DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 9, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1 and 16 are amended; claims 13-15 are canceled.
The applicant contends that, by virtue of incorporating the content of claim 15 into claim 1, the claim set in is condition for allowance. (The PTAB reversed the Office’s rejection of claim 15 in the decision rendered on June 9, 2026.)
In response, the examiner has located prior art which is germane to the new material of claim 1, and 103 rejections have been applied accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because it ostensibly depends from itself. The examiner understands this to be a typographical error and will treat the claim as depending from claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
According to a First Grounds of Rejection:
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava, US 2019/0338420, in view of Carducci et al., US 2013/0118686, and Iizuka et al., US 2022/0084798.
Claim 1: Srivastava discloses a CVD apparatus (Fig. 1A), comprising:
A chamber (100);
A susceptor movable in the vertical direction;
An entry/takeout port (132) for a substrate [0016];
Wherein the susceptor includes:
A mounting plate (126) having an upper surface on which the substrate is mounted;
A support (128) connected to a lower surface of the mounting plate;
Wherein the entry/takeout port (132) is provided on a part of a side of the chamber and disposed between an inner bottom surface of the chamber and the lower surface of the mounting plate;
Ceramic liners (120, 122) which cover the chamber’s inner bottom surface and side surface [0017].
Srivastava is silent regarding the matter of a gate valve, and the ceramic liners do not cover the lower surface of the mounting plate nor the outer side surface of the support. Regarding the first omission, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is known to provide a cover for an entry/takeout port to preclude the diffusion of contaminants between isolated environments. For this known reason, it would have been obvious to equip Srivastava’s port with a gate valve.
Regarding the second omission, Carducci teaches a deposition chamber comprising an interior liner (110) fitted about the chamber’s interior [0019]. The reference contemplates an extension (180) to the liner which would protect the outer diameter of the susceptor from the corrosive processing environment [0025]. It would have been obvious to integrate a liner for the side surface of Srivastava’s susceptor, as using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Because Carducci’s susceptor is not of the stem paradigm, the reference cannot disclose an underside liner, by definition. Yet the underside of Srivastava’s mounting plate is exposed, and the motivation for lining the susceptor’s outer surface applies with equal force to the matter of lining its underside. It would have been obvious, then, to extend the liner to the underside of Srivastava’s mounting plate to achieve the same purpose of corrosion protection.
Regarding the fifth-to-last paragraph of claim 1 stipulating that the liners covering the lower surface and the outer side surface are “connected,” the examiner observes that Carducci already covers adjacent, orthogonal surfaces with a continuous liner (Fig. 1). Srivastava’s lower and outer side surfaces, too, are oriented perpendicularly and, given Carducci’s demonstration that a continuous liner can effectively cover such an interface, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate a “connected” liner to protect Srivastava’s exposed surfaces.
Lastly, regarding the concluding paragraphs of claim 1, Iizuka describes a vertically-movable susceptor (20) having stem-type shaft which extends through a lower chamber wall (11) into a bellows (60) (Fig. 1). The reference surrounds the susceptor’s outer circumference and underside, as well as the shaft, with a “shield” (28, 29) that may be analogized as a liner for purposes of claim construction [0028]. In turn, the liner (29) extends through the chamber bottom and inserts within the subjacent bellows, even when the “susceptor is located at a processing position.” The liner ultimately extends to a moving plate (61) exterior of the bellows [0032]. In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to extend the prior art’s liner through the chamber floor to achieve the predictable result of augmenting the chamber area protected from extraneous material, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 2: As rendered by Figure 1A of Srivastava, a gap is disposed between the liners and the corresponding chamber wall.
Claim 3: Srivastava couples an inert gas supply pipe (166) to the gaps [0020].
Claims 8-9: Srivastava provides a gas inlet (166) which can be used to deliver a gas of any type, including fluorine. It should be noted that a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Claim 10: Carducci forms the chamber of metal [0023].
Claim 12: As shown by Figure 1B of Srivastava, a continuous gap (114) spans between the chamber’s bottom and side surfaces.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Carducci and Iizuka, and in further view of Imafuku et al., US 2004/0083970.
Claims 4-5: Srivastava does not appear to extend the liner into the confines of the entry/takeout port. Imafuku, however, inserts a liner (100) into a substrate transfer port (20) formed in the sidewall of a processing chamber (Fig. 1). The liner (100) is coated with an insulating film (200) to improve its resistance to plasma-induced erosion [0027]. As Srivastava also performs plasma processing, it would have been obvious to provide a liner at the takeout port to advance the objective of plasma resistance.
Claim 6: Srivastava couples an inert gas supply pipe (166) to the gap [0020].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Carducci and Iizuka, and in further view of Ghosh et al., US 2019/0080889.
Srivastava’s liner is formed of aluminum oxide, but the reference is silent regarding the composition of the mounting plate and support. Ghosh, in supplementation, discloses a deposition chamber comprising a susceptor assembly formed of aluminum nitride, thereby demonstrating the suitability of the material for use within processing environments [0021]. It would have been obvious to select AlN to compose Srivastava’s susceptor, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
According to a Second Grounds of Rejection:
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Carducci, Underwood et al., US 2016/0336174, and Iizuka.
Claim 1: Srivastava discloses a CVD apparatus (Fig. 1A), comprising:
A chamber (100);
A susceptor movable in the vertical direction;
An entry/takeout port (132) for a substrate [0016];
Wherein the susceptor includes:
A mounting plate (126) having an upper surface on which the substrate is mounted;
A support (128) connected to a lower surface of the mounting plate;
Wherein the entry/takeout port (132) is provided on a part of a side of the chamber and disposed between an inner bottom surface of the chamber and the lower surface of the mounting plate;
Ceramic liners (120, 122) which cover the chamber’s inner bottom surface and side surface [0017].
Srivastava is silent regarding the matter of a gate valve, and the ceramic liners do not cover the lower surface of the mounting plate nor the outer side surface of the support. Regarding the first omission, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is known to provide a cover for an entry/takeout port to preclude the diffusion of contaminants between isolated environments. For this known reason, it would have been obvious to equip Srivastava’s port with a gate valve.
Regarding the second omission, Carducci teaches a deposition chamber comprising an interior liner (110) fitted about the chamber’s interior [0019]. The reference contemplates an extension (180) to the liner which would protect the outer diameter of the susceptor from the corrosive processing environment [0025]. It would have been obvious to integrate a liner for the side surface of Srivastava’s susceptor, as using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Because Carducci’s susceptor is not of the stem paradigm, the reference cannot disclose an underside liner, by definition. Yet the underside of Srivastava’s mounting plate is exposed, and the motivation for lining the susceptor’s outer surface applies with equal force to the matter of lining its underside. It would have been obvious, then, to extend the liner to the underside of Srivastava’s mounting plate to achieve the same purpose of corrosion protection.
Regarding the fifth-to-last paragraph of claim 1 stipulating that the liners covering the lower surface and the outer side surface are “connected,” the examiner observes that Carducci already covers adjacent, orthogonal surfaces with a continuous liner (Fig. 1). Srivastava’s lower and outer side surfaces, too, are oriented perpendicularly and, given Carducci’s demonstration that a continuous liner can effectively cover such an interface, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate a “connected” liner to protect Srivastava’s exposed surfaces.
Lastly, regarding the concluding paragraphs of claim 1, Underwood describes a vertically-movable susceptor (124) having stem-type shaft which extends through a lower chamber wall into a bellows (Fig. 1). The reference surrounds the susceptor’s outer circumference and underside, as well as the shaft, with a “shield member” (125) that may be analogized as a liner for purposes of claim construction [0017]. The shield member further extends through the chamber bottom and inserts within the subjacent bellows, even when the “susceptor is located at a processing position.” In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to extend the prior art’s liner through the chamber floor to achieve the predictable result of augmenting the chamber area protected from extraneous material, since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
As shown by Figure 1, Underwood’s liner (127) appears to terminate at a “connector” (150) disposed directly atop the moving plate rather than fully “extending to” said moving plate (~140). The examiner notes that this rendering, in all likelihood, is not an accurate representation of the structural arrangement of the depicted features. The components of a matching circuit (152) are conventionally disposed outside the boundary of the processing chamber, whereby only a wire feeds through the substrate support to connect the matching circuit to an internal electrode. Thus, it is the Office’s position that the white block which ostensibly mediates between the terminus of the liner and the moving plate is a representational distortion, i.e., the block is not a physical entity but, instead, is merely an artifact of Applicant’s attempt to illustrate a node of the connecting electrical wire. That is, Underwood’s liner does, in fact, extend to the moving plate.
As evidence, the Office cites Iizuka, who discloses an analogous apparatus in which a liner (29) covers the outer circumference of a movable substrate support (20) to extend all the way to a moving plate (61) external to the bellows ([0028]; Figs. 1-2). Critically, like Underwood, Iizuka’s system comprises a match circuit (53), but the latter demonstrates that these electronics are necessarily disposed outside the process chamber boundary with the exception of a wire which extends through the hollow of the substrate support. Clearly, there are no components of Iizuka’s match circuit which mediate between the substrate support and the moving plate.
And yet, even if it is assumed that the white block of Underwood is a veritable physical component rather than an illustrative artifact, Iizuka can be understood to demonstrate that the components of a matching circuit can be readily organized to permit the liner circumscribing the substrate support to extend directly to the moving plate. And it would have been obvious to configure the connection between the liner and moving plate in accordance with Iizuka’s paradigm, as applying a known connection technique to a known device to yield a predictable result is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Carducci, Underwood, and Iizuka, and in further view of Ghosh.
As shown by Figure 1, Underwood couples the support liner (127) to a moving plate (140) [0020]. The reference is silent regarding the matter of a gas supply pipe. Ghosh, discussed above, also provides a moving plate to facilitate the vertical translation of the susceptor yet, in addition, the reference situates a gas supply pipe (114) within the moving plate to emit an inert gas about the stem to thwart extraneous deposits [0024]. Because Ghosh does not form a liner about the stem of the substrate support, the reference offers no guidance as to whether the pipe ought to feed the gas between stem and liner, as claimed, or between the liner and bellows. But given a finite number of identified, predictable solution – here, there are only two such solutions – it would have been obvious to choose among them with a reasonable expectation of success. The examiner observes that there is a gap between Underwood’s stem and liner, establishing that the system is structurally compatible with the claimed act of gas provision.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Mardian et al., US 7,468,104. This reference discloses a CVD apparatus comprising a chamber (10), a susceptor (24), a mounting plate (26), a lower surface connected to the underside of the mounting plate, a liner (12), and an inert gas supply pipe (32) connected to a gap between the liner and the interior of the chamber walls (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights