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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 02/28/2024, claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Chadha (US 20240249965 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Chadha discloses
A substrate fixing device (100, see fig.1) comprising:
a base plate (104, see fig.1);
a heating portion (combo 108 and 122, see fig.1) provided on the base plate (104, see fig.1);
a metal layer (combo 110 and 138, see fig.1, wherein the layer 110 is formed of metal, see para.0021 ) provided on the heating portion (combo 108 and 122, see fig.1); and an electrostatic chuck (106, see fig.1) provided on the metal layer (combo 110 and 138), wherein the metal layer (combo 110 and 138) is made of the same material as the base plate (104, see fig.1 and para.0015: “The temperature control base 104 is formed of a metal such as aluminum” and para. 0021: “The upper bonding layer 110 and the lower bonding layer 128 may be formed of metal bond material such as aluminum”. Therefore, the layer 110 of the combo 110 and 138 is made of the same metal (such as aluminum) as the layer 104)
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadha
Regarding claim 2, Chadha further discloses
the heating portion (combo 108 and 122, see fig.1) includes an insulating layer (108, see fig.1 and para.0028: “bottom ceramic disc 108 … formed of ceramic material, such as … zirconia”. See Zirconia's Thermal and Electrical Insulation Properties, “Zirconia ceramic is a versatile material with excellent thermal and electrical insulation properties”) and a heating element (122) provided in the insulating layer (108, see fig.1), except wherein a thickness of the metal layer is 5 times or more a thickness of the heating element.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.1), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
In this case, Chadha teaches a certain thickness of the metal layer (fig. 1) compared to the thickness of the heating element, and having a specific thickness of the metal layer is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thickness of the metal layer is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the thickness of the metal layer to be 5 times or more a thickness of the heating element, in order to provide better heat dissipation, higher voltage handling, and greater mechanical/thermal durability, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 3, Chadha discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the thickness of the metal layer is 10 times or more the thickness of the heating element.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.1), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
In this case, Chadha teaches a certain thickness of the metal layer (fig. 1) compared to the thickness of the heating element, and having a specific thickness of the metal layer is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thickness of the metal layer is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the thickness of the metal layer to be 10 times or more the thickness of the heating element, in order to provide better heat dissipation, higher voltage handling, and greater mechanical/thermal durability, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 4, Chadha discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the thickness of the metal layer is 100 μm or more and 1000 μm or less.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see item 110), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
In this case, Chadha teaches a certain thickness of the metal layer (fig. 1), and having a specific thickness of the metal layer is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thickness of the metal layer is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the thickness of the metal layer to be “100 μm or more and 1000 μm or less”, in order to provide better heat dissipation, higher voltage handling, and greater mechanical/thermal durability, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, Chadha further discloses the metal layer (combo 110 and 138) is provided directly on an entire surface (106a) of the insulating layer (106) on an electrostatic chuck side (See fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Chadha further discloses a through hole (132 see fig.1) penetrating from the base plate (104) to the electrostatic chuck (106, see fig.1 and para.0023) is formed, and wherein the metal layer (110, see fig.1) has an opening at a position corresponding to the through hole (132, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Chadha further discloses a side surface (side surface of 138) of the metal layer (combo 110 and 138) is exposed to an outside (See fig.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20160343600A1 discloses an electrostatic puck assembly includes an upper puck plate, a lower puck plate and a backing plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights