DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status
The amendment filed 01/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 17-20), species (claims 15-16), or subspecies (claims 13-14), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/26/2024. In the amendment filed 01/21/2026, claim 1-2 were amended, no claims were canceled and no claims were newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-12 are 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.
Claim 1 was amended to recite in line 13-14 “the blocking ring serves as a barrier though the gap between the reaction space and the lower space”. It is unclear what is meant by “serves as a barrier through the gap” because this seems to indicate the blocking ring is positioned within the gap and in particular through the gap suggests some portion of the height of the gap has the blocking ring within. However the blocking ring (30 Fig 5) is not positioned within the gap between an inner side surface of the control ring (5 Fig 5) and an outer side surface of the substrate support device (4 Fig 5). Consistent with the instant specification [0088] and the prior discussion regarding the deleted text in the amendment of claim 1, the claim language is interpreted as indicating the blocking ring serves as a barrier to flow of gas between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 1 for clarity such as by amending to recite “the blocking ring serves as a barrier to flow of gas between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap”.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tzu (prev. presented US 2013/0247826).
Regarding claim 1, Tzu teaches a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 1, 2, 6) including one or more reactors (Fig 2, 6), wherein each reactor comprises: an upper body (108, 130 Fig 2, 6); a substrate support device (117, 106 Fig 1, 2, 6); a control ring (202 or 112 and 202 together Fig 2, 6) radially exterior and surrounding the substrate support device (Fig 2, 6) and seated on a step formed in the upper body (206 Fig 2, 6), wherein there is a gap between an inner side surface of the control ring and an outer side surface of the substrate support device (Fig 2, 6); and a blocking ring (216 Fig 2, 6) formed to surround the substrate support device below the gap (Fig 2, 6), wherein the upper body and the substrate support device form a reaction space (space above substrate support Fig 2-4, 6-8), an upper surface of the blocking ring (upper surface of ring 216 Fig 3, 7) is in direct contact with a lower surface of the substrate support device (117, 106 Fig 3, 7), a lower area of the substrate support device forms a lower space (space below substrate support Fig 2-4, 6-8), the blocking ring (216 Fig 2, 6) serves as a barrier to flow between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap [0032], the reaction space and the lower space communicate with each other through the gap (Fig 2, 6), the blocking ring comprises a recessed area to receive the substrate support device (radially inward, shown as left side in Fig 2, of ring 216 is recessed relative to 217 or 233, Fig 2) and an inner diameter of the blocking ring is less than or equal to an outer diameter of the substrate support device (Fig 2, 6 inner diameter of 216 is less than outer diameter of substrate support 117, 106), and an outer diameter of the blocking ring is greater than or equal to an inner diameter of the control ring (Fig 2, 6 outer diameter of 216 is greater than inner diameter of control ring 202 or combination of 202 and 112).
Regarding claim 2, Tzu teaches an upper surface of the blocking ring (upper surface of ring 216 Fig 3, 7) is in contact with a lower surface of the control ring (surface 217 of ring 216 contacting ring 112 Fig 3, 7 which is part of the combination of 112 and 202 together) to prevent communication between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap (Fig 3, 7) [0032].
Regarding claim 3, Tzu teaches a protrusion (portion of ring 216 having surface 217 Fig 2, 6) surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the blocking ring (Fig 2, 6) is formed on the upper surface of the blocking ring (portion of ring 216 having surface 217 is formed on upper surface of ring 216 Fig 2,6), an inner diameter of the protrusion is greater than or equal to the outer diameter of the substrate support device (Fig 2, 6), a height of the protrusion is equal to a vertical distance between the lower surface of the substrate support device and the lower surface of the control ring (Fig 3, 7), the upper surface of the blocking ring and the protrusion form a step having an upper surface (upper surface 217 Fig 2, 6), a lower surface (surface of 216 contacting the substrate support, note this surface is still recessed relative to 233), and a side surface connecting the upper surface (vertically extending surface of the protrusion Fig 2, 6) to the lower surface, and the upper surface of the step contacts the lower surface of the control ring (Fig 3, 7, upper surface 217 contacts the control ring 112, which is part of the combination of 112 and 202 together), and the lower surface of the step contacts the lower surface of the substrate support device (Fig 3, 7).
Regarding claim 5, Tzu remains as applied to claim 3 above. Tzu teaches the inner diameter of the protrusion (vertical portion of 216 Fig 6-7) is the same as the outer diameter of the substrate support device (see Fig 6-7 showing the surfaces contacting), and an interface between the side surface and the lower surface of the step contacts an interface between a side surface and the lower surface of the substrate support device (see Fig 6-7 showing the surfaces contacting).
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) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savandaiah (prev. presented US 2022/0270898) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0096638 of Lavitsky et al., hereinafter Lavitsky.
Regarding claim 1, Savandaiah teaches a substrate processing apparatus (abstract Fig 2A) including one or more reactors (160 Fig 2A), wherein each reactor comprises: an upper body (218, 202, 295 Fig 2A); a substrate support device (224 and 230 Fig 2A); a control ring (227 Fig 2A) radially exterior and surrounding the substrate support device (Fig 2B) and seated on a step formed in the upper body (Fig 2A-2B, seated on 218), wherein there is a gap between an inner side surface of the control ring (227 Fig 2A-B) and an outer side surface of the substrate support device (224 and 230 Fig 2A-B); and a blocking ring (250 Fig 2B) formed to surround the substrate support device below the gap (Fig 2B, [0064]), wherein the upper body and the substrate support device form a reaction space (278 Fig 2B), an upper surface of the blocking ring (portion 304 Fig 3 [0068]) is in contact with a lower surface of the substrate support device (Fig 3 304 is in contact with 230 [0083]) a lower area of the substrate support device forms a lower space (shown, not labeled in Fig 2B), the blocking ring serves as a barrier to flow between he reaction space and the lower space through the gap (Fig 2B) [0020], the blocking ring (250 Fig 2B and 3) comprises a recessed area (upper surface of 250 recessed relative to 308 Fig 3, also note the upper horizontal portion having 308 is recessed relative to the lower surface of the blocking ring 250) to receive the substrate support device (upper surface of 250 receives the substrate support device (224 and 230 Fig 3B)), and an inner diameter of the blocking ring is less than or equal to an outer diameter of the substrate support device (inner diameter of 250 is less than outer diameter of 224 and 230, Fig 2A-B), and an outer diameter of the blocking ring is greater than or equal to an inner diameter of the control ring (outer diameter of 250 is greater than inner diameter of 227 Fig 2B). Savandaiah teaches a sealing portion (304 Fig 3) is in contact with the substrate support device and does not explicitly teach the ring is in direct contact with the lower surface of the substrate support device. In the same field of endeavor of sealing the upper reaction space from the lower space (abstract, Fig 1, 2A), Lavitsky teaches the blocking ring (190 Fig 2A) includes an upper surface 232 of the ring directly in contact with the substrate support to provide the sealing [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ring of Savandaiah to include the ring directly in contact with the substrate support bottom to provide the sealing because Lavitsky teaches this arrangement is a functional alternative.
Regarding claim 2, Savandaiah teaches an upper surface of the blocking ring (upper surface 314 Fig 3) is in direct contact with a lower surface of the control ring (227 Fig 3) to prevent communication between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap [0069],[0083].
Regarding claim 7, Savandaiah teaches the blocking ring (250 Fig 4) includes one or more extensions (252 Fig 4) extending from an inner circumferential surface of the blocking ring toward the center of the blocking ring (Fig 4), and the one or more extensions include a through hole (shown not numbered in Fig 4) through which a substrate support pin (408 Fig 4) passes (shown as 408 passing through opening in 252 Fig 4).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzu.
Regarding claim 4, Tzu fails to teach the side surface of the step has a structure inclined toward the lower surface of the step. Tzu appears to demonstrate a curved lower corner of the side surface (Fig 2, 6) but fails to teach an inclined surface. It is noted that this represents a mere change in shape of the side surface of the protrusion. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the protrusion. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 6, Tzu remains as applied to claim 5 above. In the embodiment of Tzu cited for claim 5 (embodiment of Fig 6-7), Tzu does not teach a width of the protrusion is greater than or equal to a width of the gap. Tzu teaches in the other embodiment that the protrusion has a width greater than the gap (Fig 2, 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the protrusion to include a width greater than or equal to the gap because Tzu teaches the protrusion may contact the outer surface of the substrate support (Fig 6) and may have a top surface positioned radially outward to contact a lower surface of the ring that is radially outward of the substrate support (Fig 2). This represents a mere change in shape of the protrusion.
Regarding claim 7, Tzu remains as applied to claim 1 above. Tzu appears to demonstrate the blocking ring includes a protrusion that extends from an inner circumferential surface of the blocking ring under the substrate support (Fig 6) toward a center of the blocking ring, and the substrate support pin passes through the portion extending under the substrate support (see pin 225 of Fig 7). Tzu does not explicitly teach a through hole through which the substrate support pin passes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the protrusion and a through hole because Tzu demonstrates a protruding structure and demonstrates the pin passing through the blocking ring structure (Fig 7).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savandaiah in view of Lavitsky as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (prev. presented US 2014/0202635).
Regarding claim 8, Savandaiah teaches the substrate support device includes a pin hole through which the substrate support pin passes (Fig 5 and [0073]). Savandaiah fails to teach a bushing having a hollow through which the substrate support pin may pass is inserted into the pin hole of the substrate support device, and the length of the bushing is greater than a thickness of the substrate support device. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 1-3), Yamaguchi teaches a bushing (201 Fig 2, 6) having a hollow through which the substrate support pin may pass is inserted into the pin hole of the substrate support device (201 Fig 2, 6 [0047], [0055-0059]), and the length of the bushing is greater than a thickness of the substrate support device (Fig 2, 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Savandaiah to include the bushing (201) of Yamaguchi because Yamaguchi teaches that it prevents plasma discharge in the pin hole [0065].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savandaiah in view of Lavitsky and Yamaguchi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hur (prev. presented US 2005/0092438).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. The combination as applied fails to teach the bushing passes through the through hole of the extension, a thread is formed on a lower portion of the bushing, the thread is fastened by a nut, and the one or more extensions are between the substrate support device and the thread. Savandaiah teaches a bushing (324 Fig 3) that passes through a through hole of the extension (Fig 3) In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 5-11), Hur teaches a lower bushing (structure 326 Fig 11) including a portion which passes into a hole in a plate below the lift pin (plate 310 Fig 11). Hur teaches this lower bushing includes a thread formed on it (Fig 11 shown as threaded portion below 324), the thread is fastened by a nut (324 Fig 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Savandaiah and the combination of Savandaiah in view of Yamaguchi to include the threaded bushing through the extension and the thread fastened by a nut because Hur teaches this as a structure around the bottom of the lift pin to secure a plate (Fig 11) and Savandaiah has demonstrated a bushing with a threaded screw and nut (Fig 3) for supporting the extension. Regarding the one or more extensions are between the substrate support device and the thread, Savandaiah demonstrates the extension as above the threaded fastener and nut (320 Fig 3, also note Savandaiah teaches 320 around the lift pin in Fig 4-5). Note that combining the structures of Yamaguchi and Hur to form one threaded bushing merely represents making the components integral.
Regarding claim 10, Savandaiah teaches the one or more extensions include at least one elastic body (304 Fig 4) [0083] on an upper surface of the extension (Fig 4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzu in view Savandaiah.
Regarding claim 11, Tzu remains as applied to claim 3 above. Tzu fails to teach the blocking ring includes one or more elastic bodies on at least one of the upper surface, the lower surface, and the side surface of the step. Savandaiah teaches an elastic body (318 Fig 3) on the upper surface of the blocking ring contacting the control ring. Savandaiah teaches this improves sealing [0069], [0087]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tzu to include an elastic body on upper surface 217 of the protrusion because Savandaiah teaches this structure provides a seal against the lower surface of the ring above it [0087].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savandaiah in view of Lavitsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen (prev. presented US 2019/0131165).
Regarding claim 12, Savandaiah fails to teach a plurality of extensions extending radially from a bottom inner circumferential surface of the blocking ring toward the center of the blocking ring, wherein lengths of the extensions are less than a radius of the blocking ring because Savandaiah appears to teach the blocking ring has a circular shape with a circular inner edge that is the same length around the circle (see inner edge of 252 Fig 2). Savandaiah teaches the structure is supported by mounting to the substrate support (see 320 Fig 3) and teaches the ring has a space for lift pins to be positioned (Fig 4). In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Nguyen demonstrates that the ring (161 Fig 2) may include protrusions for the positioning of lift pins (202 Fig 2) and a protrusion for connection to the structure supporting the ring (Fig 2 shown as actuator not labeled). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the blocking ring of Savandaiah to include radial protrusions for interfacing with the lift pins and/or supporting structures because the supporting structure interface (see Fig 3) is after the seal connection and the use of protrusions rather than a continuous circle of material allow for less material for the blocking ring thereby reducing the cost of the blocking ring. Additionally this represents a mere change of shape of the inner edge of the ring. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the inner surface of the blocking ring. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Regarding the protrusions being less than the radius of the ring, the current inner edge of the ring of Savandaiah is less than the radius and therefore replacing the inner edge with protrusions where needed for securing the edge ring would also not need to be more than the radial length of the blocking ring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p7-8) that Savandaiah does not teach the direct contact as required by the amendment. This is moot because the rejection is now an obviousness rejection including new reference Lavitsky which does teach a ring in direct contact with the bottom of the substrate support to create the seal.
Applicant argues (reply p9-10) that Tzu does not teach the blocking ring serves as a barrier to gas flow through between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap. This is not persuasive because Fig 3 and [0032] clearly indicate that 216 seals to the bottom of ring 112 thereby blocking flow within the gap between the substrate support and ring 112. Applicant uses Fig 2 which is a lowered position to argue the seal is not present. Further it is noted the claim requires only blocking flow through the gap, not flow around the gap through a different gap, etc. Further the claim requires a barrier not a hermetic seal (i.e. a reduction in flow or partial obstruction is inclusive of serving as a barrier, the use of barrier does not require a complete blockage as applicant’s arguments suggest).
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p10-11) rely on the alleged failing of the art to teach or suggest the amendments to the independent claim, which has not been found persuasive for the reasons presented above.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0126515 demonstrates a recessed structure below the substrate support (Fig 1). US 2014/0000843 demonstrates a recessed structure (42) below the substrate support (Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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 on 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights