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
Applicant's submission filed on April 2, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 were amended. Claims 15-20 were cancelled. New claim 21 was added. Claims 1-14 and 21 are in the application and pending examination. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “the shutter disk is non-circular” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the shutter disk has a non-circular shape”.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites: “the shutter disk has a non-circular shape”.
This limitation is being interpreted as broad, but not indefinite. The following is a definition from Merriam-Webster.
“ not having the form of a circle : not circular”
Examiner is considering this term to not read on a semi-circle or other shapes that include a circular portion.
Examiner is considering this term to read on shapes such as rectangle, square, hexagon, triangle, that are not circular and do not include a circular portion.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 recites: “the shutter disk has a non-circular shape”.
Paragraph 36 of the specification recites.
“the shutter disk 202 may be a circular disk”. All of the drawings show a circular shape.
Support for this new limitation is unclear in the original application as-filed is unclear. Claims 2-10 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a process chamber (402), comprising: a chamber body having a bottom plate (410), a lid (404), and sidewalls (408) extending from the bottom plate to the lid, wherein one of the sidewalls includes a shutter recess (412), wherein the chamber body and the shutter recess define an interior volume (406) of the process chamber; a substrate support for supporting a substrate disposed in the interior volume; and a shutter cover having a shutter disk (100) coupled to a shutter arm, wherein the shutter cover is disposed in the interior volume and rotatably coupled to the chamber body between a home position and a cover position, wherein in the home position, the shutter cover is at least partially disposed in the shutter recess and exposes the substrate support, and wherein in the cover position, the shutter cover extends over the substrate support (426). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-40. )
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches the process chamber, 400, may be one of a plurality of chambers and the process chamber may be a deposition chamber. (See Brown, Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraph 35.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter disk has a non-circular shape.
Tsai is directed to a substrate processing apparatus utilizing a shutter disk assembly detection.
Tsai teaches an upper edge of the shutter disk (330) includes a curved portion and a linear portion. Examiner is considering this equivalent to having a non-circular shape. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter disk has a non-circular shape, as an art recognized equivalent shape for the shutter disk. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches the shutter cover is rotatably coupled to the bottom plate (410) of the chamber body via a support shaft (438). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Regarding claim 6, Brown teaches the shutter recess (412) is defined by a shutter top plate (horizontal plate above 412 arrow), a shutter bottom plate (horizontal plate of 412 below 412 arrow in Fig 4) , and sidewalls (vertical plates of 412, including vertical plate on far left extending between top and bottom of 412 in Fig 4) extending from the shutter bottom plate to the shutter top plate. (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,383,178 to Shibata et al (hereinafter Shibata) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,383,178 to Shibata et al (hereinafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not explicitly teach the support shaft is configured for vertical movement.
Shibata is directed to a system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum.
Shibata teaches the support shaft (4) is configured for vertical movement. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support shaft is configured for vertical movement, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220081758 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220081758 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not explicitly teach the support shaft is configured for vertical movement.
Wang is directed to a system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum.
Wang teaches the support shaft (260) is configured for vertical movement (298). (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 2, 5; and paragraphs 28 and 36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support shaft is configured for vertical movement, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 2, 5; and paragraphs 28 and 36.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi et al (hereinafter Yamaguchi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi et al (hereinafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 4, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is configured to rotate about 75 to about 105 degrees about an axis of rotational to move from the home position to the cover position.
Yamaguchi is directed to a system for deposition using a shutter.
Yamaguchi teaches the shutter cover is configured to rotate about 75 to about 105 degrees about an axis of rotational to move from the home position (50b) to the cover position (50a). (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is configured to rotate about 75 to about 105 degrees about an axis of rotational to move from the home position to the cover position, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
Regarding claim 7, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is a unibody component.
Yamaguchi teaches the shutter cover (50) is a unibody component. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is a unibody component, because this structure allows the misalignment of the shutter cover to be detected. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi et al (hereinafter Yamaguchi) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Brown does not explicitly teach an upper edge of the shutter disk includes a curved portion and a linear portion.
Tsai is directed to a substrate processing apparatus utilizing a shutter disk assembly detection.
Tsai teaches an upper edge of the shutter disk (330) includes a curved portion and a linear portion. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an upper edge of the shutter disk includes a curved portion and a linear portion, as an art recognized equivalent shape for the shutter disk. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Regarding claim 5, Brown does not explicitly teach when in the home position, the linear portion faces an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess.
Tsai teaches when in the home position, the linear portion faces an outermost sidewall (upper portion) of the shutter recess. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have when in the home position, the linear portion faces an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess, as an art recognized equivalent shape for the shutter disk. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
The previous rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 7, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is a unibody component.
Tsai teaches the shutter cover (330) is a unibody component. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is a unibody component, because this structure allows the misalignment of the shutter cover to be detected. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Regarding claim 8, Brown does not explicitly teach a position sensor disposed in the shutter recess configured to indicate a position of the shutter cover.
Tsai teaches a position sensor ( 110, 112, 342) disposed in the shutter recess configured to indicate a position of the shutter cover (332). (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a position sensor disposed in the shutter recess configured to indicate a position of the shutter cover, because this structure allows the misalignment of the shutter cover to be detected. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140054164 A1 to Yamaguchi and Mashimo et al (hereinafter Mashimo) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140054164 A1 to Yamaguchi and Mashimo et al (hereinafter Mashimo).
Regarding claim 9, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is made of a metal or ceramic material.
Mashimo is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Mashimo teaches the substrate cover is made of stainless alloy. (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68 and 81.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is made of a metal or ceramic material, because this structure allows the film to be removed during maintenance operations (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68 and 81.)
The previous rejection of claims 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 10 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches a deposition process chamber (402), comprising: a chamber body having a bottom plate (410), a lid (404), and sidewalls (408)extending from the bottom plate to the lid, a shutter recess (412) extending from one of the walls of the chamber body, wherein the chamber body and the shutter recess define an interior volume (406) of the deposition chamber; a substrate support for supporting a substrate disposed in the interior volume and a shutter cover comprising a shutter disk (100) and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk, wherein the shutter cover is disposed in the interior volume and rotatably coupled to the chamber body via a support shaft (438) coupled to the bottom plate (410). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the process chamber, 400, may be one of a plurality of chambers and the process chamber may be a deposition chamber. (See Brown, Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraph 35.)
Brown does not explicitly teach a shutter cover that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk.
Yamaguchi is directed to substrate processing apparatus including a shutter.
Yamaguchi teaches a shutter cover (50) that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk (50) and a shutter arm (portion between 53 and 50) extending from the shutter disk. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-43, 50-56, 60, 64-76 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shutter cover that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk, as an art recognized equivalent structure for a shutter disk. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-43, 50-56, 60, 64-76 .)
Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter arm comprises a first portion and a second portion disposed between the first portion and the shutter disk, wherein the first portion extends from an axis of rotation of the shutter cover in a first direction and the second direction extends from the first portion to the shutter disk in a second direction.
Tsai teaches the shutter arm comprises a first portion and a second portion disposed between the first portion and the shutter disk, wherein the first portion extends from an axis of rotation of the shutter cover in a first direction (parallel to length of the arm) and the second direction extends from the first portion to the shutter disk in a second direction ( diagonal direction extending between the circular portion and the arm). (See Tsai, Annotated Fig. 6 below, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the shutter arm comprises a first portion and a second portion disposed between the first portion and the shutter disk, wherein the first portion extends from an axis of rotation of the shutter cover in a first direction and the second direction extends from the first portion to the shutter disk in a second direction, as an art recognized equivalent structure for a shutter disk. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-43, 50-56, 60, 64-76.)
PNG
media_image1.png
562
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter disk includes a linear portion facing an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess.
Tsai teaches the shutter disk includes a linear portion (portion between 342 and 340 in Fig. 6) facing an outermost sidewall (wall in top of Fig. 6) of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter disk includes a linear portion facing an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess, as an art recognized equivalent shape for the shutter disk. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown)) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi).
Regarding claim 14, Brown does not explicitly teach when the substrate support is in a transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the lid.
Brown teaches when the substrate support is in transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the ceiling. (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Sawachi teaches a showerhead (31) disposed in the ceiling opposite the substrate support under the lid. (See Sawachi, Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and paragraphs 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the substrate support is in a transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the lid, because this would allow the substrate recess to receive the shutter cover which extends between the substrate support and the ceiling. (See Sawachi, Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and paragraphs 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220341028 A1 to Nakamura et al (hereinafter Nakamura) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220341028 A1 to Nakamura et al (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 11, Brown does not explicitly teach a plurality of lift pins disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate with respect to the substrate support.
Nakamura is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Nakamura teaches a plurality of lift pins (63) disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate (wafer w) with respect to the substrate support (stage 6). (See Nakamura, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 3, 6, 54, 56, 72, and 78.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a plurality of lift pins disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate with respect to the substrate support with a reasonableexpectation of success because Nakamura teaches this structure is suitable for supporting the wafer. (See Nakamura, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 3, 6, 54, 56, 72, and 78.)
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140054164 A1 to Yamaguchi and Mashimo et al (hereinafter Mashimo) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140054164 A1 to Yamaguchi and Mashimo et al (hereinafter Mashimo).
Regarding claim 12, Brown does not explicitly teach the chamber body includes a substrate transfer opening, and wherein the shutter recess is disposed vertically above the substrate transfer opening.
Mashimo is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Mashimo teaches the chamber body includes a substrate transfer opening (42), and wherein the shutter recess (303, 23) is disposed vertically above the substrate transfer opening (42). (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber body includes a substrate transfer opening, and wherein the shutter recess is disposed vertically above the substrate transfer opening, because this structure allows the apparatus area to be decreased. (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68 and 80.)
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,383,178 to Shibata et al (hereinafter Shibata) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 10.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,383,178 to Shibata et al (hereinafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 13, Brown does not explicitly teach the support shaft is configured for rotational and vertical movement.
Shibata is directed to a system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum.
Shibata teaches the support shaft (4) is configured for rotational and vertical movement. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support shaft is configured for rotational and vertical movement, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
The previous rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220341028 A1 to Nakamura (hereinafter Nakamura) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 10.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220341028 A1 to Nakamura (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches a deposition process chamber (402), comprising: a chamber body having a bottom plate (410), a lid (404), and sidewalls (408)extending from the bottom plate to the lid, a shutter recess (412) extending from one of the walls of the chamber body, wherein the chamber body and the shutter recess define an interior volume (406) of the deposition chamber; a substrate support for supporting a substrate disposed in the interior volume and a shutter cover comprising a shutter disk (100) and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk, wherein the shutter cover is disposed in the interior volume and rotatably coupled to the chamber body via a support shaft (438) coupled to the bottom plate (410). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the process chamber, 400, may be one of a plurality of chambers and the process chamber may be a deposition chamber. (See Brown, Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraph 35.)
Brown does not explicitly teach a shutter cover that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk.
Nakamura is directed to substrate processing apparatus including a shutter.
Nakamura teaches a shutter cover (7) that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk (horizontal portion of 7 ) and a shutter arm (vertical portion of 7) extending from the shutter disk. (See Nakamura, Abstract, Figs. 2-9, and paragraphs 58-60 and 72-82.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shutter cover that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk, as an art recognized equivalent structure for a shutter disk. (See Nakamura, Abstract, Figs. 2-9, and paragraphs 58-60 and 72-82 .)
Regarding claim 11, Brown does not explicitly teach a plurality of lift pins disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate with respect to the substrate support.
Nakamura is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Nakamura teaches a plurality of lift pins (63) disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate (wafer w) with respect to the substrate support (stage 6). (See Nakamura, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 3, 6, 54, 56, 72, and 78.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a plurality of lift pins disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate with respect to the substrate support with a reasonableexpectation of success because Nakamura teaches this structure is suitable for supporting the wafer. (See Nakamura, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 3, 6, 54, 56, 72, and 78.)
The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220341028 A1 to Nakamura (hereinafter Nakamura) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 14, Brown does not explicitly teach when the substrate support is in a transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the ld.
Brown teaches when the substrate support is in transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the ceiling. (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Sawachi teaches a showerhead (31) disposed in lid i.e. in the ceiling opposite the substrate support. (See Sawachi, Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and paragraphs 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the substrate support is in a transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the lid, because this would allow the substrate recess to receive the shutter cover which extends between the substrate support and the ceiling. (See Sawachi, Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and paragraphs 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Claims 1-2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) .
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a process chamber (402), comprising: a chamber body having a bottom plate (410), a lid (404), and sidewalls (408) extending from the bottom plate to the lid, wherein one of the sidewalls includes a shutter recess (412), wherein the chamber body and the shutter recess define an interior volume (406) of the process chamber; a substrate support for supporting a substrate disposed in the interior volume; and a shutter cover having a shutter disk (100) coupled to a shutter arm, wherein the shutter cover is disposed in the interior volume and rotatably coupled to the chamber body between a home position and a cover position, wherein in the home position, the shutter cover is at least partially disposed in the shutter recess and exposes the substrate support, and wherein in the cover position, the shutter cover extends over the substrate support (426). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-40. )
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches the process chamber, 400, may be one of a plurality of chambers and the process chamber may be a deposition chamber. (See Brown, Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraph 35.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter disk has a non-circular shape.
Lin is directed to a substrate processing apparatus utilizing a shutter disk assembly detection.
Lin teaches an upper edge of the shutter disk (151) includes a curved portion (edge on right side in Fig 4 facing outside) and a linear portion (internal edge on right side facing 141) . Examiner is considering this equivalent to having a non-circular shape. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 13-14, 34-35, 47-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter disk has a non-circular shape, because Lin teaches this structure is useful for preventing contamination on the substrate or substrate carrier. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 9, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches the shutter cover is rotatably coupled to the bottom plate (410) of the chamber body via a support shaft (438). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-40. ) 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Regarding claim 6, Brown teaches the shutter recess (412) is defined by a shutter top plate (horizontal plate above 412 arrow), a shutter bottom plate (horizontal plate of 412 below 412 arrow in Fig 4) , and sidewalls (vertical plates of 412, including vertical plate on far left extending between top and bottom of 412 in Fig 4) extending from the shutter bottom plate to the shutter top plate. (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-40. ) 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,383,178 to Shibata et al (hereinafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not explicitly teach the support shaft is configured for vertical movement.
Shibata is directed to a system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum.
Shibata teaches the support shaft (4) is configured for vertical movement. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support shaft is configured for vertical movement, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220081758 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not explicitly teach the support shaft is configured for vertical movement.
Wang is directed to a system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum.
Wang teaches the support shaft (260) is configured for vertical movement (298). (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 2, 5; and paragraphs 28 and 36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support shaft is configured for vertical movement, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Wang, Abstract, Figs. 2, 5; and paragraphs 28 and 36.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi et al (hereinafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 4, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is configured to rotate about 75 to about 105 degrees about an axis of rotational to move from the home position to the cover position.
Yamaguchi is directed to a system for deposition using a shutter.
Yamaguchi teaches the shutter cover is configured to rotate about 75 to about 105 degrees about an axis of rotational to move from the home position (50b) to the cover position (50a). (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is configured to rotate about 75 to about 105 degrees about an axis of rotational to move from the home position to the cover position, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
Regarding claim 7, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is a unibody component.
Yamaguchi teaches the shutter cover (50) is a unibody component. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is a unibody component, because this structure allows the misalignment of the shutter cover to be detected. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Fig. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-53.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 5, Brown does not explicitly teach an upper edge of the shutter disk includes a curved portion and a linear portion.
Lin teaches a linear portion (portion including reference numeral in lower right of Fig. 9) facing an outermost sidewall (wall on right in Fig. 9) of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 13-14, 34-35, 47-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an upper edge of the shutter disk includes a curved portion and a linear portion, because Lin teaches this structure is useful for preventing contamination on the substrate or substrate carrier. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 13-14, 34-35, 47-48.)
Regarding claim 5, Brown does not explicitly teach when in the home position, the linear portion faces an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess.
Lin teaches when in the home position, the linear portion (outer portion of 151 facing downward in Fig.9) faces an outermost sidewall (lower sidewall in Fig. 9) of the shutter recess. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 13-14, 34-35, 47-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have when in the home position, the linear portion faces an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess, because Lin teaches this structure is useful for preventing contamination on the substrate or substrate carrier. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 13-14, 34-35, 47-48.)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 7, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is a unibody component.
Tsai teaches the shutter cover (330) is a unibody component. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 5-6, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is a unibody component, because this structure allows the misalignment of the shutter cover to be detected. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Regarding claim 8, Brown does not explicitly teach a position sensor disposed in the shutter recess configured to indicate a position of the shutter cover.
Tsai teaches a position sensor ( 110, 112, 342) disposed in the shutter recess configured to indicate a position of the shutter cover (332). (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a position sensor disposed in the shutter recess configured to indicate a position of the shutter cover, because this structure allows the misalignment of the shutter cover to be detected. (See Tsai, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 3, 25, 31, 35, 42, 44-46.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140054164 A1 to Yamaguchi and Mashimo et al (hereinafter Mashimo).
Regarding claim 9, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter cover is made of a metal or ceramic material.
Mashimo is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Mashimo teaches the substrate cover is made of stainless alloy. (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68 and 81.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter cover is made of a metal or ceramic material, because this structure allows the film to be removed during maintenance operations (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68 and 81.)
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches a deposition process chamber (402), comprising: a chamber body having a bottom plate (410), a lid (404), and sidewalls (408)extending from the bottom plate to the lid, a shutter recess (412) extending from one of the walls of the chamber body, wherein the chamber body and the shutter recess define an interior volume (406) of the deposition chamber; a substrate support for supporting a substrate disposed in the interior volume and a shutter cover comprising a shutter disk (100) and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk, wherein the shutter cover is disposed in the interior volume and rotatably coupled to the chamber body via a support shaft (438) coupled to the bottom plate (410). (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the process chamber, 400, may be one of a plurality of chambers and the process chamber may be a deposition chamber. (See Brown, Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraph 35.)
Brown does not explicitly teach a shutter cover that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk.
Yamaguchi is directed to substrate processing apparatus including a shutter.
Yamaguchi teaches a shutter cover (50) that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk (50) and a shutter arm (portion between 53 and 50) extending from the shutter disk. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-43, 50-56, 60, 64-76 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shutter cover that is one-piece and comprising a shutter disk and a shutter arm extending from the shutter disk, as an art recognized equivalent structure for a shutter disk. (See Yamaguchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-5, and paragraphs 40-43, 50-56, 60, 64-76 .)
Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter arm comprises a first portion and a second portion disposed between the first portion and the shutter disk, wherein the first portion extends from an axis of rotation of the shutter cover in a first direction and the second direction extends from the first portion to the shutter disk in a second direction.
Lin teaches the shutter arm comprises a first portion (linear portion of 151 extending from 17 in Fig. 4) and a second portion (portion of 151 where linear portion ends and before 155 in Fig. 4) disposed between the first portion and the shutter disk, wherein the first portion extends from an axis of rotation of the shutter cover in a first direction (parallel to length of the arm) and the second direction extends from the first portion to the shutter disk in a second direction ( angle to face wall or 193 in Fig. 4). (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 9, 13-14, 25, 34-35, 47-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the shutter arm comprises a first portion and a second portion disposed between the first portion and the shutter disk, wherein the first portion extends from an axis of rotation of the shutter cover in a first direction and the second direction extends from the first portion to the shutter disk in a second direction, because Lin teaches this would enable the location of the shield to sensed. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 9, 13-14, 25, 34-35, 47-48.)
Regarding claim 21, Brown does not explicitly teach the shutter disk includes a linear portion facing an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess.
Lin teaches the shutter disk (151) includes a linear portion (portion including reference numeral in lower right of Fig. 9) facing an outermost sidewall (wall on right in Fig. 9) of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 13-14, 34-35, 47-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shutter disk includes a linear portion facing an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess when the shutter cover is disposed in the shutter recess, because Lin teaches this structure would provide opening in the deposition chamber. (See Lin, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 and paragraphs 9, 13-14, 25, 34-35, 47-48.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) in view of and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat Pub. No. 20210407768 A1 to Sawachi et al (hereinafter Sawachi).
Regarding claim 14, Brown does not explicitly teach when the substrate support is in a transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the lid.
Brown teaches when the substrate support is in transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the ceiling. (See Brown, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 10, 22-24, 30-31, 35-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Sawachi teaches a showerhead (31) disposed in the ceiling opposite the substrate support under the lid. (See Sawachi, Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and paragraphs 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the substrate support is in a transfer position, the shutter recess extends vertically between the substrate support and the lid, because this would allow the substrate recess to receive the shutter cover which extends between the substrate support and the ceiling. (See Sawachi, Abstract, Figs. 1-12, and paragraphs 39-44, 58, 60-61, and 68.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220341028 A1 to Nakamura et al (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 11, Brown does not explicitly teach a plurality of lift pins disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate with respect to the substrate support.
Nakamura is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Nakamura teaches a plurality of lift pins (63) disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate (wafer w) with respect to the substrate support (stage 6). (See Nakamura, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 3, 6, 54, 56, 72, and 78.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a plurality of lift pins disposed in the interior volume and configured to raise or lower the substrate with respect to the substrate support with a reasonableexpectation of success because Nakamura teaches this structure is suitable for supporting the wafer. (See Nakamura, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 3, 6, 54, 56, 72, and 78.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140054164 A1 to Yamaguchi and Mashimo et al (hereinafter Mashimo).
Regarding claim 12, Brown does not explicitly teach the chamber body includes a substrate transfer opening, and wherein the shutter recess is disposed vertically above the substrate transfer opening.
Mashimo is directed to a substrate processing apparatus.
Mashimo teaches the chamber body includes a substrate transfer opening (42), and wherein the shutter recess (303, 23) is disposed vertically above the substrate transfer opening (42). (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber body includes a substrate transfer opening, and wherein the shutter recess is disposed vertically above the substrate transfer opening, because this structure allows the apparatus area to be decreased. (See Mashimo, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and paragraphs 61-68 and 80.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200075392 A1 to Brown et al (hereinafter Brown) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240162021 A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,383,178 to Shibata et al (hereinafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 13, Brown does not explicitly teach the support shaft is configured for rotational and vertical movement.
Shibata is directed to a system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum.
Shibata teaches the support shaft (4) is configured for rotational and vertical movement. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support shaft is configured for rotational and vertical movement, as an art recognized equivalent system for driving a rotary member in a vacuum. (See Shibata, Abstract, Fig. 2, and col. 1, lines 60 to col. 2, lines 15.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1-4 and 6-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190316251 A1 to Tsai et al (hereinafter Tsai) in a first set of rejections.
Additionally, a new ground of rejection is made in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220411922 A1 to Lin et al (hereinafter Lin) in a second set of rejections.
However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the structure of Tsai reads upon on the limitation of “a shutter cover having a shutter disk coupled to a shutter arm”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., disk detachably attached to a shutter cover, said shutter cover coupled to the end of the shutter arm) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 9, second paragraph of the Remarks Section argues that :
“the Examiner points to the shutter arm 330 of Tsai to allegedly teach the linear portion. However, the shutter arm 330 is not the shutter disk 332 and Figure 5 of Tsai merely shows the shutter arm 330 with the shutter disk 332 visible (see Tsai at paragraph 39). As such, alleged linear portion the Examiner in referring to is of the shutter arm 330 and not the shutter disk as claimed.”
Examiner is pointing to the linear portion of the shutter disk of the shutter arm.
On page 9, third paragraph of the Remarks Section argues that :
“Tsai fails to teach or suggest that the linear portion faces an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess. To the contrary, even if the shutter arm 300 of Tsai were to be interpreted as the shutter disk, the linear portion of the shutter arm 330 does not face an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness further has not been established as the combination of the cited references would fail to yield the limitations recited in the claims. ”
Examiner disagrees. The linear portion of the arm extending between “342” and “340” in Figs. 5-6 faces an outermost sidewall of the shutter recess i.e. the top portion of the shutter recess 338 in Figs. 5-6. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation for the limitation: “outermost wall”, the combination of references meets this limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., outermost direction in a direction parallel to the direction of travel of the substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights