DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (8/22/2022), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were examined in a Non-Final on 1/28/2025. A Final office action in response to Applicants submission of 5/28/2025 was mailed on 7/15/2025. Claims 1-20 were examined. A Non-Final office action in view of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was mailed on 2/24/2026. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 was entered.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicants’ arguments related to the amendments are not persuasive in view of the present office action.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-16, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yicheng Li (US 7740705).
Li discloses a chamber suitable for processing semiconductor substrates, comprising: a chamber body (Fig 1A);
a chamber lid coupled to the chamber body to define a process volume (130);
a faceplate coupled to the chamber lid (144);
a pedestal (302) coupled to a stem (Fig 2A) disposed in the processing volume,
a pumping plate disposed concentric to the pedestal in the processing volume (304, 310);
a ground bowl (302) positioned in the processing volume, the ground bowl coupled to a lift system (Col 5 lines 51-58) separate from the pedestal, that moves the ground bowl between an elevated processing position and a lowered processing position; and
a ground bowl conductor (306, 314, 320) coupled to the ground bowl, the ground bowl conductor contacting the pumping plate when the ground bowl is in the elevated processing position.
Regarding claim 2, a vertical stem is attached to 302.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses RF source (150) connected to an electrode through a match network (Col 9 lines 39-54) in support 302.
Regarding claim 4 and 16 ground bowl conductor (306, 314 or 320) is in a compressed state when ground bowl is elevated.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 15 ground bowl conductor could be a bellow (Fig 5 and description).
Regarding claim 6 ground bowl ground bowl conductor (306, 320) would be spaced from the pumping plate (304, 310).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 18, 20 bellows 320 is constituted by stainless steel (Col 15 lines 31-36).
Regarding claims 13-14 with the interpretation of surface area as above it is noted that since Li discloses the claimed structure, claimed surface area for RF to propagate is also disclosed.
Regarding claim 21 the ground bowl conductor (306, 314, 320) is disposed over the bottom plane of pedestal just like in the application.
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 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.
Claims 7, 9, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yicheng Li (US 7740705) in view of Baiei Kawano (US 7267725).
Regarding claims as above, Yicheng Li do not disclose lift pin and other limitations related to claims as mentioned above.
Kawano discloses a chamber suitable for processing semiconductor substrates, comprising: a chamber body (Fig 1,1);
a chamber lid coupled to the chamber body to define a process volume (11);
a faceplate coupled to the chamber lid (10);
a pedestal (4) disposed in the processing volume,
a pumping plate disposed concentric to the pedestal in the processing volume (7);
a ground bowl (4) positioned in the processing volume, the ground bowl coupled to a lift system that moves the ground bowl between an elevated processing position and a lowered processing position; and
a ground bowl conductor (8) coupled to the ground bowl, the ground bowl conductor contacting the pumping plate when the ground bowl is in the elevated processing position (As noted in Col 10 lines 36-43 the bellows 8 could be attached to the step 14).
Regarding the amendment, the ground bowl conductor is around the pedestal 4 or between the pedestal and ground bowl end at 14.
Regarding claim 7 lift pins (9) are disclosed.
Claims 9, 11 and 17 are rejected with claim 1 as ground bowl conductor bellows is disclosed to be constituted of aluminum or nickel-based alloy (Col 10 lines 11-17).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yicheng Li (US 7740705) in view of Baiei Kawano (US 7267725) and Yudovsky (US 20150236566).
Regarding claim 19, Yudovsky discloses a semiconductor processing apparatus using plasma in vacuum and being analogous of ground bowl and bellows being of stainless steel (Para 56 and 66).
Since stainless steel is corrosion resistant having this as a ground bowl would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daisuke Toriya (US 20140130743) discloses a chamber where a pedestal 34 supporting a substrate, lifts to contact a pumping plate (51) using a bellows (Fig 2).
Einosuke Tsuda (US 20100310772) discloses a chamber where a pedestal 34 supporting a substrate, lifts to contact a pumping plate (26) using a bellows (Fig 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights