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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II- Claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
2. The term “pre-cured” used in claim 8 will be interpreted as partially or in some state of cure as claim 11 then adds the limitation “completely curing the plurality of pre-cured bodies”. This forces the interpretation of a partial cure as a fully cured object cannot be subjected to further curing, elsewise claim 11 would have potential indefinite issues.
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.
3. Claims 12-14 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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation "the spacer" in line 1. It is unclear which, or among how many, spacer(s) among the unidentified “plurality of spacers” this applies to, and is therefore indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this claim as stating “the plurality of spacers”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation "the spacer" in line 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12 and will be interpretated similarly.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation “a height of the spacer”. The phrase “the spacer” is already unclear for the same reasons as claim 12 and 13. Additionally, the added phrase of “a height” makes it even further unclear as changing “the spacer” into “the plurality of spacers” then renders the question of which spacer height it is to referring to and since the height of each spacer is not stated in the claims, this height is entirely indefinite.
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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (JP-2014207374; hereafter Kondo) in view of Kuribayashi et al. (US 2021/0183679; hereafter Kuribayashi).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo teaches a method of manufacturing a susceptor shown in Figures 7(a)-7(e) wherein a first base material (metal member- 15) and a second base material (ceramic member- 9) are bonded to each other, the method comprising forming and bonding a plurality of spacers on the first base material (annular external dam-91, annular first internal dam- 93, annular second internal dam- 95, and other unlabeled dams seen in Figures 6, 8(a), and 8(b)), which are encircling holes of the first base member (openings- 87a; pg. 13 lines 5-28) followed by applying an adhesive to a space between the plurality of spacers on the first base material (first adhesive layer- 97; pg. 1 line 30-pg. 14 line 14), and then a step of adhering the second base material to the first base material (pg. 14 lines 22-23). Kondo teaches that the spacers and the adhesive can be the same material (pg. 14 lines 14-17), which thus makes a first and second adhesives. Kondo does not explicitly state that the first and second adhesives are elastomers, but does teach that the adhesive has a Shore A hardness of 70 or less (pg. 15 lines 18-19), which translates to a modulus of elasticity equal to or less than 5.52 MPa, which is a modulus of elasticity that is in the elastomeric range, and therefore the adhesives are elastomers.
Kondo does not teach that the plurality of spacers are pre-cured prior to formation on the first base material. Kuribayashi teaches that when bonding between a first base material (base member-20) and a second base material (ceramic member- 10; [0020]), wherein the first base material has through holes (element 22) as seen in Figure 7, it is preferable to have pre-cured bodies (annual dams- 60; noted as “subjected to a curing process”) applied to the first base material prior to a secondary application of the same material as an adhesive around them (joining agent- 30X3, the dams are noted as being made of the same material), and then both pre-cured bodies and secondary adhesive application are further cured after adhering the second base material to the first base material ([0050]). The advantage of so doing is that clogging is prevented in the through holes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use the pre-cured dam suggestion of Kuribayashi in the method of Kondo for the advantage preventing clogging in through holes.
Regarding claim 9, Kondo teaches that the embodiment is for an electrostatic chuck where the first base material (ceramic insulating plate or ceramic member) is an electrostatic plate and the second base material (metal material or metal member) is a base member (pg. 2 lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo teaches that the first elastomer includes a silicone resin (pg. 3 lines 27-28) and the second elastomer includes a silicone resin (pg. 10 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 11, in applying Kuribayashi as in claim 8, Kuribayashi’s technique includes a second curing process after joining the first and second base materials wherein the pre-cured bodies and the adhesive are completely integrated ([0050]). This encompasses complete curing of both materials.
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 8, the material of the spacer can be the same material as the adhesive (pg. 14 lines 14-17), and in one sample, the adhesive had a Shore A hardness of 45 (pg. 18 lines 8-9), which translates to an elastic modulus of 1.75 MPa, which is within Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 8, the material of the spacer can be the same material as the adhesive (pg. 14 lines 14-17), and in one sample, the adhesive had an ultimate elongation value of 200% (pg. 18 lines 16-17), which is within Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Kondo teaches that the spacers (dams) are intended to prevent the adhesive from flowing out (pg. 16 lines 10-14). If the adhesive had a height taller than any spacer, the spacers would be incapable of preventing the adhesive from flowing out the through holes, and therefore the adhesive made of the second elastomer has a height less than or equal to the height of the spacers.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm 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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights