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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 14 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 18-19 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 17 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Pozzetti in addition to previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the 112 (b) rejection of “uniform thickness” that it is not abstract or subjective, and has clear functional meaning (and Applicant attempts to provide an explanation to include subject matter that is not included in the disclosure).
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Applicant has not defined in the specification nor disclosure, what “uniform thickness” means other than emissivity distribution, which is clearly subjective. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 112 (b) rejection is maintained.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Gas supplier (gas supply head, oxygen-containing gas supply pipe, hydrogen-containing gas supply pipe, inert gas supply pipe, MFC’s, and/or valves, para. [0057]) in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-17 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 recites “a recess is provided on the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover to form a gap of a second height between the lower surface of the substrate mounting table and the upper surface of the substrate mounting table” in the claim. It is unclear which portion of the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover is the gap formed from as a peripheral portion has now been introduced. Additionally, “a second height” has been introduced into claim 1, but “a first height” does not exist in claim 1. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites “a recess is provided on the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover to form a gap of a second height between the lower surface of the substrate mounting table and the upper surface of the substrate mounting table” in the claim. It is unclear which portion of the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover is the gap formed from as a peripheral portion has now been introduced. Additionally, “a second height” has been introduced into claim 1, but “a first height” does not exist in claim 1. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 5 is 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.
The term “uniform” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniform” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation: “wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed with a uniform thickness on the upper surface” is unclear because it is not known by what actual parameters are suggested (aka what are the meets and bounds) to define what is meant by “uniform thickness” is. Examiner interprets as any film deposited on is uniform, broadly.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “uniform” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniform” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation: “wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed with a uniform thickness on the upper surface” is unclear because it is not known by what actual parameters are suggested (aka what are the meets and bounds) to define what is meant by “uniform thickness” is. Examiner interprets as any film deposited on is uniform, broadly.
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) 1-6, 8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120064733 to Sasajima in view of to US 20080210169 to Pozzetti.
Claims 1, 17: Sasajima discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (202 [process vessel], Fig. 3-4) in which a substrate (200 [wafer]) is accommodated (para. [0024]); a substrate mounting table (203 [support stage]) provided in the process chamber (202) and heated by a heater (206 [heater]); and a substrate mounting table cover (217 [susceptor]) arranged on an upper surface of the substrate mounting table (upper 203) and configured such that the substrate (200) is placed on an upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover (upper surface of 217, para. [0025]), wherein the substrate mounting table cover (217) is made of silicon carbide (para. [0025]) and is provided with a silicon oxide layer (para. [0025]) of a first thickness at least on the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover where the substrate is placed (para. [0025], Fig. 6).
The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein a peripheral portion of a lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover (peripheral bottom portion of 217) is in contact with an upper surface of the substrate mounting table (upper surface of 203).
However the apparatus of Sasajima does not disclose wherein a recess is provided on the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover to form a gap of a second height between the lower surface of the substrate mounting table and the upper surface of the substrate mounting table.
Pozzetti discloses wherein a recess (321 [recess], Fig. 3, 2) is provided on the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover (32 [lower face] of 3 [susceptor]) to form a gap (gap of 321) of a second height between the lower surface of the substrate mounting table cover (3) and the upper surface of the substrate mounting table (2 [support member]), for the purpose of having a double-face susceptor which may be advantageously used in combination with the supporting and rotating system (para. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recess as taught by Pozzetti with motivation to have a double-face susceptor which may be advantageously used in combination with the supporting and rotating system.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein the heater (206, Fig. 3-4, Sasajima) is provided in the substrate mounting table (inside 203, para. [0025]).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed on at least an entire surface of a portion of the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover (217, Fig. 6, Sasajima) where the substrate (200) is placed, and wherein the portion faces the substrate (para. [0025]).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed on an entirety of the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover (217, Fig. 6, Sasajima) where the substrate (200) is placed (para. [0025]).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed with a uniform thickness on the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover (217, Fig. 6, Sasajima) where the substrate (200) is placed (where uniform is interpreted as any thickness(es), para. [0066-0067]).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed with a uniform thickness on the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover (217, Fig. 6, Sasajima) where the substrate (200) is placed (where uniform is interpreted as any thickness(es), para. [0066-0067]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses wherein the substrate mounting table cover (217, Fig. 6, Sasajima) is further provided with a silicon oxide layer of a second thickness on a surface of the substrate mounting table cover (bottom of 217) facing the upper surface of the substrate mounting table (Fig. 6).
Claim 16: The apparatus of Sasajima discloses further comprising: a gas supplier (“gas supply system,” Fig. 2, para. [0036]), through which an oxygen-containing gas is supplied into the process chamber (202, para. [0041]); and a controller (280 [controller], Fig. 3-4) configured to be capable of controlling the gas supplier so as to supply the oxygen-containing gas into the process chamber with the substrate placed on the substrate mounting table cover (217, para. [0044]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 16-17 above, and further in view of US 20030047283 to Parkhe.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Sasajima does not disclose (claim 7) wherein the first thickness is equal to or greater than 1 um;
Parkhe discloses wherein a first thickness of a coating (thickness of 110 [protective surface treatment], Fig. 1a) is equal to or greater than 1 um (para. [0024]) for the purpose of not requiring lapping nor sintering when thinly deposited and is such, not fractured or porous, and/or not interfering with or severely reducing a chucking force (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coating thickness requirement as taught by Parkhe with motivation to not require lapping nor sintering when thinly deposited and is such, not fractured or porous, and/or not interfere with or severely reducing a chucking force.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima in view of Parkhe as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 20160049323 to Ye.
Claims 9-10: The apparatus of Sasajima in view of Parkhe does not disclose (claim 9) wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness; (claim 10) wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
Ye discloses wherein the first and second thicknesses (all of 232 [insulating layer], Fig. 4A-4D) can be optimized for the purpose of being controlled to achieve sufficient isolation over a sufficient period of time, if such a layer may ware or deteriorate over time (para. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of thickness as taught by Ye with motivation to be controlled to achieve sufficient isolation over a sufficient period of time, if such a layer may ware or deteriorate over time.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 16-17 above, and further in view of US 20100163183 to Tanaka.
Claims 11-12: The apparatus of Sasajima does not disclose (claim 11) wherein the substrate mounting table is made of a material capable of transmitting an infrared component of a radiated light emitted from the heater; (claim 12) wherein the substrate mounting table is made of transparent quartz.
Tanaka discloses (claim 11) wherein a substrate mounting table (32 [mounting table], Fig. 2) is made of a material capable of transmitting an infrared component of a radiated light emitted from the heater (38 [carbon wire heaters], para. [0070], [0044]); (claim 12) wherein the substrate mounting table (32) is made of transparent quartz (para. [0042]); for the purpose of preventing contamination and reduction of cleaning processes via having a heater covered with a quartz casing (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirements as taught by Tanaka with motivation to prevent contamination and reduction of cleaning processes via having a heater covered with a quartz casing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 16-17 above, and further in view of US 20130319319 to Ohnishi.
Claim 13: The apparatus of Sasajima does not disclose (claim 13) wherein a substrate support configured to support the substrate on an upper surface of the substrate support is provided on the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover where the substrate is placed such that a gap of a first height is provided between a back surface of the substrate and at least a part of the upper surface of the substrate mounting table cover;
Ohnishi discloses (claim 13) wherein a substrate support (72a [upper stage pocket portion], Fig. 1-2) configured to support the substrate (W [wafer]) on an upper surface of the substrate support (upper surface of 72a) is provided on the upper surface of a susceptor (71[ susceptor]) where the substrate (W) is placed such that a gap (72 [pocket]) of a first height is provided between a back surface of the substrate (bottom of W) and at least a part of the upper surface of the susceptor (71) for the purpose of uniformly and effectively increasing the surface area of the base surface of the susceptor (para. [0038]) and/or equalizing thermal conditions of the outer and inner peripheral portion of the wafer (para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pocket and recess respectively as taught by Ohnishi with motivation to uniformly and effectively increase the surface area of the base surface of the susceptor and/or equalize thermal conditions of the outer and inner peripheral portion of the wafer.
Claim 14: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 16-17 above, and further in view of US 20200090973 to Launay.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Sasajima does not disclose wherein the substrate mounting table cover is detachably provided with respect to the substrate mounting table.
Launay discloses wherein a substrate mounting table cover (24 [cover], Fig. 5) is detachably provided with respect to the substrate mounting table (25 [platen]) for the purpose of being replaced as necessary (para. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the detachment requirement as taught by Launay with motivation to be replaced as necessary.
Claims 18, 19: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718