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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on August 19, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the “examination of the claims as a whole would not present a serious search or examination burden on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because during the search a reference was found that taught the claims of Group I, but had a different method of forming a composition. Thus the method of Group II requires a different search, consideration, and action. This presents a serious search and examination burden on the Examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oda et al, US 2001/0025001 A1.
Oda et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a component comprising: a body (Paragraph 0006) having a composition, the composition comprising a mixture of silicon carbide (SiC) particles suspended in quartz (Paragraphs 0008-0009).
Regarding claim 2, the composition has a concentration of the silicon carbide particles of 5% by weight (4.6 % by volume) which is greater than 1 % and less than 5% by volume. (Table 2, Example 8)
Regarding claim 5, silicon carbide particles have an atomic structure of 6H (α-type silicon carbide). (Paragraph 0026)
Regarding claim 6, the silicon carbide particles have a crystalline structure (α type and β type silicon carbide). (Paragraph 0026)
Regarding claim 9, the 99.9% pure quartz is inherently transparent. (Paragraph 0026)
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al, US 2001/0025001 A1.
Oda et al was discussed above.
Oda et al differs from the present invention in that the concentration of the silicon carbide particles is within a range of 2% to 3% by volume or that the silicon carbide particles are amorphous.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum or workable ranges of the concentration of the silicon carbide particles or the type of silicon carbide by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable ranges, such person would have been motivated to modify Oda et al to include the concentration of the silicon carbide particles is within a range of 2% to 3% by volume and that the silicon carbide particles are amorphous.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, Oda et al teaches, and it is well known in the art that the concentration of the silicon carbide and the type of silicon carbide changes the physical properties of the composition and the component made from the composition. To that end, the concentration of the silicon carbide particles and the type of silicon carbide are result-effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Oda et al to include the concentration of the silicon carbide particles is within a range of 2% to 3% by volume and that the silicon carbide particles are amorphous. To that end, claim 1 is obvious in view of Oda et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al, US 2001/0025001 A1, as applied to claims 1-6 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al, US 20160194784 A1.
Oda et al was discussed above and teaches a composite material that can be used to make construction members (components) in a semiconductor processing apparatus.
Oda et al differs from the present invention in that Oda et al does not specifically teach that the components are a curved body and defines a central opening or a pre-heat ring, a liner, or a substrate support.
Kim et al teaches a pre-heat ring 150, a liner 140, or a substrate support 120 for use in a processing chamber, all of which are a curved body and defines a central opening.
The motivation for making the generic components of Oda et al to be a pre-heat ring, a liner, or a substrate support as taught by Kim et al is to provide a specific form for the component of Oda et al as is required by Oda et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the generic components of Oda et al to be a pre-heat ring, a liner, or a substrate support as taught by Kim et al.
Claims 7, 8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 20160194784 A1, in view of Oda et al, US 2001/0025001 A1.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, 16, and 17, Kim et al teaches a processing chamber 100 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a chamber body 135; windows 103, 104, the chamber body 135 and the windows 103, 104 at least partially defining a processing volume 105; a plurality of heat sources (lamps not shown but inherent in order for the processing chamber to be heated) configured to heat the processing volume 105; a substrate support 120 disposed in the processing volume 105; a liner 140 configured to at least partially line the chamber body 135; and a pre-heat ring 150 disposed in the processing chamber and at least partially supported by the liner 140.
Kim et al differs from the present invention in that Kim et al does not teach that the pre-heat ring, liner, and substrate support comprises: a body having a composition, the composition comprising a mixture of silicon carbide (SiC) particles suspended in quartz.
Oda et al was discussed above and teaches a body having a composition, the composition comprising a mixture of silicon carbide (SiC) particles suspended in quartz. (Paragraph 0008-0009)
The motivation for making the pre-heating ring, liner, and substrate support of Kim et al out of the composition of Oda et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent material of construction for the pre-heating ring, liner, and substrate support of Kim et al. Furthermore, it has been held that: the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.); the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the pre-heat ring, liner, and substrate support of Kim et al out of the composition of Oda et al.
Regarding claim 11, Oda et al teaches that the composition has a concentration of the silicon carbide particles of 5% by weight (4.6 % by volume) which is greater than 1 % and less than 5% by volume. (Table 2, Example 8)
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Oda et al was discussed above
Oda et al differs from the present invention in that the concentration of the silicon carbide particles is within a range of 2% to 3% by volume or that the silicon carbide particles are amorphous.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum or workable ranges of the concentration of the silicon carbide particles or the type of silicon carbide by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable ranges, such person would have been motivated to modify Oda et al to include the concentration of the silicon carbide particles is within a range of 2% to 3% by volume and that the silicon carbide particles are amorphous.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, Oda et al teaches, and it is well known in the art that the concentration of the silicon carbide and the type of silicon carbide changes the physical properties of the composition and the component made from the composition. To that end, the concentration of the silicon carbide particles and the type of silicon carbide are result-effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Oda et al to include the concentration of the silicon carbide particles is within a range of 2% to 3% by volume and that the silicon carbide particles are amorphous. To that end, claim 1 is obvious in view of Oda et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Regarding claim 14, Oda et al teaches that the silicon carbide particles have an atomic structure of 6H (α-type silicon carbide). (Paragraph 0026)
Regarding claim 15, Oda et al teaches that the silicon carbide particles have a crystalline structure (α type and β type silicon carbide). (Paragraph 0026)
Regarding claim 18, the 99.9% pure quartz of Oda et al is inherently transparent. (Paragraph 0026)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the general background of the invention.
Kim et al, US 20160194784 A1, in view of Oda et al, US 2001/0025001 A1 could be used to reject claims 1-9 under 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
