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 .
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.
After Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 02/02/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 6 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520).
Regarding Claim 1:
Yudovsky teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber body (chamber 102) comprising sidewalls (walls 106) and a base (bottom 108); a substrate support (support assembly 500) extending through the base of the chamber body, wherein the substrate support comprises: a support plate (support body 502 and base plate 506) defining a plurality of radial channels (channel 530) through an interior of the support plate, wherein each channel of the plurality of radial channels comprises a first terminal end fluidly connected to a central channel (channels 530 are fluidly connected to purge passage 542 via holes 548 and 546) and extend radially outward from the central channel through the support plate to a second opposed terminal end (as evidenced by Figs. 5 and 7, the channels 530 extend radially out from purge passage 542), wherein the second opposed terminal end is fluidly connected to a vertical channel portion (plenum 532) formed at an exterior region of the support plate, the vertical channel portion extending through a substrate support surface of the support plate and fluidly coupling the plurality of radial channels with the substrate support surface of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 5, plenum 532 is fluidly connected to the surface of support body 502 that accommodates the substrate 140), and a shaft (stem 504) coupled with the support plate, wherein the central channel extends through the shaft (as evidenced by Fig. 5, purge passages 542 extends through stem 504); an edge ring (shadow ring 534) seated on an exterior portion of the support plate (shadow ring 534 is disposed on an edge region of base plate 506, as evidenced by Fig. 5), wherein the edge ring is positioned radially outward of the vertical channel portion of each channel of the plurality of radial channels (as evidenced by Fig. 5, shadow ring 534 is disposed radially outward of plenum 532), wherein: a flow path is defined between an edge of the support surface and the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 5, there is a flow path between the support surface of support body 502 and shadow ring 534); and the flow path is fluidly coupled with an outlet of the vertical channel portion of each channel of the plurality of radial channels (as evidenced by Fig. 5, plenum 534 is fluidly connected to an outlet of the flow path defined by shadow ring 534 and the support surface of support body 502); and a fluid source coupled with the central channel of the substrate support (purge passage 542 is configured to supply purge gas, as such, it can be reasonably inferred that it is coupled to a fluid source) [Fig. 1, 5, 7 & 0031, 0069-0071].
Regarding Claim 5:
Yudovsky teaches wherein the support plate defines a recessed ledge formed at a radius to create an amount of overhang of a substrate about the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 5, support body 502 comprises a recessed ledge; Fig. 5 displays an overhanging substrate 140) [Fig. 5 & 0071].
Regarding Claim 7:
Yudovsky teaches wherein the edge ring extends over the vertical channel portion of each channel to form a fluid path extending over the recessed ledge of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the shadow ring 534 extends over plenum 532) [Fig. 5 & 0069].
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520)
Regarding Claim 9:
Yudovsky teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber body (chamber 102) comprising sidewalls (walls 106) and a base (bottom 108); a substrate support (support assembly 500) extending through the base of the chamber body, wherein the substrate support comprises: a support plate (support body 502 and base plate 506) defining a plurality of radial channels (channel 530) through an interior of the support plate, wherein each channel of the plurality of radial channels comprises a first terminal end fluidly connected to a central channel (channels 530 are fluidly connected to purge passage 542 via holes 548 and 546) and extend radially outward from the central channel through the support plate to a second opposed terminal end (as evidenced by Figs. 5 and 7, the channels 530 extend radially out from purge passage 542), wherein the second opposed terminal end is fluidly connected to a vertical channel portion (plenum 532) formed at an exterior region of the support plate, the vertical channel portion extending through a substrate support surface of the support plate and fluidly coupling the plurality of radial channels with the substrate support surface of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 5, plenum 532 is fluidly connected to the surface of support body 502 that accommodates the substrate 140), and wherein the support plate defines a fluid path along a support region of the support plate (there is a vacuum passage fluidly connected to a channel between substrate 140 and a support region of support body 502), and a shaft (stem 504) coupled with the support plate, wherein the central channel extends through the shaft (as evidenced by Fig. 5, purge passages 542 extends through stem 504); an edge ring (shadow ring 534) seated on an exterior portion of the support plate (shadow ring 534 is disposed on an edge region of base plate 506, as evidenced by Fig. 5), wherein the edge ring is positioned radially outward of the vertical channel portion of each channel of the plurality of radial channels (as evidenced by Fig. 5, shadow ring 534 is disposed radially outward of plenum 532), wherein: a flow path is defined between an edge of the support surface and the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 5, there is a flow path between the support surface of support body 502 and shadow ring 534); and the flow path is fluidly coupled with an outlet of the vertical channel portion of each channel of the plurality of radial channels (as evidenced by Fig. 5, plenum 534 is fluidly connected to an outlet of the flow path defined by shadow ring 534 and the support surface of support body 502); and a fluid source coupled with the central channel of the substrate support (purge passage 542 is configured to supply purge gas, as such, it can be reasonably inferred that it is coupled to a fluid source) [Fig. 1, 5, 7 & 0031, 0069-0071].
Yudovsky does not specifically disclose a plurality of radial channels that extend radially outward from the central channel through the support plate to a second opposed terminal end.
Zhao teaches a plurality of radial channels (purge channels 40) that extend radially outward from the central channel through the support plate to a second opposed terminal end (as evidenced by Fig. 4A, purge channels 40 extend radially outward directly from a center gas inlet 39c) [Fig. 4A & Col. 13 lines 46-50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radial channels of Yudovsky to directly extend from a radial channel, as in Zhao, since the radial channels of Zhao provide a high gas conductance, symmetric, and easily scalable design [Zhao - Col. 12 lines 50-67, Col. 13 lines 1-29, lines 45-61].
Regarding Claim 11:
Yudovsky teaches wherein the support plate defines a recessed ledge formed at a radius to create an amount of overhang of a substrate about the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 5, support body 502 comprises a recessed ledge; Fig. 5 displays an overhanging substrate 140) [Fig. 5 & 0071].
Regarding Claim 13:
Yudovsky teaches wherein the edge ring extends over the vertical channel portion of each channel to form a fluid path extending over the recessed ledge of the support plate (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the shadow ring 534 extends over plenum 532) [Fig. 5 & 0069].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20070068900).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Yudovsky does not specifically disclose wherein the fluid source comprises a hydrogen-containing precursor or a halogen-containing precursor.
Kim teaches the fluid source (gas source of remote cleaning plasma source 270') comprises a hydrogen-containing precursor or a halogen-containing precursor (cleaning gases can include a fluorine-containing gas to clean dielectric films such as SiO2) [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid source of Modified Yudovsky to further comprise of a hydrogen-containing precursor or a halogen-containing precursor, as in, Kim to clean a substrate backside, thereby reducing the possibility of particle defects impacting device yield [Kim - 0039, 0051].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Yudovsky does not specifically disclose a remote plasma source unit coupled with the fluid source; the remote plasma source unit configured to deliver radical species through the central channel of the substrate support.
Zhao and Kim are analogous inventions in the field of semiconductor processing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid source of Zhao to further comprise an RPS, as in, Kim to clean a substrate backside, thereby reducing the possibility of particle defects impacting device yield [Kim - 0039, 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid source of Modified Yudovsky to further comprise an RPS, as in, Kim to clean a substrate backside, thereby reducing the possibility of particle defects impacting device yield [Kim - 0039, 0051].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7 above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 20020129475).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Yudovsky does not specifically disclose wherein the central channel comprises a corrosion resistant material extending through the shaft of the substrate support.
Tsai teaches the central channel (conduit 128) comprises a corrosion resistant material (conduit 128 is constructed from stainless steel) extending through the shaft of the substrate support (conduit 128 is disposed through pedestal assembly 100) [Fig. 1 & 0027, 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the central channel of Modified Yudovsky to comprise of a corrosion resistant material, as in Tsai, since such is a suitable material for a gas conduit. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520), as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 6375748).
The limitations of claims 1 and 5-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Yudovsky ‘520 does not specifically disclose a shadow ring seated on the edge ring, wherein the shadow ring extends radially inward over a portion of the support plate and forms a fluid path from the plurality of radial channels defined in the support plate to a substrate support region of the support plate.
Yudovsky ‘748 teaches a shadow ring (purge ring 15, which may be either a shadow ring and/or purge ring type) seated on the edge ring (diffuser ring 13b) [Fig. 5A & Col. 2 lines 53-54; Col. 5 lines 21-22], wherein the shadow ring (purge ring 15) extends radially inward over a portion of the support plate (purge ring 15 has an inner edge 15a that overhangs over the edge of wafer W and substrate support 13) [Fig. 1, 5A & Col 5 lines 21-22] and forms a fluid path (purge slots 29) from the plurality of channels (purge gas distribution channel 27 and gas delivery channels 25) defined in the support plate (substrate support 13) to a substrate support region of the support plate (gas delivery channels 25 are fluidly connected with a support region of substrate support 13 via purge gas distribution channel 27 and purge slots 29) [Fig. 5A & Col. 6 lines 15-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the edge ring of Modified Yudovsky '520 to have a shadow ring seated upon it defining a buffer channel, as in Yudovsky ‘748, to ensure more even distribution of gas, or to mask a portion of a substrate from process gases [Yudovsky '748 – Col. 1 lines 57-59, Col. 6 lines 19-21].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520), as applied to claims 9, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 6096135).The limitations of claims 9, 11, and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Yudovsky does not specifically disclose a purge channel coupled with the fluid path, and configured to deliver a purge gas along the fluid path.
Guo teaches a purge channel (ports 106) coupled with the fluid path (gap 406), and configured to deliver a purge gas along the fluid path (ports 106 deliver a flow of gas 404 to deliver backside purge) [Fig. 4 & Col. 5 lines 20-32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid path of Yudovsky to also be coupled to a purge channel, as in Guo, to reduce the likelihood of backside scratching and to reduce the likelihood of unwanted deposition [Guo - Col. 5 lines 33-43].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the Appeal Brief, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. However, a rejection for claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) using Yudovsky et al. (US 20030136520) has been set forth herein.
Applicant argues that Yudovsky fails to disclose or render obvious radial channels extending through an interior of the support plate. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this, as the channels 530 of Yudovsky (shown in the drawings below) are very clearly extending through at least a portion of an interior of the support body 502. It’s also noted that Yudovsky explicitly discloses that the channel 530 is formed in the support body 502 [Yudovsky - 0070]. It’s further noted that the applicant themselves admit that Yudovsky does not fail to disclose that the channels extend from a central channel (see appeal brief filed 02/02/2026 Page 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
791
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the examiner does not believe the applicant’s arguments are commensurate with the scope of the claims. Currently, the claims merely require the radial channels extending through an interior of the support plate. The channel 530 of Yudovsky is carved into the support body 502 (as shown by Figs. 5 and 7), and as such, can be broadly interpreted to extend through an interior of support body 502.
Additionally, in the rejection dated 07/21/2025, the examiner has interpreted “the support plate” as the structure making up support body 502 and base plate 506. Channel 530 is very clearly disposed in an interior between the support body 502 and base plate 506, and as such, can be reasonably interpreted as being disposed in an interior of the support plate (See MPEP 2144.05 V B Making Integral). However, even if the support body 502 is interpreted to be the sole component of the support plate, the channel 530 can still be broadly interpreted to extend through an interior of the support body 502.
It is also noted, however, that the applicant does not believe the examiner’s assertion that the support body 502 and the base plate 506 can constitute “the support plate” as they are separate parts.
Firstly, the applicant has not provided more specific limitations as to the structure of the support plate, so the support plate can be broadly interpreted as merely being a structure present within a substrate support (absent further structural description). As such, the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as they are currently written. Furthermore, the examiner would like to assert that making the base plate 506 and support body 502 integral with each other would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.05 V B Making Integral).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights