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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 07/27/2026, in response to the rejection of claim 3 from the final office action, mailed on 05/20/2026, by amending claim 1 and canceling claim 3, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “wherein the plurality of substrate supports and the plurality of end retainers are made of an electrostatic discharge compliant material” of Claim 20,
The applicants’ specification discloses “In some embodiments, both end retainers 60 and substrate supports 70 may be made of electrostatic discharge (ESD) compliant materials. In general, any ESD compliant material known in the art (e.g., commercially available ESD compliant materials) may be used. In some embodiments, a material such as, for example, Silicon Carbide (SiC), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), Polyimide with carbon, etc. may be used”, see the paragraph [0024] of the published instant application.
Consequently, when a prior art teaches a material including Silicon Carbide (SiC), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), and Polyimide with carbon, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Boydston et al. (US 6375749, hereafter ‘749).
Regarding to Claim 11, ‘749 teaches:
a wafer support mounted at least partially within the reaction chamber (abstract, the claimed “A substrate handling device configured to support a substrate in a process chamber”);
a hub 202 that is flared and configured to mount to shaft 82 (Figs. 10-11, lines 12-13 of col. 7), and Typically, shaft 82 is connected at a lower end to a rotation and translation mechanism (not shown) that is configured to rotate, raise, and lower the shaft and wafer support within the reaction chamber (lines 13-16 of col. 5, the claimed “comprising: a central hub configured to be coupled to a rotatable shaft extending along a central axis of the process chamber, the rotatable shaft configured to rotate in the process chamber about the central axis and translate in the process chamber along the central axis”);
three arms 206 extending radially outward from the hub (lines 19-20 of col. 7, the claimed “a plurality of arms configured to be removably coupled to the central hub, the plurality of arms symmetrically positioned about the central axis and extending radially from the central axis”);
Each wafer contact assembly 208 includes a contact member 210 mounted to an upwardly extending support member 212, also referred to as post 212 (lines 32-34 of col. 7, see three contact assembly 208, each has a surface of the post 212 parallel to the central axis and sloping top surface portion 21 of the contact member 210 of Fig. 14, the claimed “wherein a first end retainer of the plurality of end retainers is removably coupled to the first arm of the plurality of arms and includes a first surface extending parallel to the central axis and a second surface inclined with respect to the first surface, and a second end retainer of the plurality of end retainers is removably coupled to the second arm of the plurality of arms”);
The embodiment of Figs. 10-11 of ‘749 is silent about the “a plurality of substrate supports, wherein a first substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is removably coupled to a first arm of the plurality of arms and includes a top surface configured to support the substrate, and a second substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is removably coupled to a second arm of the plurality of arms and includes a top surface configured to support the substrate; and a plurality of end retainers”.
However, the embodiment of Figs. 17-18 of ‘749 further teaches Alternatively, contact members may be installed in inner mount holes 260, in positions shown in dashed lines at 262a intermediate the proximate and distal ends of each arm. In addition, contact members 262 may be installed in both holes 258 and 260, or in a combination of holes selected from among holes 258 and 260. It will also be appreciated that the contact members may be formed integrally with the arms, or may attach to the arms in another suitable manner, and the arms may not include mount holes (lines 2-12 of col. 9).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added additional substrate contact member in each arm, for the purpose of providing much stable supporting to the substrate, and/or for its suitability as known method with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claims 14 and 18,
Figs. 3 and 10-11 of ‘749 shows the hub 202 has a cavity for receiving the shaft and also has three recess receiving each of the three arms (the claimed “wherein the central hub includes (a) a hub clamp having a top surface and a bottom surface, the hub clamp including (i) a central cavity extending along the central axis from the bottom surface towards the top surface, the central cavity configured to receive the rotatable shaft therein, and (ii) a plurality of recesses on the top surface arranged symmetrically about the central axis and extending radially from the central axis, wherein the first arm of the plurality of arms is configured to be received in a first recess of the plurality of recesses” of Claim 14, and “wherein the plurality of arms include three arms” of Claim 18).
Regarding to Claim 19,
‘749 teaches three arms, and is silent about the “wherein the plurality of arms include four arms”.
However, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added additional arm, to the substrate support of ‘749, for the purpose of providing better balanced substrate supporting, and/or further since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP clearly guides mere duplication of the parts is an obvious matter, see MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘749 in view of Chew et al. (US 5522937, hereafter ‘937).
Regarding to Claims 12-13, ‘749 teaches:
As discussed in the claim 11 rejection above, ‘749 teaches contact members 262 (the claimed “wherein the first substrate support includes a post extending transverse to the first arm of the plurality of arms”).
‘749 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 12: wherein the first substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports includes a temperature detector configured to measure a temperature of the substrate supported by the plurality of substrate supports.
Claim 13: wherein the first substrate support includes a post extending transverse to the first arm of the plurality of arms, and wherein the temperature detector is configured to extend through the post to contact the substrate.
‘937 is analogous art in the field of substrate support (abstract). ‘937 teaches the susceptor arm, includes a channel 155 along its length to carry a grounding conductor (a wire rope 123) and a thermocouple lead 178 (Fig. 14, lines 18-21 of col. 5).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have add a temperature detector, such as thermocouple, into the contact member on the arm of ‘749, for the purpose of providing accurate temperature measurement of the substrate.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘749 in view of Hill et al. (US 20200365444, hereafter ‘444).
Regarding to Claim 20,
‘749 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 20: wherein the plurality of substrate supports and the plurality of end retainers are made of an electrostatic discharge compliant material.
‘444 is analogous art in the field of substrate support (abstract). ‘444 teaches Susceptor support arms 226, 228 and structures 136, 138 can be formed of, for example, SiC, SiC-coated graphite, or quartz (Figs. 1-2, [0032], note SiC is an electrostatic discharge compliant material, see the claim interpretation above).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the contact members of ‘749 with a material of SiC, for the purpose of providing resistance to high temperature and corrosive environment, and/or for its suitability as known method with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are allowed.
Claim 15 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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
While the examiner performs an interference search, a reference considered being closest to the claim 11 is found, therefore, the examiner withdrawn the patentability for the claim 11, then set forth new ground of the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights