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 1-11 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 1 and by dependency claims 2-11 the limitation “wherein at least one of the gas introduction holes has a diameter different from a diameter of each of the other gas introduction holes, to uniformize gas flow rates in the plurality of gas introduction holes” is indefinite, because if the “at least one introduction hole” comprises all of the holes as is allowed by the claim language it by definition could not differ from the “other gas introduction holes”.
Regarding claims 4-6, specifically: The term “a region not belonging to a vicinity of the shaft hole” is ambiguous. There are two area qualifiers “region and vicinity” and there is no definition or accepted meaning of when a “region” is not in a “vicinity” of a shaft hole. How big is the “region” of a gas hole (is it the area of the hole itself?)? How far away must a hole be to be out of the “vicinity” of a shaft hole.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022147715 to Makoto in view of “Geometric Strategies for Attainmnet of Identical Outflows Through All of the Exit Ports of a Distribution Manifold in a Manifold System” by Tong et al.
Regarding claim 1
Makato teaches: A ceramic heater comprising: a disk-like ceramic plate (Figs. 6 and 7) including a first surface (112) on which a wafer is to be placed (abstract), and a second surface (surface opposite 112) opposite to the first surface, and embedded with a heater electrode (130); a cylindrical ceramic shaft (210) attached on the second surface of the ceramic plate (Figs. 6 and 7); a shaft hole (216) provided in a side wall constituting the ceramic shaft (Fig. 6 and 7), to penetrate through the ceramic shaft from one end to another end (Figs. 6 and 7); a gas groove (annotated Fig. 6) provided in an arc shape on the second surface of the ceramic plate (Fig. 6), and configured to form, together with an upper end surface of the ceramic shaft (Fig. 7), a gas passage communicating with the shaft hole (see 216 extending up and into the annular gas passage); a plurality of gas introduction holes provided in a vertical direction just above the gas groove to communicate with the gas groove in the ceramic plate (holes 114 provide the passage as shown in Fig. 7), and arranged apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the gas groove (see annotated Fig. 6); and a plurality of lateral holes (annotated Fig. 6) provided in a direction from the plurality of gas introduction holes toward an outer periphery of the ceramic plate in the ceramic plate (annotated Fig. 6), and configured to reach the first surface or a side end surface of the ceramic plate (Figs. 6 and 7), wherein the ceramic heater is configured to, in a case where gas is supplied to the shaft hole, enable the gas to be purged from the first surface or the side end surface of the ceramic plate through the shaft hole, the gas groove, the gas introduction holes, and the lateral holes in order (see gas path implied by Figs. 6 and 7).
Makato does not teach wherein at least one of the gas introduction holes has a diameter different from a diameter of each of the other gas introduction holes, to uniformize gas flow rates in the plurality of gas introduction holes.
Tong teaches varying the widths of individual flow holes in a manifold (of which Makato is) to create uniform flow rates across the channels (See 3557 Col. 2, “tailoring the widths of the individual flow channels is a powerful strategy for the attainment of effusion uniformity”).
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas introduction hole diameters of Tong as claimed to provide uniform flow rates in order to achieve equivalent flow distributions.
Regarding claim 2
Makato as modified further teaches wherein the gas groove is provided in the arc shape having a center angle of 270 degrees to 330 degrees. Note that the groove is a circle thus any angle may be considered the “center angle.”
Regarding claim 3
Makato as modified further teaches: wherein the shaft hole is positioned at a center in the longitudinal direction of the groove (Figs 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 4-6
See the 35 USC §112b rejection above: but also it is an arbitrary matter to draw regions and declare them not in the vicinity thus which holes meet this particular claim language can simply be assigned as required and the holes declared “not in the vicinity of the shaft hole/ends”.
Regarding claim 7
Makato as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above but does not specifically teach that the number of the plurality of gas introduction holes is six, wherein the shaft hole is positioned between third and fourth gas introduction holes from one end of the gas passage, and wherein second and fifth gas introduction holes from the one end of the gas passage each have a diameter greater by 10% or more than a diameter of each of the other gas introduction holes.
As to the number of gas holes the additional gas holes claimed are merely for the provision of additional fluid passageways which is the exact function of the four holes of Makato as modified. As such it would have been nothing more than an obvious duplication of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Makato to include six holes (see MPEP §2144.04).
As to the location of the holes the function of the holes is to provide a fluid outlet to the mounting surface which is the same as that in the prior art of Makato. As such it would have been nothing more than an obvious relocation of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed invention (see MPEP §2144.04).
As to the second and fifth holes having a diameter greater by 10% or more than a diameter of each of the other gas introduction holes it is noted that Tong already discloses that the flow properties of each hole should be optimized to arrive at equal flow rate in each passage, as such it would have been nothing more than a routine optimization of a known result effective variable for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed diameters (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 8
Makato as modified further teaches wherein the lateral holes reach the first surface of the ceramic plate (in a radial direction).
Regarding claims 9-11
Makato as modified does not teach that the lateral holes reach the side end surface, that the are provided obliquely to the first surface or that they are partially configured in the vertical direction.
However, Makato teaches the ends of lateral holes such as 116 in Figs. 2 (vertical) and 3 (side wall) to allow for the lateral passage to reach different areas. As such it is known to shape the path and direction of the holes to reach different areas as required for cooling and it would have been nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the inventions of claims 9-11 as it is already known to modify the location and path of holes to achieve a desired and predictable flow outlet region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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 "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights