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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are not considered persuasive.
After the interview on 10/23/2025, the Examiner reviewed the amended claims. The Examiner notes that the current claim language is only drawn to the shadow ring, such that the purge gas ring and the purge gas is not positively recited and as such, the new amendment is not given positive weight, as it is drawn to a structure that is not present in the claims. Thus the new amendment, after further search and consideration, would only need to be capable of performing the functionality as recited in the new amendment.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the blocking, which implies the shadow ring does not have apertures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, the teachings of Crevasse teaches the capability of completely blocking the purge gas openings, as when it moves open one set of openings in Fig. 15 of Crevasse, it must cover other openings, such that the singular set of openings in the shadow ring overlaps a solid portion of the purge gas ring when moving between the purge gas ring openings, resulting in the complete blockage of gas when moving from one set of holes to another, thus being capable of blocking the purge gas holes.
The Examiner notes that positively reciting the purge ring and the purge gas and having a shadow ring that does not have openings outside of the central opening in the body of the ring would place the gas in condition for allowance, as is further supported in the shadow rings and the purge ring in the allowable subject matter below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17 and 22-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, does not expressly teach a substrate support with a purge ring that is disposed on the substrate support with a lower surface below the support surface of the substrate support and an upper surface above the support surface and shadow ring that rests on a liner and then contacts a purge ring upper surface when the substrate support is raised and the shadow ring has apertures that are blocked by the purge ring. Specifically, the prior art of record that teaches a shadow ring that rests on a liner with apertures but doesn’t expressly teach the apertures are blocked by the purge ring, as the prior art of record Mizuno teaches that shadow rings that are on liners that connect to purge gas rings do not have their apertures blocked by the purge ring but are actually opened to supply purge gas and does not have openings on the upper surface of the shadow ring and Guo does not expressly teach aperture coverage and does not expressly contact the purge gas ring. And as the rings of Crevasse need rotation to adjust the flow of the gas, applying it to shadow rings on liners which are typically aligned to be fixed, would prevent the functionality of Crevasse and its intended use from functioning. As such, claims 16, 17, 22 and 23 are allowed.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6206976 to Crevasse in view of United States Patent No. 6296712 to Guo et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Crevasse teaches a shadow ring 70 Fig. 1, 70’ Fig. 10-13 for a processing chamber 41, the shadow ring comprising: an annular member (combined structures of 71’, 75’) including a body, an upper surface, and a lower surface; and a plurality of apertures 76, 76’, each aperture extending from a corresponding upper opening at an upper surface of the shadow ring to a corresponding lower opening at a lower surface of the shadow ring, wherein the lower surface is configured to contact an upper surface of a purge ring such that the purge ring blocks the plurality of apertures (as per the annotated copy of Fig. 13 below; Col. 4 line 40-Col. 8 line 60, the purge ring partially blocks the aperture by restricting gas flow).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crevasse further teaches in Fig. 15 that the shadow ring partially blocks the purge gas in the purge gas ring, as the holes in the 73b, 73c are blocked when the shadow ring is open to the holes of 73a, such that moving from one set of holes to another would completely block the holes in the purge gas ring and the purge gas therein. As such, the teachings of Crevasse show that the shadow ring of Crevasse is capable of blocking purge gas in the purge gas ring in the plurality of apertures.
Crevasse does not expressly teach a lip projecting radially inwardly from the body, wherein the upper surface is stepped such that a thickness of the lip from the upper surface to the lower surface is less than a thickness of the body from the upper surface to the lower surface.
Guo teaches a shadow ring 24 Fig. 3 which has a stepped lip 68 projecting radially inward from the body 74, as shown in the shape of the ring 24 in Fig. 3 (Col. 3 line 5-Col. 6 line 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the shadow ring annular member, to add a lip or an elevated outer body, as per the teachings of Guo as a shape for an annular body of a shadow ring. It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the annular member that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting an annular member with a lip. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Crevasse teaches at least one aperture of the plurality of apertures is a circular hole (as shown in Fig. 10, 11).
In regards to Claim 4, Crevasse teaches a neck (which is the solid space between the apertures as shown in 178 of the instant application) between each pair of adjacent apertures of the plurality of apertures, as shown in the separation between apertures in Fig. 10, 11 around the circumference of the ring.
In regards to Claims 5 and 6, Crevasse teaches the plurality of apertures is arranged in a first circle such that the apertures of the first circle are equidistant from a geometric center of the shadow ring and the plurality of apertures is arranged in a second circle surrounding and concentric with the first circle, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 11, which are in the fully open position.
In regards to Claim 21, Crevasse teaches a neck creates a thermal choke to transfer of heat between the lip and the body, as it is the same structure as evidenced in the solid space of the instant application, as per the rejection of Claim 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6206976 to Crevasse in view of United States Patent No. 6296712 to Guo et al and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0186587 to Kawanabe et al.
The teachings of Crevasse in view of Guo are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 3, Crevasse in view of Guo does not expressly teach at least one aperture of the plurality of apertures is a slot.
Kawanabe teaches that the outlet opening of 4a Fig. 1, 2 in the ring of 4 can be a plurality of gas holes or a slit shape around the circumferential direction [0052].
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the apertures that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a slit shape over the plurality of circular holes. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the shape of the gas holes of Crevasse in view of Guo to a slot shape, as per the teachings of Kawanabe.
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
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716