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 § 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 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of thermocouples" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiers (US2023/0041558 A1) in view of Nonaka (US2014/0311728A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leiers discloses apparatus (1), comprising: a susceptor (2) comprising: a body comprising a first surface (top portion), a second opposing surface (bottom portion), and an outer edge (5); and a pedestal (10) coupled to the second surface of the body;
Leiers does not explicitly disclose a sensing system coupled to the susceptor and configured to generate a sensor output signal; and a controller connected to the sensing system and configured to detect a flow pattern on the susceptor based on the sensor output signal. However, analogous art, Nonaka, discloses disclose a sensing system (354) coupled to the susceptor and configured to generate a sensor output signal (see figure 3); and a controller (140) connected to the sensing system and configured to detect a flow pattern on the susceptor based on the sensor output signal [0064-0065, 0083]. 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 incorporate a sensing system coupled to the susceptor and configured to generate a sensor output signal; and a controller connected to the sensing system and configured to detect a flow pattern on the susceptor based on the sensor output signal, as taught by Nonaka, into the apparatus taught by Leiers for the benefit of accommodating a temperature increase caused by heat applied from plasma is controlled, and it is possible to control a temperature in the surfaces of a central portion and a peripheral portion of the mounting table [0009].
Regarding claim 2, Leiers teach wherein the sensing system to comprises a plurality of thermocouples embedded within the first surface of the body (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Leiers and Nonaka do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of thermocouples are disposed adjacent to the outer edge of the body and arranged in a circular pattern. However, Liers depicts the susceptor as circular in figure 2 and Nonaka depicts the thermocouples on the outer edge in figure 3. 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 the plurality of thermocouples are disposed adjacent the outer edge of the body and arranged in a circular pattern since MPEP 2144.04 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 4, Nonaka depicts the adjacent thermocouples from the plurality of thermocouples are spaced at equal distances from each other (figure 3 354 the first three sensors are equally distant apart). Further if Applicant does not agree, it would be within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art for the sensors to be equally distant in order to ensure no area gets more heat than another.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiers (US2023/0041558 A1) in view of Nonaka (US2014/0311728A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Taylor (US2026/0005054 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Leiers does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensing system comprises a hot-wire anemometer. However, analogous art, Taylor, discloses using hot wire anemometer [0042]. 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 hot wire anemometer since they are available in small form factors [0188].
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiers (US2023/0041558 A1) in view of Nonaka (US2014/0311728A1) and in view of Taylor (US2026/0005054 A1), as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Naik et al (US2022/0301906 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Leirs does not explicitly disclose wherein the hot-wire anemometer comprises a single, continuous wire loop coupled to the body of the susceptor with a fastener. Taylor discloses a wire loop [0188] but does not explicitly disclose fastener. Analogous art, Naik et al discloses attaching sensors to susceptors using fasteners made out of clamping screws [0061-0062]. 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 fastener that is non-conductive since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination of Liers does not explicitly disclose wherein the fasteners are coupled to the first surface or the outer edge of the body of the susceptor. However, MPEP 2144.04 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art to have the fasteners coupled to either the first surface or the outer edges since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US2014/0311728A1) in view of Taylor (US2026/0005054 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nonaka et al discloses a method for detecting alignment of a susceptor [0011], comprising: sensing, with a sensing system coupled to the susceptor [0011], but does not explicitly disclose air flow across the sensing system and the susceptor; generating a plurality of sensor output signals indicating the air flow; and determining an air flow pattern across the susceptor based on the sensor output signals. However, analogous art, Taylor, discloses using airflow sensors [0185] and determining an air flow patter across the susceptor based on the signal [0185]. 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 air flow across the sensing system and the susceptor; generating a plurality of sensor output signals indicating the air flow; and determining an air flow pattern across the susceptor based on the sensor output signals, as taught by Taylor, into the method taught by Nonaka et al in order to ensure the desired humidity or temperature level.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US2014/0311728A1) in view of Taylor (US2026/0005054 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Leiers (US2023/0041558 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nonaka et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensing system comprises a plurality of thermocouples embedded within a top surface of the susceptor. However, analogous art, Leiers teach wherein the sensing system to comprises a plurality of thermocouples embedded within the first surface of the body (see figure 3) for the benefit of providing direct feedback of the temperature conditions [0065]. 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 plurality of thermocouples embedded within a top surface of the susceptor, as taught by Leirs into the method taught by Nonaka et al for the benefit of providing direct feedback of the temperature conditions.
Regarding claim 12, Nonaka and Leiers do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of thermocouples are disposed adjacent the outer edge of the body and arranged in a circular pattern. However, Liers depicts the susceptor as circular in figure 2 and Nonaka depicts the thermocouples on the outer edge in figure 3. 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 the plurality of thermocouples are disposed adjacent the outer edge of the body and arranged in a circular pattern since MPEP 2144.04 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. Nonaka depicts the adjacent thermocouples from the plurality of thermocouples are spaced at equal distances from each other (figure 3 354 the first three sensors are equally distant apart). Further if Applicant does not agree, it would be within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art for the sensors to be equally distant in order to ensure no area gets more heat than another.
Regarding claim 13, Taylor teaches wherein each sensor output signal the plurality of sensor output signals indicates a temperature for a respective thermocouple, and determining the air flow pattern comprises comparing the plurality of output signals to each other and utilizing the compared output signals to identify the largest temperature and the smallest temperature [0185].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US2014/0311728A1) in view of Taylor (US2026/0005054 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Naik et al (US2022/0301906 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Taylor discloses using hot wire anemometer but does not explicitly disclose the anemometer is coupled to the susceptor with a non-conductive fastener. Analogous art, Naik et al discloses attaching sensors to susceptors using fasteners made out of clamping screws [0061-0062]. 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 fastener that is non-conductive since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Taylore teaches wherein each sensor output signal the plurality of sensor output signals indicates a change in resistance, and determining the air flow pattern comprises comparing the plurality of output signals to each other and utilizing the compared output signals to identify the largest change in resistance and the smallest change in resistance [0188].
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