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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in claim format and contains legal phraseology, e.g. “comprises”.. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Narendrnath (USP 6,581,275).
Regarding claim 1, Narendrnath discloses a substrate support, comprising: a support body (100) configured to support an object thereon, the object including a substrate (55), the support body comprising a dielectric portion (115) and a bias electrode (110) disposed in the dielectric portion (figure 1), the dielectric portion including an upper surface (U: see below) including a support surface facing the object (55) and a lower surface (L) opposite the upper surface, and the support body providing a first through-hole (155) penetrating from the upper surface to the lower surface (figure 1); a base (105) providing a second through-hole (160) communicating with the
first through-hole (155) and configured to support the support body thereon (figure 1 and col. 3, lines 39-58); and a ceramic member (200) that has permeability allowing a heat-transfer gas to pass therethrough and is filled in an upper end of the first through- hole (155) (figure 1), the ceramic member being positioned to set a distance between a
lower end thereof (B) and the bias electrode (C) to be smaller than a distance between an upper end thereof (A) and the bias electrode (C), in a direction in which a central axis of the first through-hole extends (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (L)][AltContent: textbox (U)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
462
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (c)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
182
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 , Narendrnath discloses wherein the lower end of the ceramic member (B)is positioned above the bias electrode (110) (see figure above).
Regarding claim 4, Narendrnath discloses wherein the ceramic member (200) is a porous member (having porous material 206) or a multi-tube member that provides
a plurality of through-holes penetrating from the upper end thereof to the lower end thereof (figures 6A/B and col. 6, lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 6, Narendrnath discloses wherein the ceramic member (200) is made of aluminum oxide or silicon carbide (col. 5, lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 13, Narendrnath discloses wherein the bias electrode (110) is a first electrode, and the support body further includes a second electrode (110) that is an electrostatic electrode disposed in the dielectric portion (figures 1 and 4A-4D).
Regarding claim 15, Narendrnath discloses a plasma processing chamber (50); and the substrate support according to Claim 1, which is disposed in the plasma processing chamber (figure 1 and col. 2, lines 39-59).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendrnath (USP 6,581,275).
Narendrnath discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the above rejection except for the lower end of the ceramic member is positioned at a distance of 0.1 mm or more from the bias electrode in the direction in which the central axis of the first through-hole extends nor the porous ceramic member having a ratio of a volume of all pores to a volume of the porous member is 40% or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose a desired location for the ceramic member and porous volume depending on the type of substrate being held, size of support body, size of through home etc, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose a desired location for the ceramic member and porous volume depending on the type of substrate being held, size of support body, size of through home etc
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 14 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 SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 9/29/30
Prosecution Insights