DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 01/08/2026.
4. Claims 1-10, 12-20, and 22-23 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 12-15, and 19-20 have been amended.
5. Claims 11 and 21 have been cancelled.
6. Claims 22-23 have been added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
7. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
8. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Requirement under Rule 105 for information (mailed 08/19/2025) related to the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 has been withdrawn [see correspondence dated 10/17/2025]. However, the withdrawal of the Requirement under Rule 105 for information (mailed 08/19/2025) does NOT negate applicant’s duty of disclosure under §§ 1.56 and 1.555.
9. It is noted that applicant is aware of the references cited on the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 because pursuant to applicant’s duties under §§ 1.4 and 11.18, applicant should have made a reasonable inquiry into the documents before filing them with the Office for consideration by the examiner. Therefore, applicant is reminded that all information material to patentability cited on the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 should be cited on an IDS for consideration by the examiner pursuant to applicant’s duties under 37 CFR 1.56 because it is information known to the applicant.
10. The examiner does not investigate and reject original or reissue applications under 37 CFR 1.56. Likewise, the examiner declines to comment upon the duty of disclosure issues present in the instant application. The above is merely a reminder of applicant’s duty of disclosure under §§ 1.56 and 1.555.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites “a support comprising a partition configured to support the exhaust unit and comprising a conductor; a conductive extension arranged to surround a portion of the partition”. Nothing in the specification at the time of filing indicates that the support comprises a partition wall. Moreover, nothing in the specification at the time of filing indicates that a conductive extension is arranged to surround a portion of the partition. Specifically, the support 200 does NOT include the partition 100 and the conductive extension 130 does NOT surround the partition 100 [fig 1 & 0061].
13. 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.
14. Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites “a support comprising a partition configured to support the exhaust unit and comprising a conductor; a conductive extension arranged to surround a portion of the partition”. It is unclear what applicant is claiming because the specification contradicts that which is claimed. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) [MPEP 2173.03]. There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty because it is unclear what structures applicant is attempting to claim. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) [MPEP 2173.06(II)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12-19, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinger et al (US 9,017,481) in view of Zhao et al (US 6,189,482).
Regarding claim 1:
Pettinger teaches a substrate processing apparatus (semiconductor process module, 100) [fig 1, 12 & col 4, lines 14-30] comprising: a substrate supporting unit (susceptor, 118) configured to support a substrate (substrate) [fig 1, 12 & col 5, lines 4-16]; a first lid (1202) on the substrate supporting unit (118), the first lid (1202) comprising at least one processing unit (body of 1202) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13]; a second lid (1204) under the first lid (1202), the second lid (1204) comprising a partition wall (radially inner wall of 1204) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13]; and a support (130) arranged under the first lid (1202) and the second lid (1204) and comprising an opening (opening housing 906) and a seating portion (portion of 130 on which 1204 sits) on the opening, wherein the second lid (1204) is on the seating portion of the support (portion of 130 on which 1204 sits) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13].
Pettinger does not specifically teach a seating portion above a bottom surface of the first lid; and a conductive extension arranged to surround a portion of the second lid, wherein the conductive extension is electrically connected to the support.
Zhao teaches a seating portion (top surface of 11) above a bottom surface of the first lid (40) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; and a conductive extension (70/72 is preferably made of a metal) arranged to surround a portion of the second lid (lid rim, 66) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18], wherein the conductive extension (70/72 is preferably made of a metal) is electrically connected to the support (electrically connect the lid liner to the sidewall of 11 via the lid rim) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the seating portion of the support of Pettinger with the shape of Zhao because such a configuration provides for effective support of the second lid [Zhao - col 11-12, lines 62-18]. As such, such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Pettinger to comprise a conductive extension arranged to surround a portion of the second lid, as in Zhao, to protect the second lid from adhesion of any film thereon [Zhao - col 11-12, lines 62-18].
Regarding claim 2:
Pettinger teaches a reaction space (116) is formed between the substrate supporting unit (118) and the at least one processing unit (body of 1202), and an exhaust space (1208) is formed between the second lid (1204) and the support (130) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13].
Regarding claims 3 and 22:
Modified Pettinger teaches a first surface of the partition wall (inner surface of radially inner wall of 1204) defines the reaction space (116), and a second surface of the partition wall (outer surface of radially inner wall of 1204) defines the exhaust space (1208) [Pettinger - fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13]; and wherein the conductive extension (70/72 is preferably made of a metal) extends along the second surface (outer wall of 52) [Zhao - fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18].
Regarding claim 4:
Pettinger teaches the exhaust space (1208) is arranged to surround the reaction space (116), a channel (gap) connecting the reaction space (116) and the exhaust space (1208) is formed under the partition wall (radially inner wall of 1204), and a gas in the reaction space is exhausted outside the reaction space through the channel, the exhaust space, and the opening (conducts process exhaust) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13].
Regarding claim 5:
Pettinger teaches the second lid (1204) is detachably fixed to the support (130) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13].
Regarding claim 6:
Pettinger does not specifically teach the seating portion of the support includes a stepped structure, and the second lid is arranged to be inserted into the stepped structure.
Zhao teaches the seating portion of a support (top surface of 11) includes a stepped structure (see fig 2), and the second lid (lid rim, 66) is arranged to be inserted into the stepped structure (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the seating portion of the support of Pettinger to include a stepped structure, as in Zhao, because such a configuration provides for effective support of the second lid [Zhao - col 11-12, lines 62-18]. As such, such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 10:
Pettinger teaches the second lid (1204) further comprises a connecting wall (radially outer wall of 1204) extending from the partition wall (radially inner wall of 1204) and providing a contact surface with the at least one processing unit (body of 1202), and a lower surface of the connecting wall (radially outer wall of 1204) is arranged to contact an upper surface of the seating portion (portion of 130 on which 1204 sits) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13].
Regarding claims 12-16:
Modified Pettinger teaches the conductive extension (70/72) and the support have the same potential (electrically connect the lid liner to the sidewall of 11 via the lid rim) [Zhao - fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; the conductive extension (70/72) is arranged to further surround a side surface of the support (see fig 2) [Zhao - fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; the conductive extension (70/72) is implemented as a metal coating layer (preferably made of a metal) on a surface of the second lid (lid rim, 66) [Zhao - fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; the second lid (lid rim, 66) includes a first portion (inner portion) having a first thickness and a second portion (outer portion) having a second thickness greater than the first thickness (see fig 2) [Zhao - fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; wherein the conductive extension (70/72) is arranged to contact the second lid (66), and the sum of a thickness of the conductive extension and the first thickness is substantially the same as the second thickness (see fig 2) [Zhao - fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18].
Regarding claims 17 and 23:
Pettinger teaches at least one ring member (906) arranged between the second lid (1204) and the support (130) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13]; and wherein the at least one ring member (906) is a conductive ring (synthetic elastomer and/or fluoroelastomer materials) [fig 1, 12 & col 3-4, lines 66-13].
Regarding claim 18:
Pettinger teaches the second lid includes an insulator and the support includes a conductor (may be fabricated from virtually any suitable materials) [fig 1, 12 & col 3-4, lines 66-13].
Regarding claim 19:
Pettinger teaches a substrate processing apparatus (semiconductor process module, 100) [fig 1, 12 & col 4, lines 14-30] comprising: a substrate supporting unit (susceptor, 118) configured to support a substrate (substrate) [fig 1, 12 & col 5, lines 4-16]; a first lid (1202) on the substrate supporting unit (118), the first lid (1202) comprising at least one processing unit (body of 1202) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13]; and a second lid (1204) under the first lid (1202), the second lid (1204) comprising a partition wall (radially inner wall of 1204), wherein a reaction space (116) is formed between the substrate supporting unit (118) and the at least one processing unit (body of 1202), an exhaust space (1208) is formed to surround the reaction space (116), and a first side of the exhaust space is defined by the second lid (1204), and an opposing second side of the exhaust space (radially outer wall of 1204) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13].
Pettinger does not specifically teach a conductive extension extending along the partition wall, and an opposing second side of the exhaust space is defined by a support.
Zhao teaches a conductive extension (70/72 is preferably made of a metal) extension extending along the partition wall (52), and an opposing second side of the exhaust space (60) is defined by a support (portion of 11 defining wall of 60) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Pettinger to comprise a conductive extension extending along the partition wall, as in Zhao, to protect the second lid from adhesion of any film thereon [Zhao - col 11-12, lines 62-18]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the opposing second side of the exhaust space of Pettinger to be defined by a support, as in Zhao, because such a configuration provides for effective support of the second lid [Zhao - col 11-12, lines 62-18]. As such, such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
18. Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinger et al (US 9,017,481) in view of Zhao et al (US 6,189,482) as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 12-19, and 22-23 above, and further in view of Mustafa et al (US 11,236,424).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, 12-19, and 22-23 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Pettinger does not specifically disclose a connector configured to connect the second lid to the support.
Mustafa teaches a connector (ring, 280) configured to connect the second lid (210) to the support (104) [fig 2B & col 5-6, lines 55-3].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate processing apparatus of modified Pettinger to further comprise the connector of Mustafa to facilitate heating of the second lid without having to remove the second lid entirely [Mustafa - col 5-6, lines 55-3].
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Pettinger teaches the connector (280) includes a lid portion (body of 280) extending from an upper surface of the support (104) to an upper surface of the second lid (210), and a portion of the second lid (210) is arranged to be inserted into a space between the lid portion (body of 280) and the support (104) [Mustafa - fig 2B & col 5-6, lines 55-3].
19. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinger et al (US 9,017,481) in view of Zhao et al (US 6,189,482) and Mustafa et al (US 11,236,424) as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of Ishizaka et al (US 2006/0213438).
The limitations of claims 7-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Pettinger does not specifically disclose the connector includes a protrusion extending from the second lid, and the protrusion is arranged to be inserted into a groove provided in the support.
Ishizaka teaches a connector (189) includes a protrusion (bolt) extending from the second lid (188C), and the protrusion (bolt) is arranged to be inserted into a groove provided in the support (188B) [fig 4 & 0072].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector of modified Pettinger to include a protrusion, as in Ishizaka, to fixedly clamp the members together such that they may be maintained in contact [Ishizaka – 0072].
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant states, see Remarks, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the Information Disclosure Statements, that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertions in the Office Action. Applicant understands that no further action is required at this time.”
It is unclear which assertions applicant disagrees with and why applicant disagrees with said assertions. (i) Does applicant disagree that they are required to comply with 37 CFR 1.56 (section 8 above – section 6 in the action mailed 10/22/2025)? (ii) Does applicant disagree that all information material to patentability (including that which was cited on the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021) should be cited on an IDS for consideration by the examiner pursuant to applicant’s duties under 37 CFR 1.56 (section 9 above – section 7 in the action mailed 10/22/2025)?
For clarity of the record and to ensure that all information material to patentability has been considered by the examiner, examiner is requesting applicant clearly and specifically state what assertions applicant disagrees with and why applicant disagrees with said assertions.
21. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 20 overcome the rejection of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 112(a). Specifically, applicant has amended claim 20 to recite “a partition” rather than “a partition wall”.
In response, it is noted that nothing in the specification at the time of filing provides support for “a support comprising a partition”. The disclosed partition 100 is not part of the support 200 [fig 1 & 0061]. Moreover, nothing in the specification at the time of filing indicates that a conductive extension is arranged to surround a portion of the partition. The conductive extension 130 does NOT surround the partition 100 [fig 1 & 0061].
Additionally, it is noted that the amendments to claim 20 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b).
22. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-19 and 21 under 35 USC 103 and newly added claims 22-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1:
Applicant argues that the lid rim 66 of Zhao cannot be both a portion of the second lid and the support. Furthermore, 70 is only electrically connected to 66 and not connected to the main chamber body 11. Furthermore, a radial gap 73 is formed between 72 and 11. Therefore, 70/72 is not electrically connected to 11 (the support).
In response, it is noted that 66 of Zhao has NOT been interpreted to correspond to the claimed support. The claimed support has been interpreted to correspond to the sidewall of 11. Furthermore, applicant’s statement that “70 is only electrically connected to 66 and not connected to the main chamber body 11” is false. 70 is electrically connected to 66 and 66 is physically connected to 11 [see fig 2 and 3]. Therefore, 70 is electrically connected to 11 because they are physically connected via 66.
Regarding claim 19:
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose “a conductive extension extending along the partition wall” and “a first side of the exhaust space is defined by the partition wall and an opening second side of the exhaust space is defined by a support”.
In response, it is noted that these limitations are taught by the combination of Pettinger and Zhao and have been specifically addressed in the body of the rejection above.
Regarding claim 23:
Applicant argues that Pettinger’s ring 906 is a gasket which may include synthetic elastomer and/or fluoroelastomer [col 4, lines 5-7]. As such, 906 is not a conductive ring.
In response, it is noted that such materials are conductive. (i) Such materials are electrically conductive because no material is a perfect insulator; (ii) Such materials are thermally conductive; and (iii) The sentence immediately following the one cited by applicant states “Accordingly, it will be understood that descriptions of example materials or fabrication techniques are provided for illustrative purposes alone. Such descriptions are not intended to be limiting.” Does applicant really believe that conductive gaskets are novel? Such are extremely common.
23. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that claim 20 was not rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty because it is unclear what structures applicant is attempting to claim. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) [MPEP 2173.06(II)].
However, examiner notes that applicant argues that claim 20 should be allowed for the same reasons as claim 23.
In response, it is noted that such features are not allowable for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 23 above.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daugherty et al (US 2005/0121143), Lee (US 2006/0196023), and Nakano et al (US 2015/0252479) teach a conductive extension [fig 8, 4a, and 2, respectively].
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896