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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the topmost surface where the purge gas is and where the rings are such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2011/0159211 to DuBois et al is presented below.
The Examiner notes that DuBois was previously cited, however, the limitation of the edge member, can be interpreted as an portion of 13 in DuBois that surrounds the carrier member, and does not need to be separate, has been interpreted as such. Additionally, the Examiner has added additional references in the conclusion to show potential 103 modifications to “edge member” limitations within the scope disclosed in the instant application’s specification would be overcome with 103 rejections with these references.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2011/0159211 to DuBois et al.
In regards to Claim 1, DuBois teaches a reaction chamber 150 Fig. 1, 2 comprising: a chamber body (100 body of 150); a base 13 arranged in the chamber body, and including a carrier member (in yellow) configured to carry a substrate and an edge member (in blue_ arranged around the carrier member, a height of an upper surface of the carrier member being greater than a height of an upper a topmost surface of the edge member; and a first block ring 15 and a second block ring 4, wherein: the first block ring is arranged on the upper topmost surface of the edge member and around the carrier member, wherein the upper surface of the carrier member is higher than an upper surface of the first block ring (as the opening for 19 which forms part of the upper surface hits lower than that of the upper surface of the carrier member); and the second block ring is arranged on the upper surface of the first block ring and includes a body member 19, bottom surface 402 and a shield member 404 and body of 10 above 402 arranged on a side of the body member away from the first block ring, wherein: the shield member protrudes from a surface of the second block ring toward a top wall of the chamber body (as it angles upward with the top of 404); and the shield member is configured to shield an edge of an upper surface of the substrate when in process (as shown in Fig. 1, 2), wherein: a purge gas channel is formed between an inner peripheral surface of the first block ring (as highlighted in red), an inner peripheral surface of the body member of the second block ring, an upper the topmost surface of the edge member, an outer peripheral surface of the carrier member, a bottom surface of the shield member, and an outer peripheral surface and an edge of an upper surface of the substrate, and an entirety of the purge gas channel is arranged above the topmost surface of the edge member, [0021-0035], see annotated copy of Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
610
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 2, DuBois teaches a lower surface of the shield member and the upper surface of the carrier member have a first predetermined vertical distance therebetween, as shown by the gap in Fig. 2.
In regards to Claim 3, DuBois teaches an upper surface of the body member 402 Fig. 2, 4 and the upper surface of the carrier member have a second predetermined vertical distance therebetween; and the second predetermined vertical distance is equal to the first predetermined vertical distance, as they share the same plane.
In regards to Claim 7, DuBois teaches the first block ring and the second block ring are coaxially arranged, as they are concentrically aligned to each other.
In regards to Claim 9, DuBois teaches the body member and the shield member are formed into an integrated single structure, as shown in Fig. 1-4.
In regards to Claim 10, DuBois teaches a reactor/chamber 150 Fig. 1 that has an exhaust gas channel (12 and space around 110 near 112) is formed between the top wall of the chamber body (top of 150), a sidewall of the chamber body (sidewalls of 150), and the second block ring 15, and the shield member 10 protrudes into the exhaust gas channel toward the top wall of the chamber body, as shown in Fig. 1,2. [0022-0023]
In regards to Claim 21, DuBois teaches a lower surface of the second block ring is lower than the upper surface of the carrier member, as 19 is below the upper surface of the carrier member.
In regards to Claim 22, DuBois teaches a first channel (portion of red in the blue edge member) that is configured to transfer the purge gas is arranged in the edge member; and a gas outlet of the first channel is located on an upper the topmost surface of the edge member (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 above), and between the inner peripheral surface of the first block ring and the outer peripheral surface of the carrier member, and is configured to transfer the purge gas into the purge gas channel, (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 above).
In regards to Claim 23, DuBois teaches wherein when the base is in a process position, and the second block ring is in contact with the first block ring, a gap is reserved between a lower surface of the protrusion of the shield member and the upper surface of the substrate to facilitate the purge gas to flow out from the gap, as shown in Fig. 2.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2011/0159211 to Du Bois et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0178898 to Kang et al.
The teachings of Umotoy are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 8, Dubois teaches the shield member can have a thickness (specifically at the lip) of D4 which is the thickness of the shield member which is at minimum of 0.127 mm to D5, which is 1.270 mm [0032], but does not teach the thickness of 19. DuBois teaches that the dimensions can be changed the amount of deposition can be reduced as desired and varying other parameters of the ring can affect deposition and improve deposition uniformity [0033].
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As DuBois expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for improved deposition, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date .
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
DuBois does not expressly teach the thickness of the body member is between 2-8 mm.
Kang teaches ring protrusions can have a length of 0.2 inches, or about 5 mm (Claim 15, [0028]), the rings being used for processing substrate rings/ring for alignment [0014-0042].
It has been held that change of size or portion 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 protrusions and bottom surface/body member the size of 0.2 inches/5 mm. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 6589352 to Yudovsky et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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