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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 April 2026 has been entered. .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to applicant’s amendments filed 08 April 2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12 are pending. Claim 9 is withdrawn. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 2-3, 7 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets limitation “porous” (claim 1, 3, 4, 5) under broadest reasonable interpretation as having pores, permeable to fluids, or a porous material such as SiC in light of instant application para. [0048].
Examiner interprets limitation “process gas supply” (claim 1) in light of original Specification para. [0030] as comprising a gas nozzle.
Examiner interprets limitation “purge gas supply” (claim 1, 4) in light of original Specification para. [0049] as comprising a flow path.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US5985033 hereinafter “Yudovsky ‘033”) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2017/0309512 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky ‘512”), Ahn (KR20030080600A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation, first cited in non-final rejection of 14 June 2024) and Han (US 2012/0180726 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Regarding independent claim 1, Yudovsky '033 teaches a deposition apparatus (comprising CVD processing chamber 12, Fig. 3, col 4 line 30-45) comprising:
a processing chamber (comprising processing chamber 12, Fig. 3);
a susceptor (comprising 30, Fig. 2 and 3, col 8 line 42-43) provided in the processing chamber (comprising 12, Fig. 3), the susceptor (comprising 12, Fig. 2 and 3) having a recess (see annotated Fig. 2 below; comprising 34, Fig. 6) on a surface of the susceptor (comprising 30, Fig. 2), the recess including a support (comprising 30, Fig. 3, see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a groove (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the support supporting a region that includes a center of a substrate (comprising 14, Fig. 2) and that does not include an edge of the substrate, the groove being located around the support (comprising 30, Fig. 2), and
the groove being recessed relative to the support (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
a purge gas supply (comprising purge gas line 48, Fig. 3) configured to supply a purge gas to the groove (col 5 line, 1-15); and
a ring (comprising deflection member 100, Fig. 2, col 5 line 45-60) provided around the support between a back surface of the substrate (comprising 14, Fig. 2) supported by the support (comprising 30, Fig 2) and a bottom surface of the groove (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
wherein a first clearance is formed between an outer edge of the ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2) and an inner wall surface of the recess, and a second clearance is formed between a back surface of the ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2) and the bottom surface of the groove, and wherein the first clearance communicates with the second clearance in the recess (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
1158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yudovsky '033 does not clearly and explicitly teach: a process gas supply configured to supply a process gas to the surface of the susceptor; the ring is a porous ring; wherein an inner edge of the porous ring is in contact with an outer wall surface of the support, and wherein the susceptor includes a porous portion that communicates from a front surface of the porous portion to a back surface of the porous portion in a region including the support, the porous portion being configured to rotate with respect to the susceptor and to be removable from the susceptor.
However, Yudovsky '033 teaches the ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2) is directly adjacent a sidewall of the support (comprising 30, Fig. 2) and further teaches the ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2) can be mounted or alternatively forming integrally (i.e. joined/in contact) with the support 30 (col 5 line 43-45). In other words, Yudovsky '033 teaches/suggests rearrangement of the ring wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that attaching the inner edge of the ring (100, Fig. 2) to be in contact with an outer wall surface of the support (comprising 30, Fig. 2) would be an easily envisioned embodiment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the ring 100 such that an inner edge of the porous ring is in contact with an outer wall surface of the support because Yudovsky '033 teaches the ring can be mounted or alternatively forming integrally (i.e. joined/in contact) with the support 30 (col 5 line 43-45) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that attaching/mounting the inner edge of the ring (100, Fig. 2) to be in contact with an outer wall surface of the support (comprising 30, Fig. 2) would be an easily envisioned embodiment.
Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
However, Yudovsky '033 teaches a process gas is supplied into the chamber to perform a film deposition on the substrate (col 4 line 36-39).
Additionally, Yudovsky '512 teaches a deposition apparatus (comprising Fig. 1, 3, 5 para. [0019]) comprising: a process gas supply (comprising gas distribution assembly 120, Fig. 1 and 3, para. [0019]-[0020]; comprising gas distribution assembly 220, Fig. 4-5, para. [0032]) configured to supply a process gas to the surface (i.e. upper surface) of the susceptor (comprising 140, Fig. 1 and 2; comprising 300, Fig. 6-9)(para. [0019]-[0020]; para. [0032]-[0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a process gas supply because Yudovsky '033 already teaches providing a process gas in the processing chamber to perform a film deposition on the substrate and because Yudovsky '512 teaches/suggests the structure of a process gas supply suitable for use in a deposition apparatus.
Yudovsky '033 in view of Yudovsky '512 as applied above does not explicitly teach that the ring is a porous ring.
However, Ahn teaches a deposition apparatus (comprising CVD reaction device, Fig. 3, para. [003]) including a porous ring comprising silicon carbide (porous SiC guide ring 1, Fig. 1, 2, 3) wherein such a selection of material enables absorbing byproducts (para. [0017], [0027]).
Examiner further notes that Yudovsky ‘033 teaches the ring configurations are configured to prevent deposition near the edge and the backside of the substrate (col 1 line 10-14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ring to be a porous ring by selecting a porous material such as silicon carbide for the material of the ring because Ahn teaches that such a material enables absorbing byproducts (Ahn: para. [0017]) thus further helping minimizing or preventing backside deposition on the substrate/wafer (Yudovsky ‘033: col 1 line 10-14).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Yudovsky '033 in view of Yudovsky '512 and Ahn as applied above do not explicitly teach wherein the susceptor includes a porous portion that communicates from a front surface of the porous portion to a back surface of the porous portion in a region including the support, the porous portion being configured to rotate with respect to the susceptor and to be removable from the susceptor.
However, Yudvosky ‘512 further teaches wherein the susceptor (comprising 300, Fig. 6-9) includes a porous portion (i.e. a portion containing pores/holes; comprising top surface 320 including vacuum apertures, Fig. 9, para. [0044]) that communicates from a front surface (comprising top surface 320, Fig. 9, para. [0044]) of the porous portion to a back surface (not shown but understood to be a surface connected to vacuum feed channels 326, Fig. 7) of the porous portion in a region including the support (comprising 312, Fig. 8) (para. [0042]-[0044]). Yudovsky ‘512 teaches that such a configuration enables providing vacuum to the recess (comprising 320, Fig. 6 and 9) (para. [0044]).
Additionally, Han teaches that configuring a portion of a susceptor to be removable would enable ease of replacement and maintenance (para. [0024], [0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the susceptor (Yudovsky ‘033: comprising 30, Fig. 2) to include a porous portion that communicates from a front surface of the porous portion to a back surface of the porous portion in a region including the support and to further configure the porous portion to be removable because Yudovsky ‘512 teaches that providing such a porous portion enables providing vacuum to the support which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand enabling vacuum holding/chucking the substrate during processing and because Han teaches/suggests that configuring a portion of a susceptor to be removable would enable ease of replacement and maintenance (Han: para. [0024], [0045]). Regarding limitation “rotate with respect to the susceptor,” in modifying the porous portion to be removable it would also be obvious that the porous portion would be capable of being rotated (at least manually rotated during the process of removing or after removing) with respect to the rest of the susceptor.
Regarding clam 4, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn and Han as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a porous ring (comprising ring 100 of Yudovsky ‘033 modified by teachings of Ahn to be porous SiC).
Additionally, Yudovsky ‘033 teaches wherein the purge gas supply supplies the purge gas between the bottom surface of the groove and a back surface of the porous ring. See annotated Fig. 2 of Yudovsky ‘033 below (see Fig. 3 and col 5 line 54-66).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn and Han as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, including a porous ring (see teachings of Ahn modifying ring 100 of Yudovsky ‘033 as applied above in claim 1). Ahn further teaches the porous ring is formed of SiC. Thus, the combination meets claim 5 limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn and Han as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and Yudovsky ‘033 further teaches wherein the substrate (comprising 14, Fig. 2 and 6) has a circular plate shape (as understood from Fig. 6), and wherein the recess (see annotated Fig. 2) has a circular shape, and a diameter of the recess (comprising 34, Fig. 6) is greater than a diameter of the substrate (as understood from Fig. 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn and Han teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Yudovsky ‘033 further teaches wherein the porous ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2 modified in claim 1 to be porous SiC) is provided such that the purge gas supplied to the groove (see annotated Fig. 2 in claim 1 rejection above) flows to (i.e. towards) the back surface of the substrate (comprising 14, Fig. 2) through (i.e. by way of/via or alternatively through the grooves 106, Fig. 2, 4 and 6) the porous ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2) (col 6 line 66-col 7 line 35). Examiner notes if “purge gas supplied to the groove flows…through the porous ring” were intended to mean purge gas flows through pores/porous material of the porous ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since the ring 100 was modified to be a porous SiC in claim 1, the ring would be capable of meeting this limitation depending on the purge gas pressure or purge gas flow rate intended to be used.
Regarding claim 12, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn and Han teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Yudovsky ‘033 further teaches wherein the porous ring is provided such that the purge gas supplied to the groove (see annotated Fig. 2 in claim 1 rejection above) is supplied to the second clearance (see annotated Fig. 2 in claim 1 rejection above) and flows to the back surface of the substrate (comprising 14, Fig. 2) through (i.e. by way of/via or alternatively through the grooves 106, Fig. 2, 4 and 6) the porous ring (comprising 100, Fig. 2 modified in claim 1 rejection to be porous SiC) (col 6 line 66-col 7 line 35). Examiner notes if “purge gas supplied to the groove flows…through the porous ring” were intended to mean purge gas flows through pores/porous material of the porous ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since the ring 100 was modified to be a porous SiC in claim 1, the ring would be capable of meeting this limitation depending on the purge gas pressure or purge gas flow rate intended to be used.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky et al. (US5985033 hereinafter “Yudovsky ‘033”) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2017/0309512 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky ‘512”), Ahn (KR20030080600A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) and Han (US 2012/0180726 A1)as applied above in 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0155823 A1 hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 6, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn and Han as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not clearly and explicitly teach the recess further includes a protrusion portion that is provided along the groove and that protrudes from a bottom surface of the groove.
However, Matsumoto teaches a deposition apparatus (comprising film deposition chamber, Fig. 2, para. [0033], title) comprising a protrusion portion (comprising ring plate-like shower plate 49 having discontinuous protrusions on a lower surface, Fig. 2 and 3) that is provided along a groove formed in a susceptor (comprising susceptor 16, Fig. 2) and the protrusion portion (comprising 49, Fig. 2 and 3) protrudes from a bottom surface of the groove (para. [0036]-[0039]). Matsumoto teaches that such a configuration provides a showerhead configuration to distribute inert/purge gas uniformly around the susceptor support (comprising susceptor body 16A, Fig. 2) (para. [0039]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a protrusion portion to the recess such that the protrusion portion that is provided along the groove and that protrudes from a bottom surface of the groove because Matsumoto teaches that this is a known suitable alternative configuration of a deposition apparatus having a susceptor that would uniformly distribute inert/purge gas around the susceptor support.
Examiner further notes that the protrusion portion 29 of the instant invention (see para. [0051] and Fig. 8 and 9) also has a function of uniformly distributing purge gas.
Regarding claim 10, Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn, Han and Matsumoto teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as applied above and Matsumoto further teaches wherein the protrusion portion (comprising 49, Fig. 2) is spaced apart from the outer wall surface of the support (comprising outer wall surface of 16A, Fig. 2). Examiner explains when modifying the apparatus of modified Yudovsky ‘033 with the teachings of Matsumoto to include the protrusion portion, the resulting apparatus would have a protrusion portion spaced apart from the outer wall surface of the support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Yudovsky '512, alone or in combination with Yudovsky '033 and Ahn, does not teach or suggest "the porous portion being configured to rotate with respect to the susceptor and to be removable from the susceptor" as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently independent claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable over Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn, Han as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Yudovsky ‘512 teaches a porous portion that communicates from a front surface of the porous portion to a back surface of the porous portion in a region including the support. Additionally, Han teaches configuring a portion of a susceptor to be removable for ease of replacement and maintenance (para. [0024], [0045]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure the apparatus of modified Yudovsky ‘033 to include a porous portion of Yudovsky ‘512 and configure it to be removable because Yudovsky ‘512 teaches that such a configuration enables providing vacuum to the support which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand enabling vacuum holding/chucking the substrate during processing and because Han teaches/suggests configuration a portion of a susceptor to be removable would enable ease of replacement and maintenance (para. [0024], [0045]). Regarding limitation “rotate with respect to the susceptor” in modifying the porous portion to be removable it would also be obvious that the porous portion would be capable of being rotated (at least manually rotated during the process of removing or after removing) with respect to the rest of the susceptor.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Matsumoto does not teach/suggest "a porous ring provided around the support between a back surface of the substrate supported by the support and a bottom surface of the groove" as recited in amended claim 1 and fails to remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of Yudovsky '033, Yudovsky '512, and Ahn.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently independent claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable over Yudovsky ‘033 in view of Yudovsky ‘512, Ahn, Han as discussed in detail above. Matsumoto is cited to teach limitations of claim 6 and 10. Matsumoto is not cited to teach limitations of independent claim 1.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected. Additionally, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1, the dependent claims 4-6, 8 and 10-12 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights