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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 20 “exhaust plenum” and “plurality of apertures” (defined by inner surface of pumping liner) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: transfer apparatus in claims 6 and 17 which has been interpreted as a central hub and end effector and equivalents thereto as described in the specification, e.g., at para. 35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence. Examiner is unable to find an embodiment or teaching with original support including a combination wherein “each liner is seated atop a respective recessed ledge of the first lid plate”, “the pumping liner is seated atop the second surface of the first lid plate”, and “each face plate of the plurality of faceplates seated on the first lid plate overlying an aperture of the plurality of apertures of the first lid plate” as recited in claim 20 and “a plurality of blocker plates, each blocker plate seated on a faceplate of the plurality of faceplates” as recited in claim 23. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written.
Note: Examiner’s claim interpretation(s) is for expediting examination, and based on their best understanding of the claim language and the disclosure, in light of the deficiencies addressed under this statute. It is neither an admission nor a suggestion that support exists or that Applicant should unquestioningly support or incorporate the interpretation without confirming that proper support exists. It is Applicant’s responsibility to confirm or correct in accordance with the original disclosure and their desired claimed invention.
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.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is not clear how each of the following claim limitations can be incorporated in a single embodiment: “each liner is seated atop a respective recessed ledge of the first lid plate”, “the pumping liner is seated atop the second surface of the first lid plate”, and “each face plate of the plurality of faceplates seated on the first lid plate overlying an aperture of the plurality of apertures of the first lid plate” as recited in claim 20 and “a plurality of blocker plates, each blocker plate seated on a faceplate of the plurality of faceplates” as recited in claim 23. See above for claim interpretation.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 13-15 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0234989 to Jeong (2) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0033674 to Jeong et al. (1) and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0126840 to Roh et al.
Regarding claims 1, 13: In Figs. 1-6, e.g., Jeong (2) discloses a substrate processing system substantially as claimed and comprising: a chamber body (100) defining a transfer region (e.g., lower volume of 100 in Fig. 6); a first lid plate (TLD) releasably provided (by nature of its being disclosed as a lid) on the chamber body along a first surface of the first lid plate, wherein the first lid plate defines a plurality of apertures (e.g., corresponding to each FCR) through the first lid plate equal to a number of a plurality of substrate supports, and wherein each aperture of the plurality of apertures has a diameter greater than a diameter of an associated substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports, each aperture of the plurality of apertures is laterally offset from one another, the first lid plate further defines a plurality of recessed ledges (see, e.g., esp. Fig. 4), with a recessed ledge of the plurality of recessed ledges being disposed about each aperture of the plurality of apertures in a second surface of the first lid plate opposite the first surface of the first lid plate; a plurality of lid stacks (e.g., corresponding to faceplate and pumping liner, see annotated figured below) equal to a number of apertures of the plurality of apertures, each lid stack of the plurality of lid stacks seated on the first lid plate overlaying an aperture of the plurality of apertures of the first lid plate on a separate recessed ledge of the plurality of recessed ledges defined in the second surface of the first lid plate, wherein the plurality of lid stacks at least partially define a plurality of processing regions (51) vertically offset from the transfer region, wherein each lid stack of the plurality of lid stacks comprises a pumping liner (see annotated figured below) defining an exhaust plenum (55) positioned along the recessed ledge of an associated aperture through the first lid plate; a second lid plate (110) releasably provided (by nature of its being disclosed as a lid) with at least a portion of the lid stacks, wherein the plurality of lid stacks are positioned between the first lid plate and the second lid plate, vertically separating the first lid plate and the second lid plate; and the plurality of substrate supports (150) disposed/distributed about the transfer region, each substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is disposed within a respective aperture of the plurality of apertures of the first lid plate, wherein each substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is axially aligned with a respective one of the plurality of apertures defined through the first lid plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeong (2) fails to explicitly discuss or disclose the first lid plate is monolithic and releasably seated on the chamber body or the second lid plate is releasably coupled with at least a portion of the plurality of lid stacks, wherein “releasably seated on the chamber body” has been interpreted as at least inclusive of the first lid plate and the chamber body being separable from one another; and “releasably coupled with at least a portion of the plurality of lid stacks” has been interpreted as at least inclusive of the second lid plate and a corresponding lid stack may be releasably coupled to/from one another AND/OR the second lid plate and a respective lid stack may be releasably coupled and uncoupled together to/from other structural features.
Examiner introduces Jeong et al. (1), which has been previously relied upon.
Both Jeong (2) and Jeong et al. (1) show what appears to be a monolithic plate as a first lid plate (lid plate closest to chamber body) placed on a chamber body and a second lid plate (uppermost lid plate), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common to have provided either of these lid plates as a monolithic plate. See, e.g., Fig. 6.
Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that use of a one-piece construction instead of a structure disclose in the prior art having multiple pieces would be merely a matter of obvious design choice, see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Jeong et al. (1) teach providing a lid plate (120) releasably seated (i.e. liftable) on a chamber body (100) (see, e.g., Fig. 3) and another lid plate (110) releasably coupled (i.e. liftable) with respect to at least a portion of lid stacks (115) (see, e.g., Fig. 2). Additionally, and in particular, Jeong et al. (1) teach the lid plates may be provided as such to allow for more streamlined maintenance and repair operations (also see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-6 and 8-10, and paras. 46-92). Additionally, it is noted that other releasably attachable components may also be provided (see, e.g. and esp., para. 71)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was made to have provided in Jeong (2) a monolithic first lid plate releasably seated on the chamber body and/or the second lid plate is releasably coupled with at least a portion of the plurality of lid stacks in order to facilitate more streamlined maintenance and repair of the apparatus as made at least obvious by Jeong (2) and Jeong et al. (1).
Jeong (2) disclose the system further comprising a plurality of liners (FCR), each liner of the plurality of liners defining a central aperture and being seated within a respective recessed ledge of the plurality of recessed ledges
Jeong et al. (1) also explicitly disclose and discuss a transfer region (i.e., a chamber body defining a transfer region), wherein the plurality of processing regions are vertically offset from the transfer region and the plurality of substrate supports are disposed about the transfer region for the purpose of loading and unloading substrates to the system. See, e.g., paras. 80-82.
Modified Jeong (2) fail to explicitly discuss and disclose each substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports vertically translatable along a central axis of the substrate support between a lower first position and a raised second position in which a portion of the substrate support is disposed within a respective aperture of a plurality of apertures.
Roh et al. disclose a similar system wherein each substrate support of a plurality of substrate supports is vertically translatable along a central axis of the substrate support between a lower first position and a raised second position in which a portion of the substrate support is disposed within a respective aperture of a plurality of apertures in a first lid plate (see, e.g., Fig. 8, 16) for the purpose of loading the same to and from the plurality of processing regions after insertion into the system. Also see, e.g., paras. 94-96.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Jeong (2) each substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports vertically translatable along a central axis of the substrate support between a lower first position and a raised second position in which a portion of the substrate support is disposed within a respective aperture of a plurality of apertures in order to load the same to and from the plurality of processing regions after insertion into the system as taught by Roh et al.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong (2) disclose each substrate 2support of the plurality of substrate supports is aligned with a lid stack of the plurality of lid 3stacks and each processing 2region of the plurality of processing regions is defined from below by an associated substrate 3support in the second position. See, e.g., aforementioned figures and accompanying text.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Jeong (2), Roh et al. explicitly disclose and discuss, depending on the position of the substrate support11, each processing 2region of the plurality of processing regions is fluidly coupled with the transfer region and 3fluidly isolated from above from each other processing region of the plurality of processing regions.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong et al. (1) disclose the system including a transfer apparatus (rotation arm) positioned within a transfer region and rotatable about a central axis/portion, wherein the transfer apparatus is configured to engage substrates 3and transfer substrates among a plurality of substrate supports within the transfer region for the purpose of transferring substrates in and out of the substrate processing system and between the plurality of substrate supports (see, e.g., paras. 76-82).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong (2) disclose, the second lid plate defines a plurality of apertures through the second lid plate, each aperture of the plurality of apertures accessing a lid stack of the plurality of lid stacks (via faceplate/showerhead assembly). See, e.g., aforementioned figures and accompanying text.
With respect to claim 8, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 10, in modified Jeong (2), each lid stack further includes a faceplate seated on the pumping liner and at least partially defining an associated processing region from above. See, e.g., annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong (2) disclose the plurality of lid stacks at least partially define a plurality of processing regions vertically offset from the transfer region. See above descriptions of the prior art which address this feature.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong (2) each lid stack further includes a faceplate seated on the pumping liner and at least partially defining an associated processing region from above. See, e.g., annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong et al. (1) disclose the system including a transfer apparatus (rotation arm) positioned within the transfer region and rotatable about a central axis/portion, wherein the transfer apparatus is configured to engage substrates 3and transfer substrates among a plurality of substrate supports within the transfer region for the purpose of transferring substrates in and out of the substrate processing system and between the plurality of substrate supports (see, e.g., paras. 76-82).
With respect to claim 18, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong (2) disclose, the second lid plate defines a plurality of apertures through the second lid plate, each aperture of the plurality of apertures accessing a lid stack of the plurality of lid stacks (via faceplate/showerhead assembly), wherein depending how the axis is selected, which may be arbitrary, the aperture of the plurality of apertures and a substrate support of the plurality of supports may be considered axially aligned. See, e.g., aforementioned figures and accompanying text.
With respect to claim 19, which is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claims 21 and 22, in modified Jeong (2), Jeong (2) disclose the system further comprising a plurality of liners (FCR), each liner of the plurality of liners defining a central aperture and being seated within a respective recessed ledge of the plurality of recessed ledges, wherein the portion of the substrate support is disposed within the central aperture of a respective one of the plurality of liners.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20: Jeong (2) discloses a substrate processing system substantially as claimed and comprising a chamber body (100) defining a transfer region (e.g., lower volume of 100 in Fig. 6); a first lid plate (TLD) seated on the chamber body along a first surface of the first lid plate, wherein the first lid plate defines a plurality of apertures (e.g., corresponding to each FCR) through the first lid plate, wherein the first lid plate further defines a plurality of recessed ledges (see, e.g., esp. Fig. 4), with a recessed ledge of the plurality of recessed ledges being disposed about each aperture of the plurality of apertures in a second surface of the first lid plate opposite the first surface of the first lid plate; a plurality of pumping liners (see annotated figure above), each of the plurality of pumping liners defining an exhaust plenum (55) positioned along the recessed ledge of an associated aperture through the first lid plate; a plurality of faceplates (see annotated figured above), each faceplate of the plurality of faceplates, seated on the first lid plate (via the pumping liner) overlying an aperture of the plurality of apertures, wherein the plurality of faceplates at least partially define a plurality of processing regions vertically offset from the transfer region; a second lid plate (110) releasably provided (by nature of its being disclosed as a lid), wherein the plurality of faceplates are positioned between the first lid plate and the second lid plate, vertically separating the first lid plate and the second lid plate, and wherein at least one structural support (e.g., 13, 14 and 17) extends between the first lid plate and the second lid plate about the plurality of faceplates; and a plurality of substrate supports (150) disposed about the transfer region, each substrate support within a respective aperture of the plurality of apertures of the first lid plate. Also see, e.g., paras. 74-82.
However, Jeong (2) fails to explicitly discuss or disclose the second lid plate is releasably coupled with the plurality of faceplates, wherein “releasably coupled with the plurality faceplates” has been interpreted as at least inclusive of the second lid plate and the plurality of faceplates may be releasably coupled to/from one another AND/OR the second lid plate and the plurality of faceplates may be releasably coupled and uncoupled together to/from other structural features.
Examiner introduces Jeong et al. (1), which has been previously relied upon.
Jeong et al. (1) teach providing a lid plate (120) releasably coupled (i.e. lifted) on a chamber body and another lid plate (110) releasably coupled (i.e. lifted) with respect to at least a portion of the plurality of lid stacks, additionally, in particular Jeong et al. (1) teach an upper most lid plate like 110 (and the claimed second lid plate) may be releasably coupled with a plurality of processing units (including a showerhead assembly commensurate to the faceplate 115) (see, e.g., Fig. 2) to allow for more streamlined maintenance and repair operations (also see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-6 and 8-10, and paras. 46-92). Additionally, it is noted that other releasably attachable components may also be provided (see, e.g. and esp., para. 71)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was made to have provided in Jeong (2) the second lid plate is releasably coupled with the plurality of faceplates in order to facilitate more streamlined maintenance and repair of the apparatus as made obvious and taught by Jeong (2) and Jeong et al. (1).
Jeong et al. (1) also explicitly disclose and discuss a transfer region (i.e., a chamber body defining a transfer region), wherein the plurality of processing regions are vertically offset from the transfer region and the plurality of substrate supports are disposed about the transfer region for the purpose of loading and unloading substrates to the system. See, e.g., paras. 80-82.
Modified Jeong (2) fail to explicitly discuss and disclose each substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports vertically translatable along a central axis of the substrate support between a lower first position and a raised second position in which a portion of the substrate support is disposed within a respective aperture of a plurality of apertures.
Roh et al. disclose a similar system wherein each substrate support of a plurality of substrate supports is vertically translatable along a central axis of the substrate support between a lower first position and a raised second position in which a portion of the substrate support is disposed within a respective aperture of a plurality of apertures in a first lid plate (see, e.g., Fig. 8, 16) for the purpose of loading the same to and from the plurality of processing regions after insertion into the system. Also see, e.g., paras. 94-96.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Jeong (2) each substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports vertically translatable along a central axis of the substrate support between a lower first position and a raised second position in which a portion of the substrate support is disposed within a respective aperture of a plurality of apertures in order to load the same to and from the plurality of processing regions after insertion into the system as taught by Roh et al.
Claims 11-12 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jeong (2) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 13-15 and 17-22 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0000422 to Park et al.
Modified Jeong (2) discloses the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
With respect to claims 11 and 23, modified Jeong (2) fail to disclose each lid stack further comprises a blocker plate seated on the faceplate.
Park et al. teach providing a lid stack having gas introducing means including a faceplate/showerhead and a blocker plate for the purpose of introducing process gases into a processing space (see, e.g., para. 40 and Fig. 6, annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the lid stack having gas introducing means including a faceplate/showerhead and a blocker plate seated thereon in order to introduce process gases into the processing space as taught by Park et al.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Jeong (2), Roh et al. teach that a faceplate heater may be provided for gas introducing means for the purpose maintaining the same at a high temperature (see, e.g., para. 4). However, Roh et al. fail to teach the exact location or shape of the heater. Nevertheless, the courts have ruled that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); and the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Further still due to the annular and circular shape of features of the gas introducing means, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to select an annular shape to compliment the other features of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, with respect to claims 1-23 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The previously applied rejections under 35 USC 112 and based on prior art have been withdrawn. However, new rejections have been applied to claims 20-23 under 35 USC 112. See above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the exact relative configuration and location of the claimed chamber body, first lid plate, second lid plate, pumping liner and liner as now specifically set forth in claims 1 and 13 in the context set forth by the overall claimed invention having the plurality of claimed substrate supports and corresponding apertures for processing a plurality of substrates in a plurality of separate processing regions. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0208217 to Shinriki et al. discloses system with a processing region similar to the ones claimed. USP 6,899,786 disclose a system with a multi-lid structure. U.S. Patent Pubs. 20080178797; 20100279008; 20140367359; 20160237559; 11515176 disclose similar pumping liners and liners/thermal choke plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716