DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18123508 application filed March 20, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 4-6 and 18-19 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of the invention of Group I, claims 1-17 and 20 in the reply filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of species 1b, claims 1-3 and 7-20 in the reply filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070160507), hereinafter “Satoh”, in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160362782), hereinafter “Cheng”:--Claim 1: Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070160507), hereinafter “Satoh”, in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160362782), hereinafter “Cheng”:--Claim 1: Satoh teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprisinga susceptor 2 supporting semiconductor substrate 3 within a reaction chamber 7 ([0064]);a bottom plate 9 having a through-hole below the susceptor 2 and may be installed on or attached to a bottom of the reaction chamber 7 ([0064, 0079], Fig. 1);a shaft 14 is positioned through the through-hole that has a top end connected to the susceptor 2 and a bottom end connected to a drive mechanism 15 and 16 ([0060, 0074]); anda wafer lift pin 11 having a bottom support member 10 ([0067]). Satoh further teaches that “(t)he supporting members 10 are also composed of or exterior coated by a material having durability against an atmosphere and a temperature inside the reaction chamber 7 such as aluminum, aluminum alloy, or an anodized coating of the foregoing, or alumina ceramics, aluminum nitride, magnesium oxide, yttria or magnesium fluoride” ([0066], emphasis added). Satoh further teaches that “the bottom plate 9 can be composed of aluminum or aluminum alloy, or a material having resistance fluorine active species or oxygen active species such as alumina ceramics” ([0067], emphasis added), and that alumina ceramics also has excellent resistance to heat and plasma ([0077]). It is noted that alumina ceramic is also known as aluminum oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make both the bottom plate 9 and the supporting members 10 from aluminum and provide an exterior coating of anodized aluminum oxide in the invention of Satoh. Satoh further teaches that the bottom support member 10 may be position on the bottom plate 9, or additionally be fixed in a concave portion of the bottom plate 9 (Fig. 2, [0067]). It is noted that the combination of the bottom plate 9 and the supporting members 10 reads on the aluminum plate, and the support shaft 14, the susceptor 2 and the wafer lift pin 11 read on the substrate support portion, recited in claim 1. Satoh is silent about a method of providing the exterior coating of anodized aluminum oxide. Cheng, also directed to a semiconductor processing apparatus, teaches that an anodized aluminum layer may be provided on a chamber component by using a direct current through an electrolytic solution in which the component serves as the anode to grow an aluminum oxide layer on the component ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the anodized aluminum oxide on the bottom plate 9 and the supporting members 10 by anodizing the bottom plate 9 and the supporting members 10 that are made of aluminum. Although Satoh is silent about the bottom plate 9 controls a temperature, since the bottom plate 9 physically contacts the wafer lift pins and the bottom of the reaction chamber 7, and radiate heat to these components, it controls the temperature of these components.--Claims 3, 7, 8: Satoh further teaches that the bottom support member 10 may be position on the bottom plate 9, or additionally be fixed in a concave portion of the bottom plate 9 (Fig. 2, [0067]). Alternately, Satoh further teaches that the bottom support member 10 may comprise a magnet 21 that enable it to detachably attach to a lift pin, and be seated on the bottom of the chamber (Fig. 3-9; [0070-0073]). Although Satoh is silent about the radiant heat of a reaction space absorbed by the bottom support member 10 or the bottom plate 9 is radiated to the outside through the chamber, it is obvious that since the bottom plate 9 in the former case or the bottom support member 10 in the latter case physically contacts the bottom of the chamber, such heat conduction through the bottom of the chamber to the outside occurs. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 11: It is noted that when the bottom support member 10 is positioned on the bottom plate 9, the bottom plate 9 may be considered a heat transfer member.--Claims 12, 13: It is noted that both the bottom plate 9, the bottom support member 10 and the lift pins11 include a sidewall that has a vertical slope.--Claims 14, 15, 16, 20: Satoh further teaches that the support shaft 14 is aligned with the through hole, and can slide up or down in a vertical direction through the through hole in the bottom plate 9 to change the distance of the substrate from a showerhead 4 ([0058, 0074], Fig. 1-2) .
Claims 1, 3, 7-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070160507), hereinafter “Satoh”, in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160362782), hereinafter “Cheng”:--Claim 1: Satoh teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprisinga susceptor 2 comprising a susceptor plate 41 that supports a semiconductor wafer 3, and a susceptor heater plate 40 positioning below the susceptor plate 41 to control a temperature of the wafer, the plate 40 has a through-hole (Fig. 8-9, [0060, 0094]);a lift pin 11 passing through the through-hole to support the semiconductor wafer ([0064]), wherein the lift pins 11 are connected to bottom support members 10. Satoh further teaches that the susceptor is made of anodized aluminum, then ground ([0060]). Satoh further teaches that “the wafer lift pins 11 are composed of or exterior coated by a material having durability against an atmosphere and a temperature inside the reaction chamber 7 such as aluminum, aluminum alloy, or an anodized coating of the foregoing, or alumina ceramics…” ([0066]). Satoh further teaches that the susceptor 2 is made of anodized aluminum or aluminum alloy ([0060]), but is silent about a method of forming the susceptor. Cheng, also directed to a semiconductor processing apparatus, teaches that an anodized aluminum layer may be provided on a chamber component by using a direct current through an electrolytic solution in which the component serves as the anode to grow an aluminum oxide layer on the component ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the anodized aluminum oxide on the lift pins 11 and the susceptor 2 by anodizing the lift pins and the susceptor 2 that are made of aluminum, as taught by Cheng, in the invention of Satoh because Satoh teaches that these components may comprise an anodized coating of aluminum but is silent about a method of forming, and Cheng teaches that such method would be effective. It is noted that the combination of the susceptor heater plate 40, the wafer lift pins 11, and the reads on the aluminum plate recited in claim 1.--Claim 3: Satoh further teaches that the susceptor is fixed to the support medium 14 ([0060], Fig. 1). --Claim 7, 8: Satoh further teaches that the lift pins 11 and the bottom support member 10 may be seated on a bottom surface of the chamber (Fig 3-10). Although Satoh is silent about the radiant heat of a reaction space absorbed by the bottom support member 10 or the bottom plate 9 is radiated to the outside through the chamber, it is obvious that since the bottom plate 9 in the former case or the bottom support member 10 in the latter case physically contacts the bottom of the chamber, such heat conduction through the bottom of the chamber to the outside occurs. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claims 9, 10: Satoh further teaches that the susceptor is made of anodized aluminum, then ground ([0060]).--Claim 11: It is noted that when the bottom support member 10 may be considered a heat transfer member.--Claim 17: Satoh further teaches that the susceptor has a susceptor plate 41 that supports a semiconductor wafer 3, and a susceptor heater plate 40 positioning below the susceptor plate 41.--Claims 12, 13: It is noted that the shaft 14, bottom plate 9, the bottom support member 10 and the lift pins11 all include a sidewall that has a vertical slope.--Claims 14, 15, 16, 20: Satoh further teaches that the lift pins 11 are aligned with the through holes, and can slide up or down in a vertical direction through the through hole in the bottom plate 9 to lift the substrate from the susceptor ([0015-0016, 0066], Fig. 3-10), wherein the through hole has a ceramic guide 23 to secure the lift pins inside the through holes ([0077-0082], Fig. 3-10) .
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh in view of Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drewery et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230253217), hereinafter “Drewery”; and Haomei_ Anodized aluminum (“Anodizing process of black anodized aluminum sheet metal”, WebPage, Published August 2, 2019):--Claim 2: Satoh and Cheng teaches the invention as above. Satoh and Cheng fail to teach using black anodized aluminum oxide. Drewery, also directed to a method of making a semiconductor processing apparatus, teaches that components in a process chamber may be formed of anodized aluminum, such as black anodized aluminum for high emissivity ([0048]), and that the component that are exposed to plasma or process gases may be coated with a protective coating made of aluminum oxide ([0047-0048]). Haomei teaches that for an aluminum substrate the native aluminum oxide surface layer may lose its anti-corrosion over time. Instead, Haomei teaches to form black anodized aluminum oxide layer instead to improve its corrosion resistance and enhance its wear resistance and hardness, the forming comprises using the aluminum substrate as the anode and a lead plate as the cathode in an aqueous solution containing sulfuric acid to form an aluminum oxide layer, then adsorbing black dyes into the aluminum oxide layer to form the black anodized aluminum oxide layer (Page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method taught by Haomei to form a black anodized aluminum oxide layer on the susceptor 2 and the lift pins 11 in the invention of Satoh because Drewery teaches that a black anodized aluminum may be used as the anodized aluminum layer to protect such components, and Haomei teaches that aluminum oxide surface layer may lose its anti-corrosion over time, and teaches using black anodized aluminum oxide layer to improve its corrosion resistance and enhance its wear resistance and hardness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights