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.
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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0111057 A1) in view of Saito (US 2020/0251315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee disclose low-temperature electrostatic chuck comprising: a base member (121); and a support member (120) including a first dielectric layer (320) applied on the base member, an electrode layer (340) provided on the first dielectric layer, and a second dielectric layer (410) applied on the first dielectric layer and the electrode layer.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the base member includes first flow paths provided in an upper region and through which a first fluid at a first temperature flows, and second flow paths provided in a lower region and through which a second fluid at a second temperature higher than the first temperature flows. However, analogous electrostatic chuck art, Saito discloses a first (101) and second paths (102) with fluids that can travel within each channel [0025]. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 2, Saito disclose wherein the first -200 ºC to 0 ºC, and the second temperature ranges from 0 ºC to 80 ºC [0044].
Regarding claim 3, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the base member further includes a heat-blocking cavity (111) provided between the first flow paths and the second flow paths [0041].
Regarding claim 4, Saito disclose herein the heat-blocking cavity includes a first heat-blocking cavity (111) provided between the first flow paths and the second flow paths, and a second heat-blocking cavity (112) which is provided between the first flow paths and connected to the first heat-blocking cavity.
Regarding claim 5, Saito discloses wherein the heat-blocking cavity includes a first heat-blocking cavity provided between the first flow paths and the second flow paths, and a second heat-blocking cavity which is provided between the second flow paths and connected to the first heat-blocking cavity [0027].
Regarding claim 6, Saito discloses wherein the heat-blocking cavity includes a first heat-blocking cavity provided between the first flow paths and the second flow paths, a second heat-blocking cavity provided between the first flow paths and connected to the first heat-blocking cavity [0027], but does not explicitly disclose third heat-blocking cavity provided between the second flow paths and connected to the first heat-blocking cavity. However, MPEP 2144.04 states In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a second heat-blocking cavity which is provided between the first flow paths and connected to the first heat-blocking cavity since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated disclose third heat-blocking cavity provided between the second flow paths and connected to the first heat-blocking cavity since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Saito teaches wherein an inside of the heat-blocking cavity is filled with a heat insulating material [0027].
Regarding claim 9, Saito discloses wherein the base member further includes a heat-blocking heater provided between the first flow path and the second flow path [0040].
Regarding claim 10, Saito discloses wherein the base member further includes: a heat-blocking cavity provided between the first flow path and the second flow path; and a heat-blocking heater provided between the first flow path and the second flow path [0040].
Claim(s) 8, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0111057 A1) in view of Saito (US 2020/0251315 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Miwa (JP2015035447).
Regarding claim 8, Saito teaches wherein an upper or lower surface of the heat-blocking cavity is coated with yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) or coupled to an YSZ plate or is coated with Al2TiO5 or coupled to an Al2TiO5 plate. Analogous electrostatic chuck, Miwa discloses insulator layers use alumina yttiria (ytitrium oxide) (pg.2 last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated alumina yttira since it has been held to be within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in to art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claims 11-12, Saito doesn’t explicitly disclose a bonding layer. However, analogous art, Miwa discloses a bonding layer interposed between the base member and the support member (pg.3 paragraph 4); the bonding layer includes a silicone polymer-based material or a metal-based material (pg.3 paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated bonding layer since it has been held to be within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in to art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 14, Miwa discloses wherein the bonding layer includes at least one of a ceramic filler and a metal filler (pg. 3 paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0111057 A1) in view of Saito (US 2020/0251315 A1) and further in view of Miwa (JP2015035447), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Kibe (JP2021141228 A).
Regarding claim 13, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the bonding layer includes at least one of one-component silicone, two-component silicone, one-component epoxy, two-component epoxy, and polyurethane having a thermal conductivity of 0.3 W/mK to 3 W/mK. One ordinary skilled in the art would look to conventional art to determine the standard conductivity layer of polymer based material. Analogous art, Kibe, discloses a range of 0.1 to 2.0 W / mK (pg. 4 paragraph 15) which overlaps with applicant’s range of 0.3 W/mK to 3 W/mK. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range of 0.3 W/mK to 3 W/mK since it is within skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0111057 A1) in view of Saito (US 2020/0251315 A1) and further in view of Miwa (JP2015035447), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Parkhe (US2008/0089001 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Miwa doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein the bonding layer includes a metalized brazing layer, an active metal brazing layer, a diffusion bonding layer, a friction welding layer, or a laser welding layer between the base member and the support member. However, analogous electrostatic chuck art, Parkhe, discloses using diffusion bond layers to bond the bonding layer [0030]. Further, It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Therefore it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the bonding layer to include a diffusion bonding layer since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights