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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 2, 18-20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 17 is/are amended; claim(s) 21-24 is/are newly added.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Lau in addition to previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments regarding amendments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mayur does not disclose “the second shoulder having a first radial width smaller than a second radial width of the support surface.”
Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality of the limitation above, and no pointed areas in the specification for support for the limitation above, thus it is unclear how much weight this limitation has. Examiner will interpret the limitations broadly.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the second shoulder having a first radial width smaller than a second radial width of the support surface " in the claim. It is unclear where the first (and second) radial width is located, and how it is defined. Additionally, there are no drawings showing of the substrate support, in support of a first or second radial width. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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) 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);
An outer face (outer face of 139) between the first side face (top of 124) and the second side face (bottom of 124) of the substrate support (124); 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),
And an inner face (135 [inner surface], Fig. 2A) between the first side face (top of 127) and the second side face (bottom of 127) of the pre-heat ring (127), wherein: the inner face (135) faces the outer face of the substrate support (outer face of 139 of 124),
the outer face of the substrate support (outer face of 139 of 124) is disposed inwardly of the inner face of the pre-heat ring (135 of 127), and the outer face (outer face of 139) is disposed at a gap (gap is between 139 and 135) from the inner face (135).
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 the inner face of the pre-heat ring (135 of 127) circumferentially surrounds the outer face of the substrate support (outer face 139 of 124, Fig. 2A).
Claims 18-20: (Cancelled).
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, 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6280183 to Mayur in view of US 20160068996 to Lau.
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);
wherein the first side face (top of 164/156, Fig. 4, Mayur) further comprises a second shoulder (154 [inward facing, upstanding surface], c. 4, l. 7-25) protruding relative to the support surface (top of 164), the second shoulder (154) 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).
However Mayur does not disclose the second shoulder having a first radial width smaller than a second radial width of the support surface.
Lau teaches that a radial width of a ring (400, Fig. 2-4) can extend to a degree between two components (para. [0032]) for the purpose of preventing or minimizing leakage of heat/light noise from heaters to the device side of the substrate (para. [0032]).
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 optimization of radial width as taught by Lau with motivation to prevent or minimize leakage of heat/light noise from heaters to the device side of the substrate.
Claim 2: (Cancelled).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayur in view of Lau as applied to claims 1, 3-8 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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130256962 to Ranish.
Claim 21: Ranish discloses a process kit applicable for disposition in a processing chamber for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the process kit comprising: 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, an inner shoulder (164 [cylindrical body]) protruding relative to the second side surface (bottom of 127), and an inner face (135 [inner surface], Fig. 2A) between the first side face (top of 127) and the second side face (bottom of 127) of the pre-heat ring (127);
a substrate support (124 [substrate support], Fig. 1-2A) disposed inwardly of the pre-heat ring (127), the substrate support (124) comprising: a support surface (129 [substrate supporting surface], para. [0023]), a backside face (bottom of 124), 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); an outer face (outer face of 139) disposed at a gap (gap between 135 and 139) from the inner face of the pre-heat ring (135 of 127); and
However Ranish does not disclose the substrate support movable relative to the pre-heat ring along a range of motion, the gap is maintained throughout the range of motion.
Ranish teaches other embodiments where the substrate support may move relative to the pre-heat ring (para. [0031-0034, [0026]) for the purpose of raising and lowering the substrate support during processing (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 incorporate the option of range of motion in other embodiments as taught by Ranish with motivation to raising and lowering the substrate support during processing.
Claim 22: Ranish discloses wherein: the substrate support (124, Fig. 2A, Ranish) 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 24: Ranish discloses the inner shoulder (164, Fig. 2A, Ranish) has an inner height relative to the second side surface (bottom of 127, 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(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish as applied to claims 21-22, 24 above, and further in view of US 6280183 to Mayur.
Claim 23: 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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights