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 .
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.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "different layers in the plurality of substrates" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 20190291199).
As to claim 1, Elliot discloses semiconductor processing equipment (Abstract).
Elliot discloses a multilayer plate heater assembly comprising of a top plate (602) and a bottom plate (603); the top and bottom plate being attached with a nickel alloy braze, which is used to create both an RF antenna (607), and a sealing ring (608) with a gap separating the antenna and the sealing ring (Fig. 11 below; ¶58).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the apparatus of Elliot contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that the electrical functioning layer and sealing ring comprises of a nickel alloy braze (¶58).
As to claim 4, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that the electrical functioning layer is an RF antenna (Id.).
As to claim 6, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that the plates may comprise of a ceramic material (¶64).
As to claim 9, the apparatus of claim 6 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that the plates may comprise of beryllium oxide (¶33).
As to claim 19, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that a shaft (604) can be secured to the lower side of the substrates (Fig. 11).
As to claim 20, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that the seal is hermetic (Abstract).
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) 5, 10-11 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 20190291199) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9 and 19-20 above, and further in view of D1 (CN 114041206).
As to claim 5, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Although Elliot discloses that the electrically functioning layer comprises a RF antenna (resistive heater), but fails to specifically teach or disclose that the electrically functioning layer may also have a temperature sensor. D1 discloses a nitride heater (Abstract). D1 discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to include a temperature sensor in the electrically functional layer (CLM 12; P3, L40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the temperature sensor of D1 in the apparatus taught by Elliot because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for monitoring the temperature of the heater in the apparatus of Elliot. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 10, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot fails to teach or disclose whether apertures may be formed through the assembly within the sealing bands. D1 discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to form indexing apertures/holes 122 within the sealing rings of the assembly (Fig. 6; P6, L30-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include forming apertures/holes as taught by D1 in the assembly of Elliot because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for forming indexing apertures/holes in the apparatus of Elliot. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 11, the apparatus of claim 10 is taught as seen above. Elliot discloses that the material of the sealing bands may comprise of nickel (¶58).
As to claims 21 and 22, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Elliot fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the electrical layer in the heater may comprise of a plurality of zones as currently claimed. D1 discloses that it is known and conventional in the art use a heater layer comprising of a plurality of zones in the form of inner and outer heating elements (111, 112) (P5, L30-55; Fig. 4, 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the multizone heater of D1 in the apparatus taught by Elliot because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional heating layer comprising of an inner and outer heating elements. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Hence, the electrically functioning layer comprises a plurality of zones of heaters disposed in different layers (inner and outer layers) as recited in claim 22.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 20190291199).
As to claim 14, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Adding another electrically functioning layer between the adjacent substrates would amount to a mere duplication of parts and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claim 16, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Adding another peripheral sealing band between the adjacent substrates would amount to a mere duplication of parts and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claim 17, the apparatus of claim 16 is taught as seen above. It would have been obvious to make one band larger than the other since this would allow for the addition of the second peripheral sealing band in the apparatus and thus allow for the duplication of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-8 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites that the material of the electrically functioning layer is graded and has variable material properties along at least one dimension. The closest prior art of Elliot et al. (US 20190291199) fails to teach or disclose that the electrically functioning layer is graded and has variable material properties along at least one direction as currently claimed.
Claim 7 recites that the assembly further comprises an upper substrate disposed on one of the two adjacent substrates, the upper substrate comprising a different ceramic material than the ceramic material of the two adjacent substrates. The closest prior art of Elliot et al. (US 20190291199) discloses that there may be a ceramic layer placed on one of the adjacent substrates, but fails to teach or disclose that said upper layer comprises of a different ceramic material than the adjacent substrates as claimed.
As to claim 18, the closest prior art of Elliot et al. (US 20190291199) fails to teach or disclose that there is a plurality of material islands disposed within the dielectric regions in the electrically functioning layer, wherein the material islands are not electrically live as recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights