DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-10 are pending and presented for the examination.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023, 06/26/2025, 07/14/2025, and 10/14/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 8-9 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 8 recites that the content of “each metal impurities including […]” and thereafter lists certain elements. From this language it is unclear if the content of any impurity at all must be 0.5 ppm or less (suggested by the “including” term), or if only those impurities listed must be at or below 0.5 ppm in order for the claim limitation to be met. Because of this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is written as a use claim. It is not clear from the claim language if it is meant to be drawn to a dummy wafer per se, and thus to a member that has structural features appropriate for a dummy wafer, or if it is meant to be drawn to an apparatus or method wherein a dummy wafter formed from the claimed material is a part of said apparatus/method.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al (JP 5143367 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Miura et al teaches an opaque porous quartz glass body comprising continuous (communication) pores. Miura et al teaches producing glass members from the inventive glass having a size of 200 mm x 100 mm, with a thickness of 3 mm specified. Thus, Miura et al teaches a quartz (silica) glass member having greater than the minimum dimensions of instant claim 1. The porosity of the Miura et al glass member is continuous, as discussed above, and the Miura et al member has a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less. This density value is equivalent to that of the instant claims, and this indicates that the porosity on the surface of the Miura et al glass member would also be equivalent to that of the instant claims. The equivalent degree of porosity, and that it is also continuous (communication) porosity, indicates that the BET surface area (S) as compared to the geometric surface area (S0) would be equivalently high in the Miura et al glass. The same amount and type of porosity in the prior art glass member would result in the same increased surface area as compared to that measured geometrically. As such, the S/S0 value of the Miura et al glass would necessarily be at least 1.5. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 1 is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Miura et al teaches a glass member that has an equivalent continuous pore structure and equivalent porosity as represented by density, as compared to that of the instant claims. The BET surface area would therefore be higher than the geometrically measured surface area to an equivalent degree to that instantly claimed. The S/S0 value of the Miura et al glass member is thus at least 4.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Miura et al teaches a glass member that has an equivalent continuous pore structure and equivalent porosity as represented by density, as compared to that of the instant claims. The BET surface area would therefore be higher than the geometrically measured surface area to an equivalent degree to that instantly claimed. The S/S0 value of the Miura et al glass member is thus at least 5.
Regarding claim 4, Miura et al teaches an embodiment having a pore diameter of 80 µm.
Regarding claim 5, Miura et al teaches that the inventive glass member has a density of 1.3 g/cm3 or less, and teaches an embodiment wherein the density is 1.09 g/cm3.
Regarding claims 6-7, Miura et al teaches that the pores (microbubbles) are not closed cells but continuous micropores. While Miura et al does not quantitatively specify the percentage of pores that are continuous (communication) pores, this teaching indicates that substantially all of the pores are continuous, and thus is sufficient to show one of ordinary skill in the art that at least 70% of the pores in the Miura et al glass member are continuous. The further limitations of claims 6-7 are therefore met by the prior art teachings.
Regarding claim 8, Miura et al teach impurity contents of 50 ppb or less, and thus the contents of the impurity elements of the instant claim would be less than 0.5 ppm.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al (JP 5143367 B2) in view of Hiroto et al (JP H11-192167 A).
Regarding claim 9, the claim differs from Miura et al as applied above because Miura et al teaches that the inventive silica member is used as a jig in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, rather than as a dummy wafer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miura et al in view of Hiroto et al in order to use the Miura et al quartz member for such a purpose. Hiroto et al teaches a similar porous quartz glass body, and teaches the use of said glass body as a dummy wafter. Hiroto et al teaches that the porous quartz glass taught therein has properties that make it advantageously applicable to the dummy wafter application, such as UV radiation suppression. This teaching would provide motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Miura et al glass member in the formation of such dummy wafers. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because of the aforementioned similarity between the porous quartz bodies taught by Miura et al and Hiroto et al. Each limitation of claim 9 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a method wherein a silica glass member is manufacturing by deposition of silica particles formed through flame hydrolysis of a silicon compound o form a soot body, densifying said soot by in an inert atmosphere to produce a dense silica glass, and thereafter forming porosity in the silica glass body under the conditions of instant claim 10, wherein the resultant glass member has a pore structure and relative BET surface area/geometric surface area of claim 10.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-9 are rejected. Claim 10 is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW19 March 2026
Prosecution Insights