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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1 – 9 and 18 - 20, drawn to the seal assembly, classified in F16J15/0893.
II. Claims 10 - 17, drawn to the method of making a pressure seal, classified in H01J37/32513.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the seal can be deformed by molding the seal.Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct inventions due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The invention require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Keith Taboada on 08/31/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1 – 9 and 18 - 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is a spelling mistake for “supper alloy”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De et al. (U.S. Patent # 4561662).
Regarding Claim 1, De discloses a seal assembly (figs 1 and 2) for containing pressure during a semiconductor (fig 1 configured for containing pressure during a semiconductor), the seal assembly comprising: a metal core (12) configured to be disposed within a housing (22, fig 2) of a substrate pedestal (intended use); and an outer coating (18) disposed on an exterior surface of the metal core (12) operable to withstand a pressure of about 125 newton/millimeter2 or below (18 operable to withstand a pressure of about 125 newton/millimeter2 or below), the outer coating capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns to create a pressure seal within the housing (18 capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns to create a pressure seal within the housing).
Regarding Claim 5, De discloses the seal assembly, further comprising an inner coating (14) disposed between the outer coating (16) and the metal core (12).
Regarding Claim 7, De discloses the seal assembly of claim 1, further comprising an inner coating (14) disposed between the outer coating (16) and the metal core (12), the outer coating and the inner coating capable of being deformed at a same malleability temperature (16 and 14 capable of being deformed at a same malleability temperature).
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 (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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent # 5625526).
Regarding Claim 2, De discloses the seal assembly.
De does not disclose wherein the metal core has a hardness greater than a hardness of the outer coating.
However, Watanabe teaches the metal core has a hardness (Col 14, Lines 36 – 40: 329, fig 23 with stainless steel has a hardness) greater than a hardness of the outer coating (hardness of metal core 329 greater than hardness of outer coating 330 with Indium, Col 14 Lines 43 – 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the outer coating of De with that of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the affinity for the surfaces of members is improved, and the sealing property is not degraded even at an ultra-low temperatures (Watanabe Col 14 Lines 47 – 50) and to modify the material of the metal core of De with that of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the metal core is more durable and anti-corrosive.
.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of De and Watanabe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the outer coating comprises aluminum, magnesium, indium, or their alloys (Watanabe - hardness of outer coating 330 with Indium, Col 14 Lines 43 – 46).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of De and Watanabe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the metal core comprises stainless steel or a nickel-based supper alloy (Col 14, Lines 36 – 40: 329, fig 23 with stainless steel).
Regarding Claim 6, De discloses the seal assembly.
De does not disclose wherein the inner coating comprises indium.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the inner coating comprises indium (hardness of coating 330 with Indium, Col 14 Lines 43 – 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the inner coating of De with that of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the affinity for the surfaces of members is improved, and the sealing property is not degraded even at an ultra-low temperatures (Watanabe Col 14 Lines 47 – 50).
Regarding Claim 8, De discloses the seal assembly.
De does not disclose further comprising at least one foil gasket disposed between the housing and the outer coating, the foil gasket capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns when bonding to the housing.
However, Watanabe teaches further comprising at least one foil gasket (8, fig 1) disposed between the housing and the outer coating (14, fig 1), the foil gasket capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns when bonding to the housing ( 8 capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns when bonding to the housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the seal of De with the foil gasket as in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the foil the foil gasket provides conduction to the seal (Watanabe Col 6 Lines 47 – 49).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of De and Watanabe discloses the seal assembly, wherein the at least one foil gasket comprises aluminum and nickel (Watanabe Col 6 Lines 39 – 40).
Regarding Claim 18, De discloses an apparatus (figs 1 and 2) in semiconductor processing for pressure containment (seal can be used in semiconductor processing for pressure containment), the apparatus comprising: a metal core (12), the metal core being disposed within a housing (22) of a substrate pedestal (intended use); and an outer coating (18) disposed directly on the metal core (12), the outer coating comprising aluminum or magnesium alloy (Col 1 Lines 32 – 36), the outer coating capable of withstanding a pressure of about 10 newton/millimeter2 to about 75 newton/millimeter2 ( structure capable of the limitation), the outer coating capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 20 microns to create a pressure seal within the housing ( structure capable of the limitation).
De does not disclose a metal core comprising stainless steel or a nickel-based supper alloy.
However, Watanabe teaches a metal core comprising stainless steel or a nickel-based supper alloy (Col 14, Lines 36 – 40: 329, fig 23 with stainless steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the metal core of De with that of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the metal core is more durable and anti-corrosive.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of De and Watanabe discloses the apparatus, further comprising: an inner coating comprising indium (Watanabe coating 330 with Indium, Col 14 Lines 43 – 46) and disposed between the outer coating (De 16) and the metal core (De 12), the outer coating and the inner coating capable of being deformed at a same malleability temperature (structure capable of the limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the inner coating of De with that of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the affinity for the surfaces of members is improved, and the sealing property is not degraded even at an ultra-low temperatures (Watanabe Col 14 Lines 47 – 50).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of De and Watanabe discloses the apparatus.
De does not disclose further comprising at least one foil gasket disposed between a surface of the housing and the outer coating, the foil gasket capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns when bonding to the housing.
However, Watanabe teaches further comprising at least one foil gasket (8, fig 1) disposed between a surface of the housing and the outer coating (14, fig 1), the foil gasket capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns when bonding to the housing ( 8 capable of being deformed by about 2 microns to about 40 microns when bonding to the housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the seal of De with the foil gasket as in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the foil the foil gasket provides conduction to the seal (Watanabe Col 6 Lines 47 – 49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. Susmitha Koneru whose telephone number is 571.270.5333. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/L. SUSMITHA KONERU/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights