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 Status
Claims 1,13,16 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined as follows:
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: heat sources in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification defines the heat source as a lamp, resistive heaters, light emitting diodes (LEDs), and/or lasers (paragraph 0025, lines 1-2).
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1,11,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patalay et al (US2012/0003599).
With regards to claim 1, Patalay et al discloses a substrate support applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing operations (substrate support 123, Fig. 1), the substrate support comprising: a support body (substrate support 123 has a body to support substrate 125, Fig. 1), the support body comprising: an outer surface,
a recessed surface that is recessed relative to the outer surface,
a pocket surface between the outer surface and the recessed surface, the recessed surface and the pocket surface at least partially defining a pocket of the support body as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of supports protruding relative to the recessed surface (substrate support 124 having features 214 which includes peaks 222 and valleys 224, Fig. 1,4); and a barrier interfacing with the plurality of supports (at least one dotted peak 225 interfacing with at least one peak 22 of the substrate support 124,paragraph 0021, lines 2-3,Fig. 2B) in positioning as a thermal barrier relative to the support body (dotted peak 225 of the at least one peak 222 may contact the backside surface 210, for example, to maximize heat transfer between the backside surface 210 of the substrate 125 and the substrate support 123 at the contact point, paragraph 0021, lines 2-4), the barrier comprising a plurality of barrier supports (the substrate supports 124 and peaks 222 are parts of peaks 225, Fig. 2b,4).
With regards to claim 11, Patalay et al discloses wherein the support body and the barrier are each formed of silicon carbide (substrate support 123 that include a body and lift pins can be fabricated of silicon carbide, paragraph 0027, lines 3-6).
With regards to claim 13, Patalay et al discloses a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (process chamber 100, Fig. 1), comprising a window at least partially defining a processing volume (lid 106, Fig. 1); a plurality of heat sources configured to heat the processing volume (lamps 136,138,152 and 154, Fig. 1); and a substrate support disposed in the processing volume (substrate support 123, Fig. 1), the substrate support comprising a support body, the support body comprising an outer surface, a recessed surface that is recessed relative to the outer surface, a pocket surface between the outer surface and the recessed surface as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of supports protruding relative to the recessed surface (substrate support 124 has features 214, Fig. 1,4); and a barrier interfacing with the plurality of supports (the at least one peak 222 has a dotted peak 225, paragraph 0021, lines 2-3, Fig. 4) in positioning as a thermal barrier relative to the support body (the at least one peak 222 may have a dotted peak 225 to contact the backside surface 210, for example, to maximize heat transfer between the backside surface 210 of the substrate 125 and the substrate support 123 at the contact point, paragraph 0021, lines 2-4), the barrier comprising a plurality of barrier supports (the substrate supports 124 and peaks 222 are parts of peaks 225, Fig. 2b,4).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanaya et al (US20060180076).
With regards to claim 2, Patalay et al does not disclose wherein the depth of the pocket is less than 1.0 mm.
Kanaya et al teaches wherein the depth of the pocket is less than 1.0 mm (the depth within the pocket is less than 0.4 mm, paragraph 0035, lines 1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al and Kanaya et al before him or her, to modify the depth of the pocket of Patalay et al to include the depth of the pocket as taught by Kanaya et al because the combination allows for the frequency of slip dislocation to be reduced.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Myo et al (US 10,260,164).
With regards to claim 3, Patalay et al does not disclose wherein the pocket surface is tapered and has a taper angle relative to the recessed surface, and the taper angle is 45 degrees or more.
Myo et al teaches process chamber having a support body wherein the pocket surface is tapered and has a taper angle relative to the recessed surface, and the taper angle is 45 degrees or more (susceptor plate 404 has a taper angle for supporting substrate 125 and is tapered at a 45-degree angle, Fig. 4B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al and Myo et al before him or her, to modify the plate of Patalay et al to include the concave plate as taught by Myo et al because the combination allows for a substrate support plate that allows for controlled and uniform heating of the substrate.
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al and Myo et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Umotoy et al (US 7,705,275).
With regards to claim 4, Patalay et al and Myo et al does not teach wherein the pocket surface has a surface roughness that is less than 15 micro-inches.
Umotoy et al teaches wherein the pocket surface has a surface roughness that is less than 15 micro-inches (the recessed pocket has a surface roughness from about 10 microinches to 400 microinches, col 9, lines 5-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al, Myo et al and Umotoy et al before him or her, to modify the pocket surface of Patalay et al and Myo et al to include surface roughness as taught by Umotoy et al because the combination allows reduce variability if the surface reflection to achieve better heat transfer to a substrate.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halpin et al (US2001/0054390).
With regards to claim 5, Patalay et al does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of barrier supports is ball shaped.
Halpin et al teaches a wafer support system having a plurality of barrier supports is ball shaped (the spacer 100 takes the form of a sphere 136 which fits within a cradle 138 formed in the upper surface of the upper section 78, paragraph 0081, lines 1-2, Fig. 2b).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al and Halpin et al before him or her, to modify the plurality of pins of Patalay et al to each include the ball shape as taught by Halpin et al because the combination allows for a substrate support plate that allows for minimal contact area for a substate to be processed.
With regards to claim 10, Patalay et al does not disclose the support body further comprises a plurality of gas openings extending between the pocket surface and a second outer surface of the support body, the second outer surface opposing the outer surface.
Halpin et al teaches a wafer support system wherein the support body further comprises a plurality of gas openings extending between the pocket surface and a second outer surface of the support body, the second outer surface opposing the outer surface (sweep gas outlets 96 extending from a bottom outside surface of support system 22, Fig. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al and Halpin et al before him or her, to modify the plurality of substrate of Patalay et al to each include the gas outlets as taught by Halpin et al because the combination allows for a substrate support plate that allows for proper heat regulation during operation.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Choi et al (US11933808).
With regards to claims 6 and 14, Patalay et al does not disclose wherein the barrier further comprises a barrier plate, the plurality of barrier supports protrude relative to a first side of the barrier plate, and each barrier support of the plurality of barrier supports contacts at least two of the plurality of supports.
Choi et al teaches wherein the barrier further comprises a barrier plate, the plurality of barrier supports protrude relative to a first side of the barrier plate, and each barrier support of the plurality of barrier supports contacts at least two of the plurality of supports (plate 580 sits atop lower vessel 524 and has substrate supports 583 on one side and supports 582 on a second side, Fig. 17,18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al and Choi et al before him or her, to modify the barrier support of Patalay et al to each include the baffle as taught by Choi et al because the combination allows for a heating surface with a radial pattern emanating from the center of the support surface.
With regards to claim 7, Choi et al teaches substrate support wherein the barrier further comprises a plurality of second barrier supports protruding relative to a second side of the barrier plate (baffle 580 sits atop lower vessel 524 and has substrate supports 583 on one side and supports 582 on a second side, Fig. 17,18).
With regards to claim 8, Patalay et al and Choi et al does not teach wherein each of the plurality of supports, each of the plurality of barriers supports, and each of the plurality of second barrier supports is semi-ball shaped. It would have been obvious to use the supports of Patalay et al and Choi et al, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Patalay et al and Choi et al. The supports disclosed specifically by Choi et al provide spacing and a change in shape of the supports will not have an altered affect.
With regards to claim 9, Choi et al et al wherein the barrier plate is a ring (plate 580 is a disk shape which is rounded and similar to a ring shape, col 10, lines 44-45), and the plurality of second barrier supports are circumferentially offset from the plurality of barrier supports (the supports 582 are offset from the supports 583, Fig. 17).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al.
With regards to claim 12, Patalay et al discloses the recessed surface has an outer radius (valley 224 has a ring 234 as a cross section and constitutes an outer ring, Fig. 2A and Fig. 2b)
Patalay et al does not disclose the plurality of barrier supports are aligned with a radial position that is a ratio of the outer radius, and the ratio is within a range of .4 to .6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the ratio as taught by Patalay et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).The dotted peak 225 of Patalay et al is used for contacting the backside surface of 210 to maximize heat transfer between the substrate 125 and the substrate support 123 at the contact point (paragraph 0021, lines 1-4). The dotted peak 225 of Patalay et al serves the same purpose as the barrier support of the claimed invention, therefore would not perform differently.
With regards to claim 15, Patalay et al discloses the recessed surface has an outer radius (valley 224 has a ring 234 as a cross section and constitutes an outer ring, Fig. 2A and Fig. 2b)
Patalay et al does not disclose the plurality of barrier supports are aligned with a radial position that is a ratio of the outer radius, and the ratio is within a range of .4 to .6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the ratio as taught by Patalay et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).The dotted peak 225 of Patalay et al is used for contacting the backside surface of 210 to maximize heat transfer between the substrate 125 and the substrate support 123 at the contact point (paragraph 0021, lines 1-4). The dotted peak 225 of Patalay et al serves the same purpose as the barrier support of the claimed invention, therefore would not perform differently.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al in view of Myo et al.
With regards to claim 16, Patalay et al discloses a transfer apparatus for moving a substrate in relation to semiconductor manufacturing (substrate support 123, Fig. 1), the transfer apparatus comprising a transfer body (substrate support 123 has a body, Fig. 1), the transfer body comprising an outer surface, a recessed surface that is recessed relative to the outer surface, a pocket surface between the outer surface and the arcuate surface as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Patalay et al does not disclose transfer body having an arcuate recessed surface, at least part of the arcuate recessed surface recessed relative to a lower end of the pocket surface.
Myo et al teaches process chamber having a transfer body having an arcuate recessed surface (susceptor plate 404 has a taper angle for supporting substrate 125 and is tapered at a 45 degree angle, Fig. 2) ,at least part of the arcuate recessed surface recessed relative to a lower end of the pocket surface (side 420 is arcuate and is recessed lower than lip 410 which holds substrate 125, Fig. 4B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al and Myo et al before him or her, to modify the plate of Patalay et al to include the concave plate as taught by Myo et al because the combination allows for a substrate support plate that allows for controlled and uniform heating of the substrate.
With regards to claim 17, Patalay et al and Myo et al teaches wherein the arcuate recessed surface is semi-ball shaped and has a radius of curvature (surface 407 of pocket 406 may be concave which is the same as semi ball shaped and has a radius of curvature, Fig. 4C).
Patalay et al and Myo et al does not disclose a radius of curvature that is within a range of 10.5 meters to 12.0 meters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the radius of curvature taught by Patalay et al and Myo et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Myo et al specifically teaches the surface 407 of the pocket 406 may be concave to absorb and reflect radiant energy for controlled and uniform heating of the substrate 125 (col 5, lines 56-59). The device as limited by the claimed invention would work similarly to the above invention as described above.
With regards to claim 19, Patalay et al discloses wherein the transfer body is a blade comprising a wrist and plurality of arms (substrate support is a blade like material attached to support pins 166 and support brackets 134, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 20, Patalay et al discloses where the transfer body further comprises a second pocket surface between the pocket surface and the outer surface as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
376
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al and Myo et al as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 10,435,811).
With regards to claim 18, Patalay et al and Myo et al teaches the pocket surface is tapered (pocket 406 is tapered, Fig. 4B of Myo et al).
Patalay et al and Myo et al does not teach the transfer body is formed of quartz.
Lin et al teaches a wafer susceptor is formed of quartz (susceptor 300 may include quartz, col 4, lines 54-56).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Patalay et al,Myo et al and Lin et al before him or her, to modify the plate of Patalay et al and Myo et al to include quartz as taught by Lin et al et al because the combination allows for uniform heating of a substrate during processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to claims 2,4,12,15 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 2,4,12,15 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Examiners response: Applicant amended claims 1 and 13 to include “a barrier interfacing with the plurality of supports in positioning as a thermal barrier relative to the support body”. The rejection has been updated to include the limitations in the 102 rejection using Patalay et al. Patalay et al discloses a plurality of supports protruding relative to the recessed surface (substrate support 124 having features 214 which includes peaks 222 and valleys 224, Fig. 1,4); and a barrier interfacing with the plurality of supports (the at least one peak 222 may contact the backside surface 210, paragraph 0021, lines 2-3,Fig. 4) in positioning as a thermal barrier relative to the support body (the at least one peak 222 may contact the backside surface 210, for example, to maximize heat transfer between the backside surface 210 of the substrate 125 and the substrate support 123 at the contact point, paragraph 0021, lines 2-4), the barrier comprising a plurality of barrier supports (the substrate supports 124 and peaks 222 are parts of peaks 225, Fig. 2b,4).
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art rejections of claims 2,4,12,15 and 17 are not valid.
Examiners response: Applicants arguments were persuasive and therefore new rejections are part of the record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights