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 .
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 1-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least one of magnesium and calcium”, and the claim also recites “a content of MgO is 5.0 mol% or more and 20.0 mol% or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou et al. (US6214429, hereinafter referred to as Zou).
Regarding claim 1, Zou discloses a glass block (see Zou at the Abstract, disclosing a glass substrate) comprising: silicon (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 42.00 mol% SiO2); and at least one of magnesium and calcium (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 17.50 mol% MgO and 5.00 mol% CaO), wherein when an alkali metal element is expressed as R and an alkaline earth metal element is expressed as R2, in terms of mol percentage based on oxides, a content of B2O3 is 49.0 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% B2O3), a content of P2O5 is 11.5 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5), a total of contents of SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, and GeO2 is 10.0 mol% or more and 59.5 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 42.00 mol% SiO2, 0% B2O3, 0% P2O5, and 0% GeO2, for a total content of 42.00 mol%), a total of contents of SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, GeO2, and Al2O3 is 66.5 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 42.00 mol% SiO2, 0% B2O3, 0% P2O5, 0% GeO2, and 17.50 mol% Al2O3, for a sum total of 59.5 mol%), a content of Ga2O3 is 7.0 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% Ga2O3), a ratio b/a of a total b of contents of Al2O3, Ga2O3, and In2O3 to a total a of the contents of SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, and GeO2 is 0.44 or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 17.50 mol% Al2O3, 0% Ga2O3, 0% In2O3, 42.00 mol% SiO2, 0% B2O3, 0% P2O5, and 0% GeO2, for a ratio of a/b of 17.5/42= 0.42), a content of R2O is 20.0 mol% or more (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising an R2 content of 17.5+5= 22.5 mol%), a content of MgO is 5.0 mol% or more and 20.0 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 17.5 mol% MgO), the content of MgO is equal to or more than a content of BaO (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 17.5 mol% MgO and 0% BaO), a content of CaO is equal to or more than the content of BaO (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.0 mol% CaO and 0% BaO), and a content of SrO is equal to or more than the content of BaO (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% SrO and 0% BaO), the content of MgO is equal to or more than the content of SrO (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 17.50 mol% MgO and 0% SrO), and the content of CaO is equal to or more than the content of SrO (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.0 mol% CaO and 0% SrO), a content of RI2O is 1.2 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% RI2O), a content of TiO2 or ZrO2 is 4.8 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2), a content of MnO2 is 9.5 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MnO2), a content of ZnO is 11.8 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO), a ratio Ta2O5/SiO2 of a content of Ta2O5 to a content of SiO2 is 0.067 or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a Ta2O5/SiO2 ratio of 0), a content of an impurity element in terms of an oxide is 15.0 mol% or less, provided that the impurity element is a metal element excluding silicon, boron, phosphorus, germanium, aluminum, gallium, indium, an alkaline earth metal element, yttrium, an alkali metal element, titanium, zirconium, manganese, zinc, and tantalum (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising no impurities), and a ratio F/O of a content F of fluorine to a content O of oxygen is 0.20 or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising no F for a ratio of F/O of 0).
Regarding claim 2, Zou discloses the content of SiO2 is 17.0 mol% or more (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 42.00 mol% SiO2).
Regarding claim 3, Zou discloses the content of SiO2 is 59.5 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 42.00 mol% SiO2).
Regarding claim 4, Zou discloses the content of Al2O3 is 27.5 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 17.50 mol% Al2O3).
Regarding claim 5, Zou discloses a total of the contents of MgO and CaO is 20.0 mol% or more (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising an MgO+CaO content of 17.5+5= 22.5 mol%).
Regarding claim 6, Zou discloses a total of the contents of MgO and CaO is 69.0 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising an MgO+CaO content of 17.5+5= 22.5 mol%).
Regarding claim 8, Zou discloses the content of BaO is 30.0 mol% or less (see Zou at Table 14, Example 176, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% BaO).
Regarding claim 9, while Zou does not explicitly disclose an average thermal expansion coefficient at 50°C to 350°C of 9.0 ppm/°C or less, the coefficient of thermal expansion of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass. Because the composition of Zou is substantially identical to the instant glass, the glass of Zou would inherently possess the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, while Zou does not explicitly disclose a visible light transmittance of 75% or more, the transmittance of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass. Because the composition of Zou is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Fujiwara would inherently possess the claimed transmittance.
Regarding claim 11, while Zou does not explicitly disclose a porosity of 3.0 vol% or less, the porosity of the glass is a function of the composition of the glass and the method of producing the glass as evidenced by the instant PGPub at [0186], disclosing in order to keep the porosity within the above range, it is preferable to set the content of each component as described above and to manufacture the glass block by the method. The composition of the glass and the method of producing the glass of Zou is substantially identical to those instantly disclosed as detailed by the rejections herein. As such, the glass of Fujiwara would inherently possess the claimed porosity.
Regarding claim 12, Zou discloses a method for manufacturing the glass block, the method comprising: melting a glass raw material by heating (see Zou at Col. 25, line 46, disclosing the glass is melted by high temperature); and molding the obtained molten glass (See Zou at Col. 25, lines 50-51, disclosing a down draw method. Examiner notes a down draw method is a molding method per [0197] of the instant PGPub), followed by annealing (see Zou at Col. 28, line 5, disclosing annealing).
Regarding claim 13, Zou discloses a temperature at which the glass raw material is heated and melted is 1,650°C or lower (see Zou at Col. 28, lines 1-2, disclosing the glass was melted ... at 1550°C).
Regarding claim 14, while Zou does not explicitly disclose a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: the glass block, it is noted a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and here the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In claim 1, the intended use of being a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, while Zou does not explicitly disclose the member is to be mounted on a plasma etching apparatus, and is a top plate, a microwave introduction tube, a lift pin, a nozzle, an edge ring, an electrostatic chuck, a shower plate, or a protective cover for a sensor inside a chamber, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114(II)). As such, being mounted on a plasma etching apparatus, and is a top plate, a microwave introduction tube, a lift pin, a nozzle, an edge ring, an electrostatic chuck, a shower plate, or a protective cover for a sensor inside a chamber is not given patentable weight over Zou because Zou discloses the structural elements of the glass as detailed by the rejections above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US20090105061, hereinafter referred to as Fujiwara).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara makes obvious a glass block (see Fujiwara at the Abstract, disclosing glass) comprising: silicon (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 40.22 mol% SiO2); and at least one of magnesium and calcium (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 28.95 mol% CaO and 4.00 mol% MgO), wherein when an alkali metal element is expressed as R and an alkaline earth metal element is expressed as R2, in terms of mol percentage based on oxides, a content of B2O3 is 49.0 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 12.84 mol% B2O3), a content of P2O5 is 11.5 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% P2O5), a total of contents of SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, and GeO2 is 10.0 mol% or more and 59.5 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 40.22 mol% SiO2, 12.84 mol% B2O3, 0% P2O5, and 0% GeO2, for a sum total of 53.06 mol%), a total of contents of SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, GeO2, and Al2O3 is 66.5 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 40.22 mol% SiO2, 12.84 mol% B2O3, 0% P2O5, 0% GeO2, 4.95 mol% Al2O3, for a sum total of 58.01 mol%), a content of Ga2O3 is 7.0 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Ga2O3), a ratio b/a of a total b of contents of Al2O3, Ga2O3, and In2O3 to a total a of the contents of SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, and GeO2 is 0.44 or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4.95 mol% Al2O3, 0% Ga2O3, 0% In2O3, 40.22 mol% SiO2, 12.84 mol% B2O3, 0% P2O5, and 0% GeO2, for a ratio of (4.95)/(40.22+12.84)= 0.09), a content of R2O is 20.0 mol% or more (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4 mol% MgO, 28.95 mol% CaO, 3.49 mol% SrO, and 0% BaO, for a sum total R2O content of 36.44), a content of MgO is 5.0 mol% or more and 20.0 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4 mol% MgO, which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).), the content of MgO is equal to or more than a content of BaO (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4 mol% MgO and 0% BaO), a content of CaO is equal to or more than the content of BaO (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 28.95 mol% CaO and 0% BaO), and a content of SrO is equal to or more than the content of BaO (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 3.49 mol% SrO and 0% BaO), the content of MgO is equal to or more than the content of SrO (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4 mol% MgO and 3.49 mol% SrO), and the content of CaO is equal to or more than the content of SrO (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 28.95 mol% CaO and 3.49 mol% SrO), a content of RI2O is 1.2 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% RI2O), a content of TiO2 or ZrO2 is 4.8 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% TiO2), a content of MnO2 is 9.5 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% MnO2), a content of ZnO is 11.8 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 1.02 mol% ZnO), a ratio Ta2O5/SiO2 of a content of Ta2O5 to a content of SiO2 is 0.067 or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Ta2O5 for a ratio of Ta2O5/SiO2 of 0), a content of an impurity element in terms of an oxide is 15.0 mol% or less, provided that the impurity element is a metal element excluding silicon, boron, phosphorus, germanium, aluminum, gallium, indium, an alkaline earth metal element, yttrium, an alkali metal element, titanium, zirconium, manganese, zinc, and tantalum (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising no impurities), and a ratio F/O of a content F of fluorine to a content O of oxygen is 0.20 or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising no F for a ratio of F/O of 0).
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara discloses the content of SiO2 is 17.0 mol% or more (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 40.22 mol% SiO2).
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara discloses the content of SiO2 is 59.5 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 40.22 mol% SiO2).
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwara discloses the content of Al2O3 is 27.5 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4.95 mol% Al2O3).
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwara discloses a total of the contents of MgO and CaO is 20.0 mol% or more (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4 mol% MgO, 28.95 mol% CaO, for a sum total of 32.95 mol%).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara discloses a total of the contents of MgO and CaO is 69.0 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 4 mol% MgO, 28.95 mol% CaO, for a sum total of 32.95 mol%).
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara discloses the content of CaO is 20.0 mol% or more and 69.0 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 28.95 mol% CaO).
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara discloses the content of BaO is 30.0 mol% or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3B, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising 0% BaO).
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwara discloses an average thermal expansion coefficient at 50°C to 350°C of 9.0 ppm/°C or less (See Fujiwara at Table 3S, Ex. 19, disclosing a glass comprising an average linear expansion coefficient of 7.6 ppm/°C).
Regarding claim 10, while Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose a visible light transmittance of 75% or more, the transmittance of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass. Because the composition of Fujiwara is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Fujiwara would inherently possess the claimed transmittance. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, while Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: the glass block, it is noted a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and here the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In claim 1, the intended use of being a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, while Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose the member is to be mounted on a plasma etching apparatus, and is a top plate, a microwave introduction tube, a lift pin, a nozzle, an edge ring, an electrostatic chuck, a shower plate, or a protective cover for a sensor inside a chamber, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114(II)). As such, being mounted on a plasma etching apparatus, and is a top plate, a microwave introduction tube, a lift pin, a nozzle, an edge ring, an electrostatic chuck, a shower plate, or a protective cover for a sensor inside a chamber is not given patentable weight over Fujiwara because Fujiwara discloses the structural elements of the glass as detailed by the rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Example 200 of Zou is outside the claimed range, however, Examiner notes Example 176 of Zou is within the claimed range. At page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that all examples of Fujiwara are outside of the claimed range, however, Examiner notes that Example 19 of Fujiwara is close to touching the claimed range, and therefore claim 1 is obvious in view of Fujiwara. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
