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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,249,501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding independent claim 1, US 12,249,501 teaches in independent claim 1,
a method of providing a stable connector… (identical to the US(‘501)), forming a dome-shaped electrode connector inside of a ceramic material (identical to US(‘501); removing a portion of the dome-shaped electrode connector to flatten… (Obvious Variation: "Drilling out" is a standard, ubiquitous engineering method of material removal. Specifying how you remove it (drilling) is an obvious variation of the broader "removing a portion" step), bonding a rod to a remaining part...(obvious linguistic difference).
Claim 2 of the instant application and US(‘501) are the same verbatim.
Claim 3 of the instant application and US(‘501) are the same verbatim.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitations were taught/implied in claim 1 of US (‘501).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations were taught/implied in claim 3 of US (‘501).
Regarding independent claim 10, US 12,249,501 teaches in independent claim 4, a substrate processing apparatus with a stable electrode connecting space for connecting an electrode and a rod (identical structure and purpose. Width of electrode connector > diameter of the rod), the apparatus comprising: a chamber defined by a wall surrounding the chamber; and a susceptor configured to support a substrate (adding a standard showerhead to a semiconductor chamber is typically considered an obvious design choice unless it creates an unexpected result), the susceptor comprising a radio frequency (RF) mesh (changing from a single mesh to multiple meshes is a common structural variation), one or more heating elements ("One or more" already encompasses a plurality. This is a scope overlap rather than a patentable distinction), one or more rods, and an electrode connector, wherein a rod of the one or more rods is connected to the electrode connector and the width of the electrode connector is larger than the diameter of the rod.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claim 5 of US(‘501) teaches the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, claim 7 of US(‘501) teaches the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, claim 4 of US(‘501) teaches the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, claim 4 of US(‘501) teaches the claimed limitations (a plurality of heating elements).
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,249,501 in view of Lin et al. (US 10,692,703).
Regarding dependent claim 4, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,249,501 teaches all of the limitations except for the removing step comprises surface machining.
Throughout the text, Lin et al. (‘703) teaches a substrate support assembly utilized inside a plasma processing/deposition chamber comprised of, in part, fabrication steps that cover surface preparation and machining of the involved component connections for the purpose of ensuring proper alignment and low-impedance contact within the multi-material (ceramic/metal) substrate support stack.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the surface machining of Lin in the manufacturing of the connector in U.S. Patent No. 12,249,501 for the purpose of ensuring proper alignment and low-impedance contact within the multi-material (ceramic/metal) substrate support stack.
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 8, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,249,501 teaches all of the limitations except for the bonding comprises brazing and a gold filler.
Throughout the text, Lin et al. (‘703) teaches a substrate support assembly utilized inside a plasma processing/deposition chamber comprised of, in part, It specifically details connecting a rod (such as an electrode rod or a rod disposed within the stem) to a conductive stub or electrode using a brazing material. It explicitly mentions that an Au alloy (gold-based brazing filler) is preferred for high-temperature operations (e.g., between 350°C and 700°C) for the purpose of ensuring proper alignment and low-impedance contact within the multi-material (ceramic/metal) substrate support stack.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the brazing and gold filler of Lin in the manufacturing of the connector in U.S. Patent No. 12,249,501 for the purpose of ensuring proper alignment and low-impedance contact within the multi-material (ceramic/metal) substrate support stack.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM- 5:00 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, JAMES R. GREECE can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights