DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13, 15-16, 18, 20 and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “therethrough, and each of the plurality of support arms having attached thereto a respective one of a plurality of support pads each configured to extend toward and support the susceptor ; and a lift pin head the susceptor has a plurality of holes, each hole configured to receive a corresponding lift pin of the plurality of lift pins therethrough and configured to allow the lift pin head to rest on a lift pin head slot within the hole, the lift pin head slot including a tapered section between a wider section and a narrower section, the narrower section disposed vertically below the wider section, wherein each of the plurality of support pads is disposed radially outward of each of the plurality of holes of the susceptor, wherein each corresponding aperture and corresponding hole are aligned with respect to each other, through similar sizing or shape or alignment along a common central axis, and such that, when the lift pin is angled sufficiently, the lift pin contacts the susceptor only at the first point of contact and a second point of contact is with the susceptor support via the corresponding aperture, not with the susceptor”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2022/0106705 to Narahara is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by WO2020/137051 to Narahara et al. United States Patent Application No. 2022/0106705 to Narahara et al is relied upon as the English language equivalent.
In regards to Claim 15, Narahara teaches the substrate support assembly comprising: a susceptor 3 configured to support a substrate W, the susceptor having a plurality of holes 34, each hole configured to receive a corresponding lift pin of a plurality of lift pins 73 therethrough and configured to allow a lift pin head of the corresponding lift pin 73 to rest on a lift pin head slot within the hole (as shown in Fig. 1-6C), the lift pin head slot including a tapered section between a wider section and a narrower section, the narrower section disposed vertically below the wider section, as shown in Fig. 4; and a susceptor support 75 comprising a plurality of support pads 753 and a plurality of apertures 752A wherein the a plurality of support pads are disposed radially outward of each of the plurality of holes (as shown in Fig. 3) and extending towards and supporting the susceptor, and wherein the plurality of apertures 752A extending vertically through the susceptor support; and wherein each aperture is aligned cooperates with a corresponding hole of the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 1-3), such that the aperture and the corresponding hole cooperate with each other to enable the corresponding lift pin of the plurality of lift pins 73 to passing through the aperture and the corresponding hole and angled sufficiently, is limited by size and alignment of the aperture and the corresponding hole, as shown in Fig. 6B but does not expressly teach that there is a single point of contact with while limiting contact between the corresponding lift pin and the corresponding hole and to no more than a single point of contact with the aperture, as when it is angled vertically it does not touch the holes of the susceptor.
However, this is considered a functional limitation, as a result of the lift pin tilting. As Narahara shows in Fig. 6B, a lift pin can be tilted at and can contact one side of the lift pin hole while being elevated and would then have a second point of contact with the susceptor support as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. As such, the teachings of Narahara in would be capable of contacting the only one first point of contact in the susceptor, as a function of tilting, there being no range of tilting to define the contact or physical limitations to define this limitation.
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 Narahara is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Narahara would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have the lift pin contacts the susceptor only at the first point of contact, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Narahara and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Narahara teaches comprising the plurality of lift pins 73 and a lift mechanism 77 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 [0066-0075].
In regards to Claim 18, Narahara teaches the susceptor support comprises a plurality of support arms 752 each extending radially from a central portion 751 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. 3.
In regards to Claim 20, Narahara teaches a substrate support assembly Fig. 1-6C, the assembly comprising: a susceptor 3 configured to support a substrate W, the susceptor having a plurality of holes 34 extending through a thickness of the susceptor, each hole configured to receive a corresponding lift pin 73 therethrough and configured to allow a lift pin head of the corresponding lift pin to rest on a lift pin head slot within the hole (as shown in Fig. 4), the lift pin head slot including a tapered section between a wider section and a narrower section, the narrower section disposed vertically below the wider section (as shown in Fig. 4); and a susceptor support 75 configured to support the susceptor, the susceptor support comprising a plurality of support arms 752 each extending radially from a central portion of the susceptor support, each of the plurality of support arms having attached thereto a respective one of a plurality of support pads 753 each configured to extend toward and support the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 1-3); wherein each of the plurality of support pads is disposed radially outward of each of the plurality of holes of the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 2, 3); wherein each of the plurality of support arms comprising an aperture 752A of a plurality of apertures; and wherein the susceptor and the susceptor support, and each of the plurality of apertures is aligned, through similar sizing or shape or alignment along a common central axis, with a corresponding hole of the plurality of holes such that a the corresponding lift pin, when extended through the aperture and the corresponding hole, and angled sufficiently, is limited by the aperture to no does not contact the susceptor at more than a first single point of contact with the susceptor, as when it is angled vertically it does not touch the holes of the susceptor.
However, this is considered a functional limitation, as a result of the lift pin tilting. As Narahara shows in Fig. 6B, a lift pin can be tilted at and can contact one side of the lift pin hole while being elevated and would then have a second point of contact with the susceptor support as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. As such, the teachings of Narahara in would be capable of contacting the only one first point of contact in the susceptor, as a function of tilting, there being no range of tilting to define the contact or physical limitations to define this limitation.
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 Narahara is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Narahara would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have the lift pin contacts the susceptor only at the first point of contact, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Narahara and that of the claim.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/137051 to Narahara et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0178145 to Anderson et al. United States Patent Application No. 2022/0106705 to Narahara et al is relied upon as the English language equivalent.
In regards to Claim 1, Narahara teaches substrate support and lift assembly Fig. 1-6C configured to support and lift a substrate from a susceptor 3 (as they are lift fingers), the substrate support and lift assembly comprising: a susceptor support 75 configured to support the susceptor thereon, the susceptor support comprising a plurality of support arms 752 each extending radially from a central portion 751 of the susceptor support to a terminus, each of the plurality of support arms comprising one of a plurality of apertures 752A extending therethrough, and each of the plurality of support arms having attached thereto a respective one of a plurality of support pads 753 each configured to extend toward and support the susceptor; and a plurality of lift pins 73, each comprising a lift pin head 71A, 72A, 73A,and each configured to fit through a corresponding aperture of the plurality of apertures (as shown in Fig. 2); and the susceptor 3, wherein the susceptor 3 has a plurality of holes 33, 34, 35, each hole configured to receive a corresponding lift pin of the plurality of lift pins therethrough and configured to allow the lift pin head to rest on a lift pin head slot within the hole (as shown in Fig. 4), the lift pin head slot including a tapered section 33a, 34a, 35a between a wider section (top of 33a, 34a, 35a) and a narrower section (bottom of 33a, 34a, 35a as shown in Fig. 4), the narrower section disposed vertically below the wider section, wherein each of the plurality of support pads is disposed radially outward of each of the plurality of holes of the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein each corresponding aperture and corresponding hole are aligned with respect to each other, through similar sizing or shape or alignment along a common central axis (as shown in the alignment in Fig. 3), and 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 (as shown and suggested by the gap in Fig. 4), [0047-0126].
Narahara does not expressly teach the lift pins comprise a hollow cavity within an outer shell.
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 Narahara in view of Anderson by having the hollow lift pins as per the teachings of Anderson. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Narahara in view of Anderson does not expressly teach when the lift pin is angled sufficiently, the lift pin contacts the susceptor only at the first point of contact and a second point of contact is with the susceptor support via the corresponding aperture, not with the susceptor.
However, this is considered a functional limitation, as a result of the lift pin tilting. As Narahara shows in Fig. 6B, a lift pin can be tilted at and can contact one side of the lift pin hole while being elevated and would then have a second point of contact with the susceptor support as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. As such, the teachings of Narahara in view of Anderson would be capable of contacting the only one first point of contact in the susceptor and a second point of contact with the susceptor support, as a function of tilting, there being no range of tilting to define the contact or physical limitations to define this limitation.
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 Narahara in view of Anderson is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Narahara in view of Anderson would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have the lift pin contacts the susceptor only at the first point of contact and a second point of contact is with the susceptor support via the corresponding aperture, not with the susceptor, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Narahara in view of Anderson and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Narahara teaches a plurality of lift pin supports 752A, each configured to press one of the plurality of lift pins through its corresponding aperture to lift the substrate from the susceptor, as shown in Fig. 1-3.
In regards to Claim 3, Narahara 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. 1-3.
In regards to Claim 5, Narahara 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. 3.
In regards to Claim 6, Narahara teaches each support pad 753 of the plurality of support pads comprises silicon carbide [0069].
In regards to Claim 7, Narahara teaches the plurality of support arms comprises at least three support arms, as shown in Fig. 3.
In regards to Claim 9, Narahara teaches for each support arm of the plurality of support arms, the aperture extends along a vertical axis through the support arm, as shown in Fig. 3
In regards to Claim 13, Narahara teaches 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 shown in Fig. 3
In regards to Claim 20, Narahara 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 Narahara in view of Anderson by making them the plurality of lift pins are hollow and comprise an open end as per the teachings of Anderson. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 24, Narahara does not expressly teach where each of the plurality of lift pins comprises a cavity within an outer shell.
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 Narahara in view of Anderson by making them the plurality of lift pins are hollow and comprise an open end as per the teachings of Anderson. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Conclusion
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
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights