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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 April 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitation “a chamber having a pedestal having a perimeter, the pedestal having a region for supporting a substrate, the region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal” and the limitation “the optical port outside of the perimeter of the region for supporting the substrate and the optical port at least partially within the perimeter of the pedestal.” Neither a perimeter of a region for supporting a substrate, the perimeter located within a perimeter of a pedestal itself nor the location of the optical port at least partially within the perimeter of the pedestal and also outside the perimeter of the region for supporting the substrate was described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Instead, the specification as originally filed describes a pedestal with a perimeter (e.g. 107 and 109) and a substrate 110 with a perimeter (Figs. 1-3, 5; [0020]). The written description describes that “[i]n some embodiments, the OES ports are provided entirely outside of the perimeter of the substrate being processed in the chamber” (emphasis added) [0020]. Additionally, some figures show embodiments with optical ports inside a perimeter of the pedestal (Fig. 3; [0038]) (chuck 309 can reasonably be considered part of pedestal 107 or an extension of it and Applicant’s claim language suggests that Applicant takes the same view, since every embodiment of an optical port within a region of the pedestal (e.g. 107,207 in Figs. 1,2,5) is also within the perimeter of the substrate. At any rate, the specification (written description, drawings, claims) as originally filed fails to describe the claimed semiconductor processing tool comprising a distinct perimeter of a region for supporting a substrate within a perimeter of the pedestal; instead, Applicant’s amendment appears to conflate an aspect of an intended use (e.g. perimeter of a substrate of some given size in some intended use), which is not a feature of the claimed semiconductor processing tool (apparatus), with a feature of the claimed apparatus itself.
Claims 1-9 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 the limitation “pedestal having a perimeter, the pedestal having a region for supporting a substrate, the region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal.” The limitation is indefinite, because the specification does not define or describe a region for supporting a substrate with a distinct perimeter within a perimeter of the pedestal. Instead, the specification describes a pedestal, a chuck (which can also be considered part of the pedestal), and a perimeter of the substrate [0020,0034]. It is not clear what feature of the claimed apparatus (semiconductor processing tool) is considered to be a “perimeter of the region for supporting the substrate.” It is possible that Applicant is conflating a perimeter of a substrate of a given size in relation to the pedestal and/ or chuck with a feature of the tool itself, which is capable of supporting a substrate of various sizes in a given intended use. The substrate is an aspect of intended use and a substrate of a given size in relation to features of the apparatus is an intended use. Examiner considers the limitation to be new matter under 112(a) and for purposes of examination on the merits is considered to be equivalent to a perimeter of a hypothetical substrate of some size in an intended use, not given patentable weight for the claimed apparatus.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2022/0254641) in view of Masuda et al. (US 2008/0011422).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Chua et al. (US’641) teach a semiconductor processing tool (an apparatus), comprising: a chamber, including a pedestal (chuck 376 and stand under it) (Figs. 3A, 3D) for supporting a substrate 374 [0027-0028], the pedestal (including chuck) has a perimeter (Figs. 3A, 3D); a lid, including assembly 370, configured to seal the chamber [0005,0038]; and a modular microwave plasma applicator through the lid (Fig. 3A,3D; [0005,0025]). US’641 fails to teach an optical port through the lid and adjacent to the modular microwave plasma source; and a pin inserted in the optical port. Masuda et al. (US’422) is analogous art in the field of plasma treatment apparatuses for semiconductor manufacturing and teach a chamber with a plate in the ceiling of the chamber and a microwave plasma applicator (antenna 110 and gas supply 116) provided in a top (Fig. 1; [0062,0114]). Additionally, US’422 teaches an optical port 140A, 140B through the top, including through a plate, and adjacent the microwave source, and the optical port is for optical transmission means to measure optical properties of a substrate and a thin film on a substrate in the chamber (Fig. 1; [0039-0040,0067-0068]). Additionally, US’422 teaches an optical transmitter 141 comprising a quartz cylindrical rod with a diameter of 5-10 mm (i.e. a pin) for transmitting light from plasma to a measurement instrument (Fig. 2; [0075-0077]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’641 with an optical port through the lid and adjacent the modular microwave source and a pin inserted in the optical port, because US’422 suggests these structures for measuring a state of the substrate and a film on the substrate during plasma processing. US’422 teaches an optical port 151B close to the perimeter (Fig. 1).
As to the combination of limitations in Claim 1 requiring “the pedestal having a region for supporting a substrate, the region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal . . . the optical port outside of the perimeter of the region for supporting the substrate, and the optical port at least partially within the perimeter of the pedestal,” Applicant’s application as originally filed does not describe the claimed apparatus as comprising a distinct region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal as claimed. However, to the extent that Applicant’s amendment might be conflating features of the claimed apparatus (e.g. perimeter of a pedestal, including chuck) with features of a substrate, which is not a feature of the claimed apparatus, but rather a feature of an intended use. To the extent that Applicant’s amendment might be describing a perimeter of a substrate in terms of “a region for supporting a substrate, a region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal,” US’641 teaches that the pedestal (including chuck) can accommodate any sized substrate [0028].
US’422 teaches optical port 140B, which is neither clearly within the perimeter of the substrate nor clearly outside the perimeter of the substrate (Fig. 1). The combination of US’641 in view of US’422 does not clearly teach an optical port located outside a perimeter of the substrate in the chamber. As explained above, for the purpose of examining the claims on the merits, the limitation “a region for supporting a substrate, the region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal” (not described in the specification as originally filed) is considered a reframing of “perimeter of a substrate,” which is an aspect of an intended use, not given patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, since the relationship of an optical port to a substrate depends, at least in part, on the size and position of a substrate, which is not a structural feature of the claimed apparatus (tool). The apparatus suggested by the combination of US’641 in view of US’422 is capable of the intended use (e.g. with a substrate of an appropriate size). Additionally, placing an optical port closer to the center or closer to the periphery, is a prima facie obvious rearrangement of parts (e.g. to place optical ports in a more convenient location for measurement or for the transmission of signals), absent evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. See, also, optical port 140A placed closer to the center of the wafer, optical port 140B placed closer to, even perhaps in line with, a perimeter of the wafer (Fig. 1), optical port 160B placed on the side of the apparatus and above the apparatus, optical port 160A placed lower on the side (Fig. 10; [0108]).
Regarding Claim 2, the pin can comprise quartz or sapphire [0081].
Regarding Claim 3, US’641 teaches a lid including an assembly 370 [0038-0039], and the assembly includes a faceplate (dielectric plate 360) and cover (housing 372) (Fig. 3D; [0039]).US’422 teaches a dielectric 112 in the top of the chamber in the shape of a plate, a disk formed conductor 111 in the shape of a plate and a cover (e.g. housing 114), and the pin goes through the faceplate (e.g. either of 111 or 112) and the cover (Figs. 1-2; [0064-0065]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’641 with a faceplate and a cover, wherein the pin passes through both the faceplate and the cover, because US’641 teaches a lid comprising a plate and a cover and US’422 teach various plates (i.e. faceplates) and a cover in the top of a plasma treatment chamber through which a pin passes to provide means for measuring a state of a thin film on a substrate.
Regarding Claim 4, US’422 teaches that the pin comprises a first portion (optical transmitter 141) in the faceplate (e.g. 111 or 112) and a second portion (holding means) in the cover 114 for holding and sealing the first portion (Figs. 2 and 7-10; [0092]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of US’641 with a pin that comprises a first portion in the faceplate and a second portion in the cover, because US’422 suggests this combination of structures as a holding means and optical transmitter.
Regarding Claim 5, US’422 teaches that the pin includes a first width at a first surface (e.g. at 111, 112, or 115) exposed in the chamber (optical transmitter 141) and a second width (e.g. of holding means) for holding and sealing the first portion (Figs. 2 and 7-10; [0092]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of US’641 with a pin that comprises a pin including a first width at a first surface exposed in the chamber and a second width at a second surface exposed outside the chamber, because US’422 suggests this combination of dimensions for a holding means and optical transmitter. NOTE: Claim 5 does not require that first and second widths differ.
Regarding Claim 6, US’641 teaches that the modular microwave plasma applicator comprises: a dielectric body 366 with a hole in, but not through, it and an antenna 388 inserted into the hole (Fig. 3D; [0040]).
Regarding Claim 7, US’641 teaches a bottom surface of the dielectric body exposed to an interior of the chamber (Fig. 3D).
Regarding Claim 8, US’641 teaches a plurality of modular microwave plasma applicators (array) (Figs. 3C-3D; [0027,0029,0036] and US’422 teaches a plurality of optical ports 140A, 140B for optical fiber and lens 151A, 151B, each including a pin (i.e. rod 141) [0067-0068,0077]. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’641 with a plurality of modular microwave plasma applicators, optical ports, and pins, because the combination of US’641 suggests a plurality of these components to generate plasma and to measure properties of a thin film. Moreover, the plurality of components is prima facie obvious duplication. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Regarding Claim 9, US’641 (Fig. 3A; [0027]) and US’422 (Fig 1; [0062]) each teaches a substrate in the chamber. US’422 suggests a more centralized plasma applicator (e.g. antenna 126) with optical ports and pins located closer to the periphery (Fig. 1; [0064,0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Applicant understands Masuda as disclosing optical ports 140A and 140B as both being within a perimeter of an underlying wafer (W) (Remarks, p. 10), Figure 1 of Masuda does not support Applicant’s understanding. It cannot reasonably be asserted that 140B is clearly within a perimeter of underlying wafer (W); however, it also cannot reasonably be said to be clearly outside the perimeter of the underlying wafer. A person of ordinary skill in the art might conclude that the optical port is exactly in line with the perimeter. Whatever the case, despite Applicant’s strong disagreement about the obviousness of rearranging parts of optical ports 140A and or 140B, the evidence in Masuda suggests the placement is not particularly significant (see optical port 140A placed closer to the center of the wafer, optical port 140B placed closer to, even perhaps in line with, a perimeter of the wafer (Fig. 1), optical port 160B placed on the side of the apparatus and above the apparatus, optical port 160A placed lower on the side (Fig. 10; [0108])).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the position of the OES port 255 outside the perimeter of the substrate may not directly interfere with the plasma over the substrate [0034] (Remarks, p. 11), Applicant’s Figure 3 shows that plasma 335 is positioned between substrate and optical port even when the optical port is placed outside the perimeter of the substrate. See, also specification at [0035]. US’422 shows no more interference of an optical port 140B with plasma, which is also between the port and the substrate (Fig. 1), just as in Applicant’s Fig. 3. Moreover, despite Applicant’s amendment to define an optical port outside of a perimeter of a region for supporting a substrate, the region having a perimeter within the perimeter of the pedestal, the specification as originally filed does not describe such a perimeter of the apparatus, and to the extent that the amendment might be trying to redefine a perimeter of a substrate in terms of a perimeter of a region on a pedestal, the region as claimed is defined by an intended use of a substrate of a particular size, and an intended use is not given patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. For example, a substrate of even slightly smaller diameter than that of Masuda would place optical port 140B outside of the perimeter of the substrate or, as a projection onto the pedestal/chuck, outside a perimeter of a region supporting the substrate. US’641 teaches that the pedestal (including chuck) can accommodate a substrate of any size.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, pp. 11-12), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Instead, Applicant’s arguments conflate intended use limitations and structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712