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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the teachings of Wu are not limited to a single point of contact.
The Examiner respectfully notes that the teachings of Wu teach a gap of “b” such that no contact is intended. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “does not contact the susceptor at more than a first point of contact” is sufficiently broad enough to be fulfilled by no contact between the susceptor hole and the lift pin. As such, though the Examiner pointed out that in the prior art in Wu (Fig. 2) there can be one point of contact, the teachings of Wu purposefully teach no desired contact because of gap “b”, which prevents sticking (see Wu [0025]).
The Examiner further notes that the weight0306 and gap “a” in Fig. 3 are specific structures that prevent additional rotating and contact [0022-0025], because the weight and the gap maintains the clearance of gap “b” and as such the arguments against Wu being not limited to a single point of contact is considered unpersuasive because there are structures that prevent contact in Wu.
The Applicant argues that the statements of gap “b” in the Fig. 3 of Wu are irrelevant because Wu is not limited to a single point.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the teachings of Wu teaches a gap that prevents contact through structures that prevent said contact, as per the Examiner’s notes above. Wu expressly teaches a gap between the sleeve/pin hole and the pin, which could be applied to Moos in order to prevent sticking. As such, this argument is not considered persuasive.
The Applicant argues the modifications of Moos by Wu are not sufficiently motivated.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as changes to Moos by Wu to add the gap would prevent sticking and wear (see Examiner’s notes above).
The Examiner further notes that the limitation that is being contested above are considered functional limitations, and that having a dedicated gap between the hole and the sleeve would implicitly fulfill the limitations of the claim, as it not more than a single point of contact, but rather no contact, which also fulfills the claimed limitations.
As such, the Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive and the rejection below with Moos and Wu is made FINAL. Amendments to Claim 1 with the limitations of Claim 11 have changed the scope of the dependent claims, and in consideration of the arguments above, are considered moot and the rejection below is made FINAL.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0311941 to Moos et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0086784 to Patalay et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0156988 to Wu et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Moos teaches a substrate support and lift assembly Fig. 1 configured to support and lift a substrate (wafer, generally shown in Fig. 1) from a susceptor 1, the substrate support and lift assembly comprising: a susceptor support 4, 5, 6 configured to support the susceptor 1 thereon, the susceptor support comprising a plurality of support arms 5 each extending radially from a central portion 4 of the susceptor support to a terminus 9, each of the plurality of support arms comprising one of a plurality of apertures (holes for 7, 8) extending therethrough; and a plurality of lift pins 3, 8, each configured to fit through a corresponding aperture of the plurality of apertures, as shown in Fig. 1 [0010-0038].
PNG
media_image1.png
550
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Patalay teaches a substrate support 123, 124 and lift assembly 160 configured to support and lift a substrate 125 from a susceptor 124, the substrate support and lift assembly comprising: a susceptor support 134,164 configured to support the susceptor thereon, each extending radially from a central portion (central portion of 164 as shown in Fig. 1) of the susceptor support to a terminus (tips of 166), each of the plurality of support arms comprising one of a plurality of apertures 159 extending therethrough; and a plurality of lift pins 128, 206 Fig. 2B, each comprising a hollow cavity 210 within an outer shell 208 [0027] (or alternatively being solid as shown in Fig. 2A), and each configured to fit through a corresponding aperture of the plurality of apertures [0025; 0018-0045].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Moos by having the hollow lift pins as per the teachings of Patalay. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Moos in view of Patalay does not expressly teach the susceptor, wherein for each lift pin of the plurality of lift pins, the corresponding aperture and the corresponding hole cooperate with each other such that the lift pin, when extended through the corresponding aperture and the corresponding hole, does not contact the susceptor at more than a first point of contact.
Moos does expressly teach a gap between 2 and the susceptor 1.
Wu teaches a lift pin assembly Fig. 3 that has a gap “b” that is between the hole 314/304 and the pin itself 302, the gap allows for there to be smooth sliding of the pin and prevents sticking and causing wear of the lift pin and particle generation [0012, 0025; 0012-0027] but even in the prior art, there is only one point of contact, as shown in Fig. 2 [0006-0010].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay by making the generic gap as per the teachings of Moos with the express teachings of the gap of “b” and the desired smooth, unblocked sliding of the pin within the hole without contact (which fulfills the limitation of the claim of not more than one point of contact), or even with just one contact as per the teachings of Wu in the prior art Fig. 2 of Wu. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing sticking and causing wear of the lift pin and particle generation. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have no more than one point of contact between the hole and the lift pin because movement of the pin is required for this limitation, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Moos teaches a plurality of lift pin supports (arms extending from 2), each configured to press one of the plurality of lift pins through its corresponding aperture to lift the substrate from the susceptor [0034].
In regards to Claim 3, Moos teaches each aperture of the plurality of apertures is disposed between the central portion of the susceptor support and the terminus of the support arm through which it extends, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 4, Moos teaches a plurality of support pads 6, 9, 10 each attached to a corresponding support arm of the plurality of support arms and configured to extend toward and support the susceptor.
In regards to Claim 5, Moos teaches on each support arm of the plurality of support arms, the attached support pad is disposed nearer to the terminus than to the aperture extending therethrough, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 7, Moos teaches the plurality of support arms comprises at least three support arms [0014].
In regards to Claim 9, Moos teaches each support arm of the plurality of support arms, the aperture extends along a vertical axis through the support arm, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 10, Moos teaches wherein each lift pin of the plurality of lift pins is configured to fit through a corresponding hole of a plurality of holes 11 in the susceptor, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 12, Moos teaches each support arm of the plurality of support arms has attached thereto a respective one of a plurality of support pads disposed radially outward of each of the plurality of holes of the susceptor, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 13, Moos teaches in each support arm of the plurality of support arms, the aperture is disposed nearer to the terminus than to the central portion of the susceptor support, as generally shown in Fig. 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0311941 to Moos et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0086784 to Patalay et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0156988 to Wu et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0229008 to Rokkam et al.
The teachings of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 6, Moos in view of Patalay and Wu does not expressly teach each support pad comprises silicon carbide.
Rokkam teaches a susceptor 718 with susceptor support pads 736 that are made out of SiC [0022-0053].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a support pad analogous to that of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu out of SiC, as taught by Rokkam, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 6.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0311941 to Moos et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0156988 to Wu et al.
In regards to Claim 15, Moos teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 1 comprising: a susceptor 1 configured to support a substrate, the susceptor having a plurality of holes 11; a susceptor support 4, 5, 6 comprising; a plurality of support pads 9, 10, 6 extending towards and supporting the susceptor, and a plurality of apertures extending vertically therethrough (holes for 7, 8, 3), wherein each aperture is aligned with a corresponding hole of the susceptor such that the aperture and the corresponding hole cooperate with each other to enable a corresponding lift pin of a plurality of lift pins to pass through the aperture and the corresponding hole (as shown in Fig. 1) [0010-0038].
Moos does not expressly teach while limiting contact between the corresponding lift pin and the corresponding hole to no more than a single point.
Wu teaches a lift pin assembly Fig. 3 that has a gap “b” that is between the hole 314/304 and the pin itself 302, the gap allows for there to be smooth sliding of the pin and prevents sticking and causing wear of the lift pin and particle generation [0012, 0025; 0012-0027] but even in the prior art, there is only one point of contact, as shown in Fig. 2 [0006-0010].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Moos by making the generic gap as per the teachings of Moos with the express teachings of the gap of “b” and the desired smooth, unblocked sliding of the pin within the hole, such that there is no contact between the hole and the pin, which is less than that one point of contact as per the teachings of Wu. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing sticking and causing wear of the lift pin and particle generation. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have no more than one point of contact between the hole and the lift pin because movement of the pin is required for this limitation, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Moos teaches the plurality of lift pins and a lift mechanism configured to lift the substrate from the susceptor by pressing the plurality of lift pins through the plurality of apertures and the plurality of holes, as shown in Fig. 1 and [0034].
In regards to Claim 18, Moos teaches wherein the susceptor support comprises a plurality of support arms 5 each extending radially from a central portion of the susceptor support, and wherein each aperture of the plurality of apertures extends through a different one of the plurality of support arms, as shown in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 20, Moos teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 1, the assembly comprising: a susceptor 1 configured to support a substrate (wafer, generally shown in Fig. 1), the susceptor having a plurality of holes (holes in 1 for 3, 8) extending through a thickness of the susceptor, each hole configured to receive a corresponding lift pin 3, 8 therethrough; a susceptor support 4, 5, 6 configured to support the susceptor, the susceptor support comprising a plurality of support arms 5 each extending radially from a central portion 4 of the susceptor support, each of the plurality of support arms comprising an aperture (hole for 7, 8), wherein the susceptor and the susceptor support, and each of the apertures of the plurality of support arms and each of the corresponding holes of the susceptor, are configured to cooperate with each other such that a corresponding lift pin (as shown in Fig. 1) [0010-0038].
Moos does not expressly teach when extended through the aperture and the hole, does not contact the susceptor at more than a first point of contact.
Wu teaches a lift pin assembly Fig. 3 that has a gap “b” that is between the hole 314/304 and the pin itself 302, the gap allows for there to be smooth sliding of the pin and prevents sticking and causing wear of the lift pin and particle generation [0012, 0025; 0012-0027] but even in the prior art, there is only one point of contact, as shown in Fig. 2 [0006-0010].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Moos by making the generic gap as per the teachings of Moos with the express teachings of the gap of “b” and the desired smooth, unblocked sliding of the pin within the hole, such that there is no contact between the hole and the pin, which is less than that one point of contact as per the teachings of Wu. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing sticking and causing wear of the lift pin and particle generation. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have no more than one point of contact between the hole and the lift pin because movement of the pin is required for this limitation, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Moos in view of Patalay and Wu and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 21, Moos teaches a plurality of support pads 6, 9, 10, each attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of support arms 5, each extending toward and supporting the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein each of the plurality of holes is positioned at a lift radius from a center of the susceptor, and wherein each of the plurality of support pads is positioned at a distance from an outer edge of the susceptor that is less than half the lift radius (as it is closer to the edge than the half the radius, as shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 22, Moos teaches a plurality of lift pins 3, 8 that includes the corresponding lift pin for each of the plurality of holes (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein for each lift pin of the plurality of lift pins, the aperture and corresponding hole through which the lift pin extends are aligned with respect to each other by a common shape and a common central axis (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0311941 to Moos et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0156988 to Wu et al, as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0178145 to Anderson et al.
The teachings of Moos in view of Wu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claim 22 above.
In regards to Claim 23, Moos in view of Wu does not expressly teach the plurality of lift pins are hollow and comprise an open end.
Anderson teaches that the lift pins 606 Fig. 6 are a hollow tube ([0052], [0030-0058] Claims 1-16).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Moos in view of Wu by having the hollow lift pins as per the teachings of Anderson. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0311941 to Moos et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0156988 to Wu et al, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0086784 to Patalay et al.
The teachings of Moos in view of Wu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of claim 16 above.
In regards to Claim 24, Moos in view of Wu does not expressly teach each of the plurality of lift pins comprises a cavity within an outer shell.
Patalay teaches a substrate support 123, 124 and lift assembly 160 configured to support and lift a substrate 125 from a susceptor 124, the substrate support and lift assembly comprising: a susceptor support 134,164 configured to support the susceptor thereon, each extending radially from a central portion (central portion of 164 as shown in Fig. 1) of the susceptor support to a terminus (tips of 166), each of the plurality of support arms comprising one of a plurality of apertures 159 extending therethrough; and a plurality of lift pins 128, 206 Fig. 2B, each comprising a hollow cavity 210 within an outer shell 208 [0027] (or alternatively being solid as shown in Fig. 2A), and each configured to fit through a corresponding aperture of the plurality of apertures [0025; 0018-0045].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Moos in view of Wu by having the hollow lift pins as per the teachings of Patalay. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716