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 04/22/2026.
4. Claims 1-10, 12-20, and 22-23 are currently pending.
5. Claims 19-20 and 22 have been amended.
6. Claims 11 and 21 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statements
7. 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the interest of compact prosecution, the Requirement under Rule 105 for information (mailed 08/19/2025) related to the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 has been withdrawn [see correspondence dated 10/17/2025].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.
8. It is noted that applicant is aware of the references cited on the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 because pursuant to applicant’s duties under §§ 1.4 and 11.18, applicant should have made a reasonable inquiry into the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 Therefore, applicant is reminded that all information material to patentability cited on the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 should be cited on an IDS for consideration by the examiner pursuant to applicant’s duties under 37 CFR 1.56 because it is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.
9. 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.
10. 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 respond to the following interrogatory eliciting factual information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application:
Has all information material to patentability cited on the withdrawn IDSs dated 08/03/2021 and 12/16/2021 been cited on a non-withdrawn IDS for consideration by the examiner?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. 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 conductive extension arranged to surround a portion of the exhaust unit and electrically connected to a top lid; and a conductive ring between the conductive extension and the support, the conductive ring configured to eliminate a potential difference between the top lid and the exhaust unit”. It is unclear how the conductive ring could possibly eliminate a potential difference between the top lid and the exhaust unit because it is claimed to be located between different structures (i.e. between the top lid and the exhaust unit). For purposes of prosecution on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, examiner is interpreting the top lid to be part of the support and the limitations to mean “a conductive extension arranged to surround a portion of the exhaust unit and electrically connected to a top lid of the support; and a conductive ring between the conductive extension and the support, the conductive ring configured to eliminate a potential difference between the top lid of the support and the exhaust unit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12-18, and 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 claim 3:
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].
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].
16. 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, 12-18, and 23 above, and further in view of Mustafa et al (US 11,236,424).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, 12-18, and 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].
17. 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].
18. Claim(s) 22 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, 12-18, and 23 above, and further in view of Nakano et al (US 2015/0252479).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, 12-18, and 23 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 22:
Modified Pettinger does not specifically teach the conductive extension extends substantially entirely along the second surface.
Nakano a conductive extension (36) extends substantially entirely along the second surface (second surface of 30) [fig 2 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive extension of modified Pettinger to extend substantially entirely along the second surface, as in Nakano, to prevent insulating material from being exposed thereby ensuring stable film forming operation [Nakano – 0031, 0039].
19. Claim(s) 19 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 Schoepp et al (US 6,170,429).
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 (inner wall of 1204 interfacing with 1208) and a connecting wall (bottom wall of 1204 interfacing with 130) extending from the partition wall (inner wall of 1204 interfacing with 1208) and in contact with a support (130) [fig 1, 12 & col 12-13, lines 53-13]; 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 partition wall (inner wall of 1204 interfacing with 1208) [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 the support.
Zhao teaches a conductive extension (70 is preferably made of a metal) extending along the partition wall (66/52), and an opposing second side of the exhaust space (60) is defined by the 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]. Furthermore, 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].
Pettinger modified by Zhao does not specifically disclose a conductive extension extending along the connecting wall.
Schoepp teaches a conductive extension (116a) extending along the connecting wall (bottom wall of 132) [fig 5 & col 4-5, lines 36-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive extension of modified Pettinger to extend along the connecting wall, as in Schoepp, to increase thermal stability and/or to enable an electrical connection between the conductive extension and the connecting wall without exposing the electrical connecting means to plasma thereby preventing contamination [Schoepp – col 4-5, lines 59-13].
20. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 6,189,482) and Schoepp et al (US 6,170,429).
Regarding claim 20:
Zhao teaches a substrate processing apparatus (30) having an exhaust space (annular pumping channel, 60) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18], the substrate processing apparatus (30) comprising: an exhaust unit (lid rim, 66) defining at least a portion of the exhaust space (60) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; a support (portion of 11 adjacent 60) configured to support the exhaust unit (66) and comprising a conductor [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18]; and a conductive extension (70 is preferably made of metal) arranged to surround a portion of the exhaust unit (lid rim, 66) [fig 2 & col 11-12, lines 62-18].
Zhao does not specifically disclose the conductive extension electrically connected to a top lid of the support; and a conductive ring between the conductive extension and the support.
Schoepp teaches a conductive extension (116a) electrically connected to a top lid of the support (top surface of 102) [fig 5 & col 4-5, lines 36-13]; and a conductive ring (RF gasket, 134) between the conductive extension (116a) and the support (102) [fig 5 & col 4-5, lines 36-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive extension of modified Pettinger to be electrically connected to a top lid of the support, as in Schoepp, to enable an electrical connection between the conductive extension and the support without exposing the electrical connecting means to plasma thereby preventing contamination [Schoepp – col 4-5, lines 59-13].
The claim limitations “the conductive ring configured to eliminate a potential difference between the top lid of the support and the exhaust unit” and “wherein the conductive extension together with the conductor of the support, is configured to prevent parasitic plasma generated in the exhaust space” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 20.
However, the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 112(b).
22. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-10, 12-18, and 23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhao fails to teach or suggest “wherein the conductive extension is electrically connected to the support”. Specifically, chamber lid liner 70 is only electrically connected to the lid liner 66 and not electrically connected to the main chamber body 11. Zhao does not state that 66 and 11 are physically connected. It is unclear how figure 3 illustrates 66 physically connected to 11 as asserted by the Office Action.
In response, examiner maintains that 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.
The fact that Zhao does not state in the written specification that 66 and 11 are physically connected is irrelevant. Figure 2 clearly depicts 66 being physically connected to the top surface of 11. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).
23. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 19-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
24. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Collins et al (US 6,074,512) and Rice et al (US 6,095,083) teach a conductive extension [fig 4a of each].
26. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
27. 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
Prosecution Insights