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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search and examination of Group I would overlap with Group II. This is not found persuasive because while the subject matter of Groups I (claims 1-17) and II (claims 18-20) may overlap, they also each require additional searches in mutually exclusive areas such that a serious burden would be placed on Examiner if examined together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 6280183 to Mayur.
Claim 1: Mayur discloses a substrate support applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the substrate support (108 [support structure], Fig. 2-4) comprising: a first side face (interpreted as a top face of 164/156, Fig. 4) comprising: a support surface (top of 164 [raised extension]), and a second side face (bottom of 134) opposing the first side face, the second side face comprising: a backside surface (150/158), and a first shoulder (162 [annular-shaped shoulder]) protruding relative to the backside surface (150/158), the first shoulder (162) disposed outwardly of the backside surface (Fig. 4); and an arcuate outer face (160 [outer edge], Fig. 3) extending between the first side face and the second side face (Fig. 4).
Claim 2: Mayur discloses wherein the first side face (top of 164/156, Fig. 4, Mayur) further comprises a second shoulder (156 [upper flat surface]) protruding relative to the support surface (top of 164), the second shoulder (156) is disposed outwardly of the support surface (top of 164), and the arcuate outer face (160) extends between a first outer edge of the first shoulder and a second outer edge of the second shoulder (Fig. 4).
Claim 3: Mayur discloses wherein a first inner surface of the first shoulder (inner surface of 162, Fig. 4, Mayur) circumferentially surrounds the backside surface (150/158, Fig. 4).
Claim 4: Mayur discloses wherein a second inner surface of the second shoulder (inner surface of 156, Fig. 4, Mayur) circumferentially surrounds the support surface (top of 164).
Claim 5: Mayur discloses wherein: the substrate support (108, Fig. 4, Mayur) has a support thickness between the support surface (top of 164) and the backside surface (150/158, Fig. 4); and the first shoulder (162) has a first height relative to the backside surface (150/158, Fig. 4).
Claim 6: Mayur discloses wherein the first side face (164/156, Fig. 4, Mayur) further comprises a second shoulder (156) protruding relative to the support surface (top of 164), the second shoulder (156) of has a second height relative to the support surface (top of 164), and the first height is larger than the second height (Fig. 4-5, c. 4, l. 8-50).
Claim 7: Mayur discloses wherein the first height is a ratio of the support thickness, and the ratio is at least 1.0 (Fig. 4-5, c. 4, l. 8-50, Mayur).
Claim 8: Mayur discloses wherein the ratio is at least 2.0 (Fig. 4-5, c. 4, l. 8-67, c. 5, l. 1-7, Mayur).
Claim(s) 10-11, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20130256962 to Ranish.
Claim 10: Ranish discloses a process kit applicable for disposition in a processing chamber for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the process kit comprising: a substrate support (124 [substrate support], Fig. 1-2A) comprising: a first side face (top of 124) comprising: a support surface (129 [substrate supporting surface], para. [0023]), a second side face (bottom of 124) opposing the first side face (Fig. 2A), the second side face comprising: a backside surface (bottom of 124), and a shoulder (139 [second protrusion]) protruding relative to the backside surface (bottom of 124), the shoulder (139) disposed outwardly of the backside surface (bottom of 124, Fig. 2A); and a pre-heat ring (127 [support ring]) comprising one or more ring segments (127), the one or more ring segments (127) comprising: a first side surface (top of 127), a second side surface (bottom of 127) opposing the first side surface, and an inner shoulder (164 [cylindrical body]) protruding relative to the second side surface (bottom of 127).
Claim 11: Ranish discloses wherein: the substrate support (124, Fig. 2A) has a support thickness between the support surface (129) and the backside surface (bottom of 124); the shoulder (139) has a height relative to the backside surface (bottom of 124); and the height is a ratio of the support thickness, and the ratio is at least 1.0 (Fig. 2A-2B).
Claim 13: Ranish discloses wherein: the pre-heat ring (127, Fig. 2A, Ranish) has a ring thickness (thickness of 127) between the first side surface and the second side surface; the inner shoulder (164) has an inner height relative to the second side surface (bottom of 127); and the inner height is a ratio of the ring thickness, and the ratio is at least 1.0 (Fig. 2A).
Claim 14: Ranish discloses wherein the ratio is at least 2.0 (Fig. 2A).
Claim 15: Ranish discloses wherein the pre-heat ring (127, Fig. 2A, Ranish) comprises an opaque material (para. [0023]) that has an absorptivity of at least 0.8 for energy having a wavelength in the infrared (IR) range (para. [0023]).
Claim 16: Ranish discloses wherein: the inner shoulder (164, Fig. 2A, Ranish) has an inner height relative to the second side surface (Fig. 2A); and the pre-heat ring (127) further comprises an outer shoulder (145 [outer lip]) protruding relative to the second side surface (out and up from bottom of 127, Fig. 2A), wherein the outer shoulder (145) has an outer height relative to the second side surface, and the inner height is larger than the outer height (Fig. 2A).
Claim 17: Ranish discloses wherein the substrate support (124, Fig. 2A, Ranish) further comprises an arcuate outer face (outer face of 124) extending between the first side face and the second side face (para. [0018]), and an arcuate inner face of the pre-heat ring (inner face of 127) circumferentially surrounds the arcuate outer face of the substrate support (outer face of 124, Fig. 2A).
Claims 18-20: (Withdrawn).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayur as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of US 20130256962 to Ranish.
Claim 9: Mayur does not disclose further comprising: a shaft; and one or more arms coupled to the backside surface, the one or more arms extending between the backside surface and the shaft. Yet Mayur does not teach away from having other support configurations which are known in the prior art.
However Ranish discloses further comprising: a shaft (152/158 [base]/[shaft], Fig. 1); and one or more arms (162 [members], para. [0031-0032]), coupled to the backside surface (back surface of 126 [support]), the one or more arms (162) extending between the backside surface (back surface of 126) and the shaft (152/158), for the purpose of being configured to raise of lower the support (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration of Mayur with that of Ranish with motivation to be configured to raise of lower the support.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish as applied to claims 10-11, 13-17 above, and further in view of US 6280183 to Mayur.
Claim 12: Ranish does not disclose wherein the ratio is at least 2.0.
However Mayur discloses wherein the relative lengths of the support to shoulders can be a ratio of at least 2 for the purpose of being scaled appropriately for use with smaller or larger substrates (c. 4, l. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the options of lengths of the shoulder ratio as taught by Mayur with motivation to be scaled appropriately for use with smaller or larger substrates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220325400 discloses a preheat ring (332, Fig. 3) overlapping a susceptor (312) with similar claimed features (para. [0053-0055]). US 20120213500 discloses various shoulders (323, fins]) of a substrate support (310-340, Fig. Fig. 3A-3D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718