Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herzog (7,661,544). Herzog discloses a substrate support apparatus (50; Fig. 3) comprising a lower support (14) having a plate shape and having a first axis as a central axis (13) extending in a vertical direction perpendicular to a horizontal plane of the lower support, an upper support (16) on the lower support, and a connector (52a, 52b) connecting the lower support to the upper support. The connector comprises a connection pillar (52) extending parallel to the first axis and at least one substrate support (59) connected to the connection pillar and extending from the connection pillar toward the first axis. Herzog further discloses an upper surface of the at least one substrate support includes a first upper surface (62) connected to the connection pillar and a second upper surface (66) positioned at a vertical level lower than a vertical level of the first upper surface, and a first distance between the first upper surface and the first axis is larger than a second distance between the second upper surface and the first axis.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asari et al. (8,940,096; hereinafter Asari).
As to claim 1, Asari discloses a substrate support apparatus (10; Figs. 3-7) comprising a lower support (34) having a plate shape and having a first axis as a central axis (Fig. 6A) extending in a vertical direction perpendicular to a horizontal plane of the lower support, an upper support (35) on the lower support, and a connector (31a, 31b) connecting the lower support to the upper support. The connector comprises a connection pillar (31a, 31b) extending parallel to the first axis and at least one substrate support (32) connected to the connection pillar and extending from the connection pillar toward the first axis. Asari further discloses an upper surface of the at least one substrate support includes a first upper surface (33a; Fig. 3) connected to the connection pillar and a second upper surface (32a; Fig. 3) positioned at a vertical level lower than a vertical level of the first upper surface, and a first distance between the first upper surface and the first axis is larger than a second distance between the second upper surface and the first axis.
As to claim 8, Asari further discloses the connection pillar includes a second groove (37; Fig. 3) recessed from an inner surface of the connection pillar toward an outer surface of the connection pillar.
As to claim 10, Asari discloses the at least one substrate support includes a plurality of substrate supports (32) and each of the plurality of substrate supports includes a first substrate support (33a) and a second substrate support (32a) on the first substrate support, and the second groove (37; Fig. 3) is at a vertical level between the first substrate support and the second substrate support.
As to claim 19, Asari discloses a substrate support apparatus (10; Figs. 3-7) comprising a lower support (34) having a plate shape and having a first axis as a central axis (Fig. 6A) extending in a vertical direction perpendicular to a horizontal plane of the lower support, an upper support (35) on the lower support, and a connector (31a, 31b) connecting the lower support to the upper support. The connector comprises a connection pillar (31a, 31b) extending parallel to the first axis and at least one substrate support (32) connected to the connection pillar and extending from the connection pillar toward the first axis, and the connection pillar includes a groove (37; Fig. 3) recessed from an inner surface of the connection pillar toward an outer surface of the connection pillar.
As to claim 20, Asari discloses the at least one substrate support includes a plurality of substrate supports (32) and each of the plurality of substrate supports includes a first substrate support (33a) and a second substrate support (32a) on the first substrate support, and the groove (37; Fig. 3) is at a vertical level between the first substrate support and the second substrate support.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 11-14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog or Asari in view of Cotutsca (6,059,123).
As to claim 2, Herzog or Asari discloses the vertical level of the second upper surface is lower than the vertical level of the first upper surface. However, Herzog or Asari fails to disclose the vertical level of the second upper surface is about 0.1 mm to 0.7 mm lower than the vertical level of the first upper surface as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support apparatus of Herzog or Asari so the substrate support apparatus is constructed with the vertical level of the second upper surface is about 0.1 mm to 0.7 mm lower than the vertical level of the first upper surface as claimed because the selection of the specific height for each of first and second upper surfaces would appear to have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon conventional design considerations, such as for better supporting at least one article.
As to claim 9, Asari discloses the second groove as above. However, Asari fails to disclose the second groove has a depth of about 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support apparatus of Asari so the substrate support apparatus is constructed with the second groove has a depth of about 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm as claimed because the selection of the specific depth for the second groove would appear to have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon conventional design considerations, such as for better protecting and supporting an annular article.
As to claim 11, Herzog or Asari further fails to disclose the substrate support includes one of silicon (Si), silicon nitride (SiN), and silicon phosphide (SiP) as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support apparatus of Herzog or Asari so the substrate support apparatus is constructed with the substrate support comprises one of silicon (Si), silicon nitride (SiN), and silicon phosphide (SiP) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 12, Herzog or Asari discloses the substrate support apparatus as above comprises the lower support, the upper support, the connector includes the connection pillar and the at least one substrate support and other claimed limitations as claimed. However, Herzog or Asari fails to show each of the at least one substrate support includes at least one first groove recessed from a lower surface of the at least one substrate support toward an upper surface of the at least one substrate support. Cotutsca shows a support apparatus (10) for at least one article (20-26) comprising at least one article support (11, 16, 17; Figs. 1-5) and each of the at least one article support includes at least one first groove recessed (13) from a lower surface of the at least one substrate support toward an upper surface of the at least one substrate support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Cotutsca to modify the substrate support apparatus of Herzog or Asari so the substrate support apparatus is constructed with each of the at least one substrate support includes at least one first groove recessed from a lower surface of the at least one substrate support toward an upper surface of the at least one substrate support for supporting various sizes articles and/or to reduce the material and the cost of manufacture.
As to claims 13 and 14, see Fig. 3 or 4 of Cotutsca.
As to claim 17, Asari discloses the connection pillar comprises the second groove recessed as above.
As to claim 18, see Fig. 3 of Asari.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 15-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights