DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7,10-16 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add a recess to the second surface such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2018/0269083 to Hawrylchak et al in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 2022059572 A (Foreign priority of PCT Publication WO2022/070930, wherein United States Patent Application No. 2024/0002273 to Kuniyoshi is relied upon as the English Machine translation thereof) and United States Patent Application No. 2016/0273128 to Kang is presented below.
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(s) 1, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0269083 to Hawrylchak et al in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 2022059572 A (Foreign priority of PCT Publication WO2022/070930, wherein United States Patent Application No. 2024/0002273 to Kuniyoshi is relied upon as the English Machine translation thereof) and United States Patent Application No. 2016/0273128 to Kang.
In regards to Claim 1, Hawrylchak teaches a pre-heat ring (rotor cover/heating member 132 [0017, 0031]); applicable for use in a semiconductor processing chamber, 100 Fig. 1 comprising: one or more ring segments (body of 132) comprising: an inner edge 202 defining an inner dimension, an outer edge 204 defining an outer dimension, a first side surface 208 between the inner edge and the outer edge, and a second side surface 131 between the inner edge and the outer edge, the second side surface opposing the first side surface; and the one or more ring segments comprising black quartz [0023, 0032], the black quartz comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) impregnated with undoped silicon (Si) [0017-0046].
Hawrylchak teaches the length of the outer edge is greater than the length of the inner edge, as the ring is thinner at 202 and thicker/longer at 204.
Hawrylchak does not expressly teach wherein the black quartz has a composition comprising an undoped silicon mass percentage greater than 0.0% and equal to or less than 5.0%, and a silicon dioxide mass percentage that is 94.0% or higher, wherein the undoped silicon mass percentage and the silicon dioxide mass percentage added together are 99.0% or higher.
Kuniyoshi teaches a black quartz glass material that is made out of Si (which is undoped due to the use of only Si) with a 0.5-10% mass percentage (preferably 0.5-3$ mass) and an SiO component of 0.2-2% by mass, with the rest being silicon dioxide, such that when SiO is 1.0% and silicon is 1.0%, the silicon dioxide material is what is left, or 98.0% [0055; 0052-0066]. Kuniyoshi expressly teaches the black quartz glass has an excellent light shielding property, is uniform and does not create contamination [0051].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hawrylchak and its black quartz material for the black quartz material of Kuniyoshi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of having a material with excellent uniformity, light shielding properties, and does not create contamination. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a pre-heat ring analogous to that of Hawrylchak out of the claimed black quartz, as taught by Kuniyoshi, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi do not expressly teach the inner portion of the second side surface is recessed relative to the inner edge and the outer edge.
Kang teaches in Fig. 6 a preheat ring 208’ that has a groove 210 on a bottom surface/second side surface is recessed relative to the inner and outer edges (see Fig. 6) [0055], the groove or recessed portion reduces particles creation due to friction between the liner and ring resulting from thermal expansion during the epitaxial process [0056; 0029-0066].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have added the groove/recessed portion on the second side surface between the inner and the outer edges, to the preheat ring of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi, as per the teachings of Kang. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing particle formation.
The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 5, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi teaches the silicon dioxide (SiO2) is quartz, which is implicitly naturally occurring and crystalline [0023].
In regards to Claim 7, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi teaches the undoped silicon mass percentage is within a range of 2.4% to 2.6%, as Kuniyoshi teaches the undoped Si has a 0.5-10% mass percentage, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 10, Hawrylchak teaches the one or more ring segments comprise a complete ring (as shown in Fig. 2A).
In regards to Claim 11, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi teaches the one or more ring segments have a thermal conductivity of 1.5 W/m-K [0062], or a thermal conductivity that is less than 10.0 W/m-K (see [0062] of Kuniyoshi) but does not expressly teach the black quartz has an emissivity that is 0.75 or higher at 1,000 degrees Celsius.
However, the limitation of emissivity is an inherent function of the material as claimed, which as supported by claims 6-9, would be the black quartz that is taught by the combined teachings of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi. As such, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a black quartz analogous to that of Hawrylchak out of a black quartz as per the teachings of Kuniyoshi, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 11.
In regards to Claim 12, Hawrylchak teaches a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a chamber body 100; a window 120, the chamber body and the window at least partially defining a processing volume 118; a plurality of heat sources 110 configured to heat the processing volume; a substrate support 114 disposed in the processing volume; a liner 134 configured to at least partially line the chamber body; and a pre-heat ring 135 (rotor cover/heating member 132 [0017, 0031]); disposed in the processing chamber and at least partially supported by the liner (as shown in Fig. 1), the pre-heat ring comprising: one or more ring segments comprising black quartz, the black quartz comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) impregnated with undoped silicon (Si) [0023, 0032], the black quartz comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) impregnated with undoped silicon (Si) [0017-0046].
Hawrylchak teaches the ring comprises an inner edge 202 defining an inner dimension, an outer edge 204 defining an outer dimension, a first side surface (top) between the inner edge and the outer edge, a second side surface (bottom) between the inner edge and the outer edge, the second side surface opposing the first side surface, the length of the outer edge is greater than the length of the inner edge, as the ring is thinner at 202 and thicker/longer at 204.
Hawrylchak does not expressly teach wherein the black quartz has a composition comprising an undoped silicon mass percentage greater than 0.0% and equal to or less than 5.0%, and a silicon dioxide mass percentage that is 94.0% or higher, wherein the undoped silicon mass percentage and the silicon dioxide mass percentage added together are 99.0% or higher.
Kuniyoshi teaches a black quartz glass material that is made out of Si (which is undoped due to the use of only Si) with a 0.5-10% mass percentage (preferably 0.5-3$ mass) and an SiO component of 0.2-2% by mass, with the rest being silicon dioxide, such that when SiO is 1.0% and silicon is 1.0%, the silicon dioxide material is what is left, or 98.0% [0055; 0052-0066]. Kuniyoshi expressly teaches the black quartz glass has an excellent light shielding property, is uniform and does not create contamination [0051].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hawrylchak and its black quartz material for the black quartz material of Kuniyoshi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of having a material with excellent uniformity, light shielding properties, and does not create contamination. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a pre-heat ring analogous to that of Hawrylchak out of the claimed black quartz, as taught by Kuniyoshi, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi do not expressly teach the inner portion of the second side surface is recessed relative to the inner edge and the outer edge.
Kang teaches in Fig. 6 a preheat ring 208’ that has a groove 210 on a bottom surface/second side surface is recessed relative to the inner and outer edges (see Fig. 6) [0055], the groove or recessed portion reduces particles creation due to friction between the liner and ring resulting from thermal expansion during the epitaxial process [0056; 0029-0066].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have added the groove/recessed portion on the second side surface between the inner and the outer edges, to the preheat ring of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi, as per the teachings of Kang. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing particle formation.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 15, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi does not expressly teach the one or more ring segments of the pre-heat ring and the liner are integrally formed as a monolithic body.
Kang teaches a preheat ring 208 Fig. 1-6, wherein the preheat ring is monolithic or integral with a fixing member 209 [0053] and is fixed, i.e., integral with the liner 202 [0029-0059]. Fixing and integrally forming the ring with the liner prevents the ring from contacting the susceptor and thus prevents contamination [0059].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi with the integrally formed preheat ring and fixing/liner, as per the teachings of Kang. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing contamination. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 16, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi teaches the silicon dioxide (SiO2) is quartz, which is implicitly naturally occurring and crystalline [0023].
In regards to Claim 21, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi teaches the black quartz gas has a thermal conductivity of 1.5-2.1W/m-K, which is low (as supported by the instant application’s Specification, [0045]), which facilitates reduced temperature loss between processing cycles (as 132 of Hawrylchak maintains a high temperature [0029 Hawrylchak] and Kuniyoshi teaches heating time is shortened [0073 Kuniyoshi]) while facilitating IR blocking (a function of black quartz absorption/light shielding [0083 Kuniyoshi]).
In regards to Claim 22, Hawrylchak teaches a length of the outer edge (see portion of 132 overlapping with 208 in Fig. 2B) is greater than a length of the inner edge and an inner portion of the second side surface (the portion of 132 that forms the lip of 206 in Fig. 2B, is recessed relative to the inner edge 202 and the outer edge 204.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0269083 to Hawrylchak et al in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 2022059572 A (Foreign priority of PCT Publication WO2022/070930, wherein United States Patent Application No. 2024/0002273 to Kuniyoshi is relied upon as the English Machine translation thereof) and United States Patent Application No. 2016/0273128 to Kang, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0354853 to Komori et al.
The teachings of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 2, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang does not expressly teach a thickness between the first side surface and the second side surface is 3.0 mm or less.
Komori teaches the preheat ring 60 Fig. 1-3 has a thickness of 2 mm [0058; 0049-0058].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang by making its generic thickness specifically 2mm, as per the teachings of Komori. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of making the pre-heat ring a known dimension for the art analogous structures. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang does not expressly teach a distance between the inner dimension and the outer dimension is a distance ratio of the inner dimension, and the distance ratio is 0.25 or less, which is a ratio of the width of the ring in relation to the inner radius, as per [0041] of the instant application and Fig. 3 of the instant application, wherein the ratio is interpreted as D1:ID1:
PNG
media_image1.png
564
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Komori teaches in Fig. 3 that the inner dimension/inner radius R2 is 187-191 mm and the width of the pre-heat ring D1 33-34mm or D2 29-33 mm, such that the ratio of D:R is 0.155, which is a distance ratio that falls within the claimed dimensions [0064-0071].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang by making its generic dimensions have a radius of 187-191 mm and D: 29-34, as per the teachings of Komori. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of making the pre-heat ring a known dimension for the art analogous structures. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2018/0269083 to Hawrylchak et al in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 2022059572 A (Foreign priority of PCT Publication WO2022/070930, wherein United States Patent Application No. 2024/0002273 to Kuniyoshi is relied upon as the English Machine translation thereof) and United States Patent Application No. 2016/0273128 to Kang, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0345526 to Ranish et al.
The teachings of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 13 and 14, Hawrylchak and Kang does not expressly teach the liner comprises the black quartz or that the liner comprises opaque quartz.
Ranish teaches that the liner 162 Fig. 1 of a semiconductor processing apparatus is made with an inner coating of black quartz/opaque quartz 302 [0040; 0016-0045].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a liner analogous to that of Hawrylchak in view of Kuniyoshi and Kang out of black quartz, as taught by Ranish, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claims 13-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716