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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuno et al. U.S. Patent Application 2018/0315634 (hereinafter “Tsuno”) and further in view of Hamada et al. U.S. Patent Application 2003/0087751 (hereinafter “Hamada”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuno teaches a ceramic substrate (refer to insulating plate 10)(fig.10) comprising: a first phase made of alumina (refer to [0012] and [0050]-[0052]); and a second phase made of yttrium aluminum garnet containing a second material (refer to [0012] and [0050]-[0052]); however, Tsuno does not teach the second material being silicon. However, Hamada teaches the second material being silicon (refer to Abstract, [0019] and [0023]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic substrate of Tsuno to include the silicon of Hamada to provide the advantage of providing a lower cost substrate with high corrosion resistance and low dielectric loss over an operating frequency.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuno and Hamada teach the ceramic substrate according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of silicon is 0.10 mass% or more and 0.50 mass% or less (refer to Hamada Abstract, [0019] and [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuno and Hamada teach the ceramic substrate according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of the first phase is greater than a proportion of the second phase (refer to Hamada Abstract, [0019] and [0023])(refer also to Tsuno [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuno and Hamada teach the ceramic substrate according to claim 1, wherein, in a cross-section, a total area of the first phase is 1.2 times or greater and 1.8 times or less a total area of the second phase (refer to Hamada Abstract and [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuno and Hamada teach an electrostatic chuck (i.e. Tsuno electrostatic chuck 5)(fig.2) comprising: the ceramic substrate according to claim 1 (refer to Tsuno insulating plate 10)(fig.2)(refer also to the rejection of claim 1 above); and an electrode (i.e. Tsuno electrodes 11 and 12)(fig.2) embedded in the ceramic substrate (refer to Tsuno [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuno and Hamada teach the electrostatic chuck according to claim 5, wherein a proportion of the first phase is greater than a proportion of the second phase (refer to Hamada Abstract, [0019] and [0023])(refer also to Tsuno [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuno and Hamada teach the electrostatic chuck according to claim 5, wherein, in a cross-section, a total area of the first phase is 1.2 times or greater and 1.8 times or less a total area of the second phase (refer to Hamada Abstract and [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuno and Hamada teach a substrate fixing device (i.e. Tsuno substrate fixing device 3)(fig.2) comprising: a base plate (i.e. Tsuno base plate 4)(fig.2); and the electrostatic chuck according to claim 5 (refer to Tsuno electrostatic chuck 5)(fig.2)(refer also to the rejection of claim 5 above) fixed on the base plate (refer to Tsuno [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuno and Hamada teach the substrate fixing device according to claim 8, wherein a proportion of the first phase is greater than a proportion of the second phase (refer to Hamada Abstract, [0019] and [0023])(refer also to Tsuno [0056]).
Regarding clam 10, Tsuno and Hamada teach the substrate fixing device according to claim 8, wherein, in a cross-section, a total area of the first phase is 1.2 times or greater and 1.8 times or less a total area of the second phase (refer to Hamada Abstract and [0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights