose a plurality of electrodes embedded within the susceptor (538) and configured to generate an electric charge at the first surface of the susceptor (538).
Natsuhara discloses an apparatus (abs; fig 1-8), comprising a plurality of electrodes embedded within the susceptor (1) and configured to generate an electric charge at the first surface of the susceptor (1) ([0010]-[0013]; [0016]; [0027]-[0037]; [0039]-[0044]; [0047]-[0051]; fig 1-8). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of electrodes embedded within the susceptor (1) and configured to generate an electric charge at the first surface of the susceptor (1) in the apparatus of Schaller, because Natsuhara teaches the use of a plurality of electrodes embedded within the susceptor (1) and configured to generate an electric charge at the first surface of the susceptor (1) for power supply to an electrical circuit buried in a susceptor of a semiconductor processing apparatus, in which a wafer is loaded on the ceramic susceptor for processing to generate an electric charge on the surface of the susceptor ([0012]; [0027]; [0030]).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights