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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2006/0281310) in view of Pai et al (WO 2011009007 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a substrate processing system, comprising:
a substrate support (Fig. 2 #110 substrate support) including
a plurality of zones; and a plurality of resistive heaters (Fig. 2 #136 heater) arranged throughout the plurality of zones, wherein the plurality of resistive heaters includes separately-controllable resistive heaters arranged in respective ones of the plurality of zones ([0021] lines 4-7 ---"The heater 136 generally includes one or more resistive coils (not shown) embedded in a conductive body. The resistive coils may be independently controllable to create heater zones.”); a shaft (Fig. 2 #112 shaft);
and a controller (Fig. 1 #130 controller) comprising:
a rotation determination module configured to determine a rotational position of a substrate arranged on the lift pad; an actuator control module configured to selectively rotate the lift pad to adjust the substrate to the rotational position ([0043] lines 11-13 ---"The controller can further be coupled to the rotating lift assembly 150 to control the rotation thereof during processing.”);
and a temperature control module configured to control the plurality of resistive heaters to selectively adjust temperatures within the plurality of zones based on the rotational position ([0043 lines 8-11 ---"Additionally, the controller 130 can control the temperature of the substrate support 110, and therefore the temperature of a substrate placed thereon.”); an actuator (Fig. 2 #208 motor) coupled to the shaft (Fig. 2 #112 shaft).
However, Smith does not disclose a lift pad arranged on the substrate support; a shaft passing through the substrate support and coupled to the lift pad.
Nonetheless, Pai teaches a lift pad (Fig. 7 #702 cylindrical body) arranged on the substrate support (Fig. 7 #104 substrate support); a shaft (Fig. 7 #164 shaft) passing through the substrate support (Fig. 7 #104 substrate support) and coupled to the lift pad(Fig. 7 #702 cylindrical body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smith by incorporating the lift pad and shaft passing through the substrate support and coupled to the lift pad as taught by Pai , since it has been held that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the rotational position based on data indicating characteristics of at least one of the substrate ([0051] lines 1-5 ---"A substrate may be monitored by appropriate profiling equipment such that the rotation of a substrate supported on the rotating lift assembly 150 may be controlled over the course of multiple process cycles in order to get a desired deposition profile within each process cycle.”), the substrate support, and a processing step to be performed on the substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Smith teaches wherein the characteristics of the substrate include characteristics of the substrate associated with a previous processing step performed on the substrate ([0051] lines 1-5 ---"A substrate may be monitored by appropriate profiling equipment such that the rotation of a substrate supported on the rotating lift assembly 150 may be controlled over the course of multiple process cycles in order to get a desired deposition profile within each process cycle.”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Smith teaches wherein the data includes measurements of the substrate subsequent to a previous processing step performed on the substrate ([0051] lines 1-5 ---"A substrate may be monitored by appropriate profiling equipment such that the rotation of a substrate supported on the rotating lift assembly 150 may be controlled over the course of multiple process cycles in order to get a desired deposition profile within each process cycle.”).
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to rotate the lift pad to each of a plurality of predetermined positions during a processing step performed on the substrate ([0053] ---" In addition, the substrate supported by the rotating lift assembly 150 may be incrementally indexed during processing, rather then uniformly rotated. For example, you can process a substrate in one position for a certain period of time then index the substrate to a new position for a subsequent period of time. For example, the substrate may be held in a first orientation for a first period of time, the rotated 180 degrees into a second orientation and processed for a second period of time.”).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the plurality of resistive heaters to selectively adjust the temperatures within the plurality of zones in response to the rotational position being adjusted ([0021] lines 1-7 ---" The heater 136 may be utilized to control the temperature of the substrate placed on the substrate support 110 during processing in order to facilitate film formation thereupon. The heater 136 generally includes one or more resistive coils (not shown) embedded in a conductive body. The resistive coils may be independently controllable to create heater zones.”).
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to rotate the lift pad to adjust the substrate to the rotational position based on an arrangement of the plurality of zones ([0043] lines 11-13 ---"The controller can further be coupled to the rotating lift assembly 150 to control the rotation thereof during processing.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2006/0281310) in view of Pai et al (WO 2011009007 A2) as applied to claim 1, further in view of You et al (US 6,407,009).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to rotate the lift pad prior to a trim processing step performed on the substrate.
Nonetheless, You in the same field of endeavor being semiconductor processing devices teaches wherein the controller is configured to rotate the lift pad prior to a trim processing step performed on the substrate (Col. 23 lines 47-51 ---" After the rapid spinning step shown in FIG. 3a, or the stop time shown in FIG. 3b, the wafer can be subsequently rotated to carry out other processes known in the art, for example, evaporation of excess solvents, edge trimming and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Smith in view of Pai by incorporating the controller configured to rotate the lift pad prior to a trim processing step as taught by You for the benefit of carrying out other processes known in the art. (You Col. 23 paragraph 3)
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Pai teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to rotate the lift pad during a trim processing step performed on the substrate.
Nonetheless, You teaches wherein the controller is configured to rotate the lift pad during a trim processing step performed on the substrate (Col. 23 lines 47-51 ---" After the rapid spinning step shown in FIG. 3a, or the stop time shown in FIG. 3b, the wafer can be subsequently rotated to carry out other processes known in the art, for example, evaporation of excess solvents, edge trimming and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Smith in view of Pai by incorporating the controller configured to rotate the lift pad prior to a trim processing step as taught by You for the benefit of carrying out other processes known in the art. (You Col. 23 paragraph 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pai et al (WO 2011009007 A2).
Applicant argues that Smith does not teach the amended limitation "a shaft passing through the substrate support and coupled to the lift pad." Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference Pai does teach "a shaft passing through the substrate support and coupled to the lift pad." See the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights