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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in the current application.
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 6-11 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the coupled body" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-11 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 6.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakai (US 5037704).
As to claim 1, Nakai discloses a support socket comprising:
Top, bottom and connecting side surfaces (figure 5b holder [the support socket] 3 with top bottom and sides);
A groove formed in the bottom surface towards the top surface (figure 5b: groove in holder 3 ‘bottom’ [orientation a matter of terminology], unlabeled and shown holding substrate 1);
A machining reference surface as a plane forming the bottom of the groove (figure 5b: showing unlabeled bottom surface at bottom of groove holding substrate 1).
As to claim 2, Nakai discloses the top surface is a plane parallel to the machining reference surface (figure 5b: illustrating ‘top surface’ parallel to bottom surface of groove [machining reference surface]).
As to claim 3, Nakai discloses the side surfaces have vertical portions connected to top surface (figure 5b: illustrated perpendicular side surfaces connecting to ‘top surface’).
As to claim 4, Nakai discloses a central axis of the groove on a central axis of the support socket (figure 5b: showing the groove is centrally located/shares central axis with holder/socket 2).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 5820683).
As to claim 5, Nokai discloses a substrate holder for deposition, as discussed above, but is silent as to the holder comprising SiC.
Ishii discloses a substrate holding mechanism in which a silicon carbide material is used and cut to the desired shape to hold a plurality of substrates (col 4 lines 40-55; figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon carbide as disclosed by Ishii, in the system of Nokai, because this allows for an integral and customizable/cuttable structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (assuming the pending 35 USC 112 rejection is overcome).
Claim 6 requires a method of coupling a support socket with an underlying substrate, inserting a support pin, depositing, and machining the deposited layer and a portion of the support sockets. While prior art discloses knowledge in the art of support structures with inserted ‘pins’, the sockets inserted into a further holder for deposition (see for example vogel [US 20190388931], figure 2: ‘pin’/drill insertion into support ‘socket’ 20 with insertion into holder 31 for movement during deposition) and there is knowledge in the art of ‘cleaning’ steps after deposition including machining, none of the prior art teaches nor suggests the requisite structure, the combination of the structure, and further machining steps of the structure as required by the instant claims.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. 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). 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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights