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 § 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 1-4, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al (US 2006/0199131) in view of Akatsuka et al (US 2011/0062144).
Kawasaki shows the apparatus claimed including a first thermally conductive layer (300B) having a top side and a bottom side, an electrically conductive heating element (238) disposed in grooves arranged on the top side of the first thermally conductive layer wherein the heating element provides a heating zone along the top side of the first thermally conductive layer, and a second thermally conductive layer (300A) disposed on the top side of the first thermally conductive layer over the heating element as illustrated in Figure 6. Kawasaki shows the electrically heating element that can be a resistance heater made of molybdenum (para 0075) but does not disclose that the heating element is a refractory hard metal doped with at least carbon, nitrogen, aluminum, yttrium, or oxygen wherein the doped refractory hard metal comprises a temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity that is approximately five times lower than that of pure molybdenum over temperatures ranging from about 300º C to about 850º C.
Akatsuka shows it is known for a refractory hard metal (e.g., molybdenum) that is doped or that includes at least one carbon (e.g., molybdenum carbide MoC) wherein a higher content of the doped refractory hard metal has a lower temperature coefficient compared to molybdenum (Mo) wherein the resistance of MoC does not change/increase much when compared to molybdenum (Mo; also, see Abstract and para 0014) wherein the doped hard refractory with carbon as claimed would have a temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity, as its inherent property having the same claimed composition as claimed, that is approximately five lower than that of pure molybdenum over temperatures ranging from 300º C to 850º C. Also, see MPEP 2112.01. Akatsuka further discloses that the doped refractory hard metal provides a heating capability that provide for a good uniform heating property (also, see Abstract).
In view of Akatsuka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kawasaki with the heating element that is provided with a refractory hard metal such as molybdenum that is doped with carbon (MoC) that provides a heating capability including more constant heating capability with the doped refractory hard metal (e.g., MoC) would inherently have approximately five times lower temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity than pure metal (e.g., Mo), as its inherent property, to predictably provide a good uniform heating as desired.
With respect to claim 2, Akatsuka discloses the same doped refractory hard metal composition as claimed wherein the temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity that is approximately 0.001 (1/K) would also be presumed inherent with molybdenum having approximately .0005 (1/K) over temperatures ranging from 300º C to 850º C. Also, see MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 3, Kawasaki shows the apparatus being in a circular or disc shape wherein the first thermally conductive layer would also be in the circular or disc shape to be commensurate with the overall shape of the apparatus.
With respect to claim 4, Kawasaki further shows a wafer support table having a plurality of thermally conductive layers that is made of a ceramic material wherein it is known to provide a sintered ceramic layer (para 0075) wherein Akatsuka discloses for one or more heating elements that initially comprises a powder (para 0070) prior to sintering. It is noted that the recitation of the heating element that initially comprising loaded from a polymer sheet prior to sintering is deemed to render the claim as a product by process claim wherein the process of the claimed sintering does not define the structure of the apparatus/device. MPEP 2113.
With respect to claim 6, Kawasaki further shows that the support table which includes thermally conductive layers is made of a ceramic material including aluminum nitride (para 0103) wherein the first thermally conductive layer would also be made of aluminum nitride.
With respect to claim 16, Kawasaki in combination Akatsuka shows the heating element and the first thermally conductive layer that include a functionally similar coefficient of thermal expansion that avoids deleterious cracks or fissures as Kawasaki and Akatsuaka both disclose the thermally conductive layer and the heating element including aluminum nitride and the doped refractory hard metal, respectively.
Claims 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Akatsuka as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Campello et al (US 2006/0186110).
Kawasaki in view of Akatsuka shows the apparatus claimed including a third thermally conductive layer (300C) disposed on the bottom side of the first thermally conductive layer (300B) but does not show a hub as claimed.
Campello shows it is known to provide a hub (40) that is provided on a bottom side of a cover plate (34) wherein the hub allows electrical leads to routed therethrough and also to provide a gas seal (para 0058).
In view of Campello, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kawasaki, as modified by Akatsuka, with the third thermally conductive layer, that covers over the first thermally conductive layer, that is further provided with a hub or base that would further provide a protected electrical lead routing means as well as to provide a tight gas seal for the protection of the electrical interconnects/leads.
With respect to claim 8, Kawasaki shows the support table that is made of a sintered ceramic layer such as AlN (para 0075) wherein the support table includes the thermally conductive layer (300B) as well as the second and third conductive layer wherein the thermally conductive layers would also have been made of aluminum nitride that is known to withstand high heating temperatures.
With respect to claim 9, Kawasaki shows a ceramic riser (30/230), which can be made of a sintered ceramic layer (para 0072-0075), and as Campello shows a tube extension (42) that is connected to the hub/base (40), it would have been obvious to provide the ceramic riser that is bonded/attached to the hub that further allows the electrical interconnects/leads to be routed through a processing chamber with a gas tight seal between the rise and the hub that would further protect the lead wires for undesirable or harmful gases of the processing chamber.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Kawasaki further shows an electrical interconnect/lead (240) disposed in a channel (305) arranged on the bottom side of the first thermally conductive layer (300B) wherein the interconnect/lead would communicate electricity/power in a circuit from and through the hub, as taught by Campello, to the heating element.
With respect to claims 13-15, Campello further shows a temperature sensor (86) provided in a groove (56) wherein the temperature/data measured from the sensor would be communicated through thermocouple leads (88) to a controller/microprocessor (para 0064), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kawasaki with the temperature sensor that is also alternatively provided in the bottom channel of the first thermally conductive layer so that the temperature sensor can be securely positioned thereon, and the temperature sensor would be covered under the third thermally conductive layer as the third thermally conductive layer is disposed on the bottom side of the first thermally conductive layer.
Claims 17, 18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al (US 2006/0199131) in view of Akatsuka et al (US 2011/0062144), and Campello et al (US 2006/0186110).
Kawasaki shows the apparatus claimed including a thermally conductive layer (300B) having a top side and a bottom side wherein the thermally conductive layer would be formed of a sintered ceramic (para 0075) having a disc shape, an electrically conductive heating element (238) disposed in grooves arranged on the top side of the disc (300B) wherein the heating element provides a heating zone along the top side of the disc, a first thermally conductive layer (300A) disposed on the top side of the disc (300B), an interconnect/lead (240) disposed in a channel (305) on the bottom side of the disc, a second thermally conductive layer (300C) disposed on the bottom side of the disc wherein the heating element is protected from chemical attach. Kawasaki shows the electrically heating element can be a resistance heater made of molybdenum (para 0075) but does not disclose that the heating element is a refractory hard metal doped with at least carbon, nitrogen, aluminum, yttrium, or oxygen wherein the doped refractory hard metal comprises a temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity that is approximately five times lower than that of pure molybdenum over temperatures ranging from about 300º C to about 850º C.
Akatsuka shows it is known for a refractory hard metal (e.g., molybdenum) that is doped or that includes at least one carbon (e.g., molybdenum carbide MoC) wherein a higher content of the doped refractory hard metal has a lower temperature coefficient compared to molybdenum (Mo) wherein the resistance of MoC does not change/increase much when compared to molybdenum (Mo; also, see Abstract and para 0014) wherein the doped hard refractory with carbon as claimed would have a temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity, as its inherent property having the same claimed composition as claimed, that is approximately five lower than that of pure molybdenum over temperatures ranging from 300º C to 850º C. Also, see MPEP 2112.01. Akatsuka further discloses that the doped refractory hard metal provides a heating capability that provide for a good uniform heating property (also, see Abstract).
Campello shows it is known to provide a hub (40) that is provided on a bottom side of a cover plate (34) wherein the hub allows electrical leads to routed therethrough and also to provide a gas seal (para 0058).
In view of Akatsuka and Campello, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kawasaki with the heating element that is provided with a refractory hard metal such as molybdenum that is doped with carbon (MoC) that provides a heating capability including more constant heating capability with the doped refractory hard metal (e.g., MoC) would inherently have approximately five times or lower temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity than pure metal (e.g., Mo), as its inherent property, to predictably provide a good uniform heating as desired, and it would have been obvious to further adapt Kawasaki with the second thermally conductive layer, that covers over the disc, that is further provided with a hub or base that would further provide a protected electrical lead routing means as well as to provide a tight gas seal for the protection of the electrical interconnects/leads as taught by Campello.
With respect to claim 18, Akatsuka discloses the same doped refractory hard metal composition as claimed wherein the temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity that is approximately 0.001 (1/K) would also be presumed inherent with molybdenum having approximately .0005 (1/K) over temperatures ranging from 300º C to 850º C. Also, see MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claims 20 and 21, Kawasaki shows the support table that is made of a sintered ceramic layer such as AlN (para 0075) wherein the support table that includes the first and second thermally conductive layer would have the conductive layers made of aluminum nitride that is known to withstand high heating temperatures.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Kawasaki shows a riser (30/230), and as Campello shows a tube extension (42) that is connected/bonded to the hub/base (40), it would have been obvious to provide the riser that is also bonded/attached to the hub, as modified by Campello, that further allows the electrical interconnect/leads to be routed through a processing chamber with a gas tight seal between the rise and the hub that would further protect the lead wires for undesirable or harmful gases in the processing chamber.
With respect to claim 24, Kawasaki further shows an electrical interconnect/lead (240) wherein the interconnect/lead would communicate electricity/power in a circuit from and through the hub, as taught by Campello, to the heating element.
With respect to claims 25 and 26, Campello further shows a temperature sensor (86) provided in a groove (56), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kawasaki with the temperature sensor that is also alternative provided in the bottom channel of the disc so that the temperature sensor can be securely positioned thereon, and the temperature sensor would be further protected with the second thermally conductive layer as the second thermally conductive layer is disposed over the disc.
With respect to claim 27, Kawasaki in combination Akatsuka shows the heating element and the disc, shown by the thermally conductive layers, including a functionally similar coefficient of thermal expansion that avoids deleterious cracks or fissures as Kawasaki and Akatsuaka both disclose the disc/thermally conductive layer and the heating element including aluminum nitride and the doped refractory hard metal, respectively.
With respect to claim 28, Kawasaki shows the heating element that would also provide a heating zone along the top side of the disc.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,956 (herein after US ‘956). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims 1 and 17 of US ‘956 disclose the electric heater apparatus claimed including a first thermally conductive layer/disc, one or more electrically conductive heating element that comprises one or more refractory hard metals doped with at least one carbon, nitrogen, aluminum, yttrium, or oxygen wherein one or more heating elements are independently controllable, and a second thermally conductive layer as recited in the pending claims of the present application, but does not recite the doped one or more refractory hard metals having a temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity that is approximately five times lower than that of pure molybdenum over temperature ranging from 300º C to 850º C as claimed. However, claim 1 of US ‘956 discloses the doped refractory hard metal that is the same composition as that of the pending claims wherein the temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity is deemed as inherent property the doped refractory hard metal (MPEP 2112.01). Thus, while the claims are not identical, the claims are not patentably distinct from each other as noted above.
The pending claims 2 and 18 are not patentably distinct over the patent claims of US ‘956 as US ‘956 disclose the same doped refractory hard metal composition as that of the claimed composition wherein the temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity that is approximately 0.001 (1/K) would also be presumed inherent when compared to molybdenum having approximately .0005 (1/K), or any other refractory metal, over temperatures ranging from 300º C to 850º C. Also, see MPEP 2112.01.
All other pending claims 3-16 and 19-28 are respectively shown by the patented dependent claims 2-15 and 17-26 of US ‘956.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights