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 .
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.
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) 10-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al (US 2009/0314205) in view of Tong et al (US 2016/0010239).
Patalay et al teaches arranging the substrate wafer 250 and a susceptor 210 in a deposition device having a rotatable support shaft with arms for holding the susceptor and a preheating ring 204 surrounding the susceptor and spaced apart therefrom, such that the substrate wafer rests on the susceptor and the susceptor is held by arms of the support shaft 218; detecting whether a misalignment of the susceptor and/or the rotatable support shaft with respect to the position of the pre-heating ring surrounding it exists ([0013]-[0033] teaches an optical monitoring system for a semiconductor substrate process chamber is provided, wherein the system is configured to detect at least one occurrence out selected from wafer slide, out-of-pocket, susceptor centering, susceptor wobble, preheat ring alignment); correcting the least one of the misalignment at a temperature 450°C or higher ([0033]-[0051] teaches vision system provides wafer and/or susceptor position monitoring at temperatures exceeding 500°C and recognize events such as: wafer slide, out-of-pocket; susceptor centering and wobble, preheat ring alignment; and such events may result in automatic corrective action).
Patalay et al teaches recognizing susceptor position and preheat ring alignment and performing automatic corrective action when position is out-of-spec ([0051]). Patalay et al does not teach correcting the misalignment by means of a control device which sets a drive unit for displacing and tilting the support shaft in motion.
In an apparatus for alignment of a susceptor, Tong et al teaches a thermal process chamber 100 includes a susceptor 106, a stem 118 coupled to the susceptor, and a motion assembly 120 coupled to the stem, the motion assembly comprising a lateral adjustment device 128 (displacing) and a tilt adjustment mechanism 126 adapted to position a major surface of the susceptor in plane that is parallel to an X-Y plane of the chamber and position the stem along a longitudinal axis of the chamber (Fig 1-2; [0008]-[0011], [0020]-[0025]) which clearly suggests a drive unit for displacing and tilting the support shaft in motion. Tong et al teaches centering and tilt correction provided by the embodiments reduces chamber matching issues, among other processing non-uniformities; and enables more precise alignment of a susceptor in a thermal processing chamber ([0007], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Patalay et al by correcting the respective misalignment by means of a control device which sets a drive unit for displacing and tilting the support shaft in motion, as taught by Tong et al to enable more precise alignment of a susceptor in a thermal processing chamber.
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Patalay et al and Tong et al teaches a vision system provides wafer and/or susceptor position monitoring at temperatures exceeding 500°C and recognize events such as: wafer slide, out-of-pocket; susceptor centering and wobble, preheat ring alignment; and such events may result in automatic corrective action during epitaxial growth (Patalay [0033]-[0051]), which clearly suggests correcting the misalignment while the deposition device is closed.
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Patalay et al and Tong et al teaches a vision system provides wafer and/or susceptor position monitoring at temperatures exceeding 500°C and recognize events such as: wafer slide, out-of-pocket; susceptor centering and wobble, preheat ring alignment; and such events may result in automatic corrective action during epitaxial growth (Patalay [0033]-[0051]), which clearly suggest correcting the at least one misalignment occurs while the deposition device is closed and a semiconductor wafer lies on the susceptor (wafer slide).
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Patalay et al and Tong et al teaches a vision system provides wafer and/or susceptor position monitoring at temperatures exceeding 500°C and recognize events such as: wafer slide, out-of-pocket; susceptor centering and wobble, preheat ring alignment; and such events may result in automatic corrective action during epitaxial growth (Patalay [0033]-[0051]), which clearly suggest one misalignment is an eccentricity relative to the horizontal position of the susceptor and the preheating ring (susceptor centering and preheat ring alignment), and that misalignment is corrected at a temperature of 450°C or more.
Referring to claim 16, the combination of Patalay et al and Tong et al teaches a vision system provides wafer and/or susceptor position monitoring at temperatures exceeding 500°C and recognize events such as: wafer slide, out-of-pocket; susceptor centering and wobble, preheat ring alignment; and such events may result in automatic corrective action during epitaxial growth (Patalay [0033]-[0051]), which clearly suggest one misalignment is a tilt in the axis of the rotatable susceptor support shaft relative to the plane of the preheating ring (susceptor wobble and preheating ring alignment) and that misalignment is corrected at a temperature of 450°C or more.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al (US 2009/0314205) in view of Tong et al (US 2016/0010239), as applied to claims 10-12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Yan et al (US 2019/0013232).
The combination of Patalay et al and Tong et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, except the drive unit comprises a piezoelectric actuator. Tong et al teaches motion assembly 120 includes one or more actuators and/or adjustment devices that provide movement and/or adjustment of the stem 118 and/or the susceptor 106 within the internal region 111 ([0022]), however, does not explicitly teach a piezoelectric actuator.
In a substrate processing apparatus, Yan et al teaches an actuator 80 may include a piezoelectric actuator, a stepper motor, a pneumatic drive, or other suitable actuator ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Patalay et al and Tong et al by using a piezoelectric actuator, as taught by Yan et al, because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the Board instituted a new ground of rejection based on the premise that the correction step was only “optional,” thus the amendment making the correction required is allowable is noted but not found persuasive. The argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s original rejection addressed the limitation regarding the correction occurring at 450°C or more. The Board did not reverse the Examiner’s rejection regarding the Examiner’s rejection. The Board merely made a new ground of rejection based on a broader interpretation of the claimed invention which interpreted the claim limitation as optional. The Board stated “For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7 as unpatentable over Patalay and Tong. To the extent our rationale and claim construction differ from that of the Examiner, we denominate our analysis as involving a new ground of rejection.” (see page 5 of the decision filed 03/16/2026.
In regards to the finality of the current office action, The Board made a new ground of rejection which is a non-final rejection, and applicant’s current amendment is in response to that non-final rejection; therefore, the current office action is final. Applicant may appeal the Board again pursuant 37 CFR 41.50(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collins et al (US 2013/0152859) teaches a pedestal positioning assembly system for use in a substrate processing system includes a pedestal rigidly attached to a pedestal shaft, a lateral adjustment assembly to adjust a lateral location of the pedestal relative to the reference, and a vertical adjustment assembly to adjust a tilt of the pedestal relative to the reference (Abstract) and correcting a non-negligible misalignment with a preheat ring 116 while under vacuum ([0008]-[0014]).
Weaver et al (US 2016/0355927) teaches aligning susceptors in processing chambers and a precision linear positioning system 400 with four axes of motion for controlling parallelism of the susceptor relative to the gas distribution assembly (abstract; Fig 6-13; [0052]-[0064]).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights