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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 30,31 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 30, lines 1 and 2, “wherein said stop comprises a faceted contact surface having” should be changed to “wherein the non-planar surface of the stop is a faceted contact surface having” to make it clear that a claim is referencing the non-planar surface of the stop, and not a separate contact surface.
Likewise in claim 31 the portion of the claim reading “wherein the contact surface of said stop and said protrusion” should be changed to “wherein the non-planar surface of said stop is a contact surface, said contact surface of said stop and said protrusion”.
Likewise in claim 34, lines 1 and 2, “further comprising alignment protrusions disposed on said fingers” should be changed to “wherein said protrusions are alignment protrusions disposed on said fingers” to make it clear that the claim is not referencing additional distinct alignment protrusions in addition to the protrusions already recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1,2,4-8,10,12-15,17,21,30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al(US6182376) in view of Kent(US20110064556).
[claim 1] Shin teaches a lift hoop(29, fig 2), comprising: a frame(29) having a central opening(seen in figure 2); a plurality of wafer support structures(29a-c) disposed on said frame, wherein each of said plurality of wafer support structures includes a base(lower portion 29a-c) which is attached to said frame, and a finger(30) which is attached to said base and which extends linearly from said base in the direction of said central opening(fig 2); and a stop(31) disposed upon said finger and spaced apart from shelf portion(30), said stop having a beveled surface which faces the central opening and which contains a point that forms the shortest distance between said stop and said protrusion. Shin however does not teach a protrusion disposed on the finger, and that the stop comprises a non-planar surface. Kent teaches a wafer support device, which has a wafer support structure(213) with a protrusion(241), and a stop(245) with a non-planar surface(as seen in figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a non-planar contact surface and protrusion as taught by Kent with the lift hoop of Shin, as this could further minimize contact with a supported substrate, which in turn would minimize the chance of contamination or damage.
[claim 2] wherein said fingers extend over said central opening(as seen in figure 2).
[claim 4] wherein the central opening has a circumference(seen in figure 2), and wherein the protrusion and stop are disposed within a right cylinder(imaginary right cylinder aligned with the circumference of the central opening) containing the circumference.
[claim 5] Shin teaches a lift hoop as detailed above, Shin however does not teach that the plurality of wafer support structures are removably attached to the frame. Kent teaches a similar wafer support device as detailed above, with a plurality of wafer support structures(213) which are removably attached to a frame(see fig 6), allowing the wafer support structures to be replaced if desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to removably attach the wafer support structures to the frame, as taught by Kent, as this would allow the wafer support structures to be replaced if desired.
[claim 6] wherein said hoop is equipped with a rim(ring portion of 29) having a planar surface(top surface), and wherein each of said plurality of wafer support structures is removably attached to said planar surface, when arranged as detailed above.
[claim 7] wherein the stop is beveled(see fig 1B)
[claim 8] wherein when arranged as detailed above, said non-planar surface of said stop is a faceted surface(245 of Kent) that includes a first facet(245) which is disposed between second and third facets(facet to either side of 245 in figure 7 of Kent).
[claim 10] wherein said non-planar surface of said stop is rounded or semi-cylindrical(fig 7 of Kent)
[claim 12] wherein each of said fingers has a proximal end portion(at 31) which is attached to said base and a distal end(at 30) which is spaced apart from said proximal end portion, and wherein said protrusion is disposed on said distal end portion when arranged as above.
[claim 13] wherein said protrusion is a hemispherical protrusion(as seen in figure 13 of Kent).
[claim 14] wherein when arranged as detailed above, said stop has a faceted surface.
[claim 15] Shin in view of Kent further teach the combination with the lift hoop as detailed above and a semiconductor processing chamber(11) which is equipped with a heating element(15) and a pedestal(supporting 15), wherein said lift hoop is releasably attached to said heating element.
[claim 17] Shin teaches that the finger is mounted on the base, and that the base(lower portion 29a-c) is integral with the frame(29). Shin does not teach that the base is attached to the frame with threaded fasteners. Kent teaches the use of threaded fasteners(225) to attach the base(231) of the wafer support structures to a frame(211). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use threaded fasteners to mount the base to the frame, as taught by Kent, as this would allow the wafer support structures to be replaced in desired.
[claim 21] Shin in view of Kent teach the lift hoop as detailed above in combination with a semiconductor wafer(25), wherein said lift hoop provides a wafer capture area having a diameter that exceeds the diameter of the wafer by at least 1 mm(see C4 L20-30, fig 1B).
[claim 30] when arranged as above, wherein said stop comprises a faceted contact surface(non-planar surface of Kent) having a first facet(fig 7, facet on front face of 245) disposed between second and third facets(planar facets on either side of 245), wherein said first, second and third facets converge at a point forming the shortest distance to said protrusion, wherein said point is located in a plane tangential to said protrusion.
[claim 31] Shin in view of Kent teaches a lift hoop as detailed above, however neither Shin not Kent give the exact value for the surface roughness of the contact surface of the stop and the protrusion, or that the surface roughness ins between 25 Ra and 35 Ra. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, without undue experimentation, to make the lift hoop such that the contact surface of the stop and the protrusion had any desired surface roughness, such as between 25 Ra and 35 Ra, as a matter of simple design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select the desired surface roughness to provide the desired contact interface.
[claim 32] Shin in view of Kent teaches a lift hoop as detailed above providing a wafer capture area with a diameter larger that the diameter of the supported wafer(see fig 1b). However neither Shin nor Kent teach the specific diameter of the wafer capture area, or that it is at least 304.1 mm and for use with a 300 mm wafer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, without undue experimentation to make the wafer capture area any desired size, such as at least 304.1 mm allowing it to be used with a 300 mm wafer, as a change in size of the wafer capture area would not affect the overall functionality of the device.
[claim 33] Shin teaches a lift hoop as detailed above, Shin however does not teach that the plurality of wafer support structures are removably attached to the frame to permit thermal annealing of said frame in isolation. Kent teaches a similar wafer support device as detailed above, with a plurality of wafer support structures(213) which are removably attached to a frame(see fig 6), allowing the wafer support structures to be replaced if desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to removably attach the wafer support structures to the frame, as taught by Kent, as this would allow the wafer support structures to be replaced if desired, and would further permit thermal annealing of the frame in isolation.
[claim 34] wherein the protrusions(241) could be used as an alignment protrusion which is disposed on said fingers, wherein said protrusions are configured to engage a suitable fixture for coaxial alignment with a heater pedestal and an end effector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s clarification to the intended scope of claims 30-32 and 34 in response to the 112(b) rejections are noted. Claims 30,31 and 34 should be amended as detailed in the above Claim Objections to further clarify the scope of the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Kent is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Shin specifically teaches the desirability of limiting the contact between the lift hoop and wafer(Shin C4 L9-14), and Kent teaches a wafer support device which uses wafer support structures having a stop and protrusion to minimize contact with a supported wafer. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefor look to the related wafer support device of Kent as a means for further reducing the contact between the support hoop of Shin and a supported wafer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632