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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 make the susceptor graphite, 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. 2017/0352575 to Gangakhedkar in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0176296 to Khaja et al 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.
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0352575 to Gangakhedkar in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0176296 to Khaja et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Gangakhedkar teaches a susceptor assembly 140 Fig. 1, 2 configured for use in a CVD/ALD processing chamber [0090], comprising: a susceptor body comprising graphite [0062] and configured to be positioned over a gas distribution assembly 120 to deliver reactant gases for a CVD/ALD process, the susceptor body (body of 140) having a plurality of pockets 142 formed in a surface/top surface 141 thereof, the top surface and the plurality of pockets coated with a coating [0060], each of the pockets having an outer portion, a sidewall with a pocket edge angle of about 5-30° / 45-75° measured relative to an imaginary line perpendicular to the outer portion [0087] and a corner having a pocket edge radius of [0033-0098].
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach that the angle is at 30-75°.
Khaja teaches a susceptor 200 Fig. 2A, 2B wherein the pocket edge angle is 292 that has an angle of 30-90°, which overlaps with the claimed range of 45-75° [0034; 0019-0063].
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 Gangakhedkar with the pocket edge angle from Khaja, as an art analogous pocket edge angle. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach a pocket edge radius 394 in the range of 0.40 mm ± 0.05 mm to 1.20 mm ± 0.05 mm.
Khaja teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3B with a pocket edge radius 394 of 0.02-0.030 inches [0044], or 0.508-0.762mm, a range that fulfills the clamped range of a pocket edge radius.
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 Gangakhedkar with the pocket edge radius from Khaja, as an art analogous pocket edge shape.
Furthermore, both of these limitations can also be interpreted as a change of shape. It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the pocket edge (with rounded curvature radius and angle) that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the angles and rounded curvature radius edge as shown in Khaja. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 10, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3B with a pocket edge radius 394 of 0.02-0.030 inches [0044], or 0.508-0.762mm, a range that fulfills the clamped range of a pocket edge radius, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claims 11-13, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja teaches a susceptor 200 Fig. 2A, 2B wherein the pocket edge angle is 292 that has an angle of 30-90°, a range that overlaps the claimed angles of 30°, 45°, and 75°, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach the pocket edge radius reduces cracking of the coating and coating defects at the pocket edge radius.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to prevent cracking and defects, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and that of the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0352575 to Gangakhedkar in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0176296 to Khaja et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0066727 to Park.
The teachings of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 2, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja do not expressly teach of the plurality pockets includes a raised central region defining a wafer placement surface and wherein the outer portion of the pockets that is deeper than the raised central region.
Park teaches a substrate support 20, 36 Fig. 4, 5c, 5d that supports a substrate W that has a raised central region “A” that has a continuous top surface that has a height of t of about 0.3-0.5 mm [0036] and a diameter difference between the substrate and the raised central portion of S which has a gap of 0.5-1.5 mm [0044; 0028-0049]. The raised central portion A thus creates an outer portion in the pocket that is deeper than the raised central portion (as shown in Fig. 5c, 5d, and results in the raised central region has a diameter such than an outer edge of the substrate is elevated above the outer portion of the pockets (as shown in Fig. 5 and the raised central region has a diameter that is 0.5-1.5 mm smaller than the diameter of the substrate. Park teaches that the structure allows for the undesired photoresist and polymer to be removed by plasma thus reducing the time necessary for cleaning equipment [0010-0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja, and made the pocket have a raised central portion in the pocket with a deeper outer portion in the pocket, with the dimensions as taught by Park. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing the time necessary for cleaning the equipment. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park teach the raised central region has a diameter such that an outer edge of a substrate is elevated above the outer portion of the pocket, as per the rejection of Claim 2 above.
In regards to Claims 4 and 5, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park teach the diameter of the raised central region is in the range of 0.5 mm-1.5 mm smaller than a diameter of the substrate (or that the substrate is greater than the diameter of the raised central region) which overlaps the claim ranges with sufficient specificity, as per rejection of Claim 2 above, and as per the claim objection above.
In regards to Claim 6, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park teaches the wafer placement surface is in the range of 0.3-0.5 mm higher than a surface of the outer portion of the pocket, a range that overlaps the claim range of 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm with sufficient specificity, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park teaches the surface of the outer portion of the pocket is about 0.5 mm lower than the surface of the susceptor body/base, as broadly recited by “t” being a difference from the outer peripheral surface of the susceptor base to the bottom of the pocket, but does not expressly teach this difference is 1.0 mm.
However, as shown in Park, the outer lip where “C” is can be significantly higher in embodiments of Fig. 5b or Fig. 5f than Fig. 5c, 5d and it appears that the lip at “C” is almost double the height in Fig. 5b, 5f.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the lip double in height, thus resulting in a heigh of 1.0 mm, resulting in the surface of the outer portion of the pocket is about 0.5 mm lower than the surface of the susceptor base, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 8, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park teach the raised central region is a continuous surface, as per the rejection of Claim 2 above.
In regards to Claim 9, Gangakhedkar teaches that the central region (which is a raised central region in view of Khaja and Park) comprises a plurality of mesas 550 that are connected to a vacuum/purge gas [0077] such that they form gas channels thus allowing a backside gas to flow from a center portion of the raised central region to the outer portion of the pocket (as the mesas go to the edge of the raised central portion, which is support by Fig. 12 of the instant application) and as broadly recited.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0352575 to Gangakhedkar in view of United States Patent Application No. 2002/0066727 to Park and United States Patent Application No. 2020/0176296 to Khaja et al.
In regards to Claim 14, Gangakhedkar teaches a susceptor assembly 140 Fig. 1, 2 configured for use in a CVD/ALD processing chamber [0090] comprising: a susceptor base (body of 140) made of graphite [0062] coated with SiC [0060] and a top surface formed with a plurality of pockets 142 formed in a surface/top surface 141 thereof, each of the pockets having a pocket edge angle of about 5-30°measured relative to an imaginary line perpendicular to the outer portion and a corner having a pocket edge radius [0033-0098].
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach the pockets include a raised central region defining a wafer placement surface and an outer portion that is deeper than the raised central region and an outer portion that is deeper than the raised central region, relative to the surface of the susceptor base and that the wafer placement surface is in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm higher than a surface of the outer portion of the pocket.
Park teaches a substrate support 20, 36 Fig. 4, 5c, 5d that supports a substrate W that has a raised central region “A” that has a continuous top surface that has a height of t of about 0.3-0.5 mm [0036] and a diameter difference between the substrate and the raised central portion of S which has a gap of 0.5-1.5 mm [0044; 0028-0049]. The raised central portion A thus creates an outer portion in the pocket that is deeper than the raised central portion (as shown in Fig. 5c, 5d, and results in the raised central region has a diameter such than an outer edge of the substrate is elevated above the outer portion of the pockets (as shown in Fig. 5 and the raised central region has a diameter that is 0.5-1.5 mm smaller than the diameter of the substrate. Park teaches that the structure allows for the undesired photoresist and polymer to be removed by plasma thus reducing the time necessary for cleaning equipment [0010-0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Gangakhedkar, and made the pocket have a raised central portion in the pocket with a deeper outer portion in the pocket, such that the wafer placement surface is in the range of 0.1-0.4mm higher than surface of the outer portion of the pocket with the dimensions as taught by Park. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing the time necessary for cleaning the equipment. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Gangakhedkar in view of Park does not expressly teach that the angle is at 30-75°.
Khaja teaches a susceptor 200 Fig. 2A, 2B wherein the pocket edge angle is 292 that has an angle of 30-90° [0034; 0019-0063].
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 Gangakhedkar with the pocket edge angle from Khaja, as an art analogous pocket edge angle. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach a pocket edge radius 394 in the range of 0.40 mm ± 0.05 mm to 1.20 mm ± 0.05 mm.
Khaja teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3B with a pocket edge radius 394 of 0.02-0.030 inches [0044], or 0.508-0.762mm, a range that fulfills the clamped range of a pocket edge radius.
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 Gangakhedkar with the pocket edge radius from Khaja, as an art analogous pocket edge shape.
Furthermore, both of these limitations can also be interpreted as a change of shape. It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the pocket edge (with rounded curvature radius and angle) that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the angles and rounded curvature radius edge as shown in Khaja. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 15, Gangakhedkar in view of Park and Khaja teach the diameter of the raised central region is in the range of 0.5 mm-1.5 mm smaller than a diameter of the substrate (or the substrate is greater by 0.5-1.5mm), which overlaps the claim ranges with sufficient specificity, as per rejection of Claim 14 above, and as per the claim objection above.
In regards to Claim 16, Gangakhedkar teaches that the central region (which is a raised central region in view of Khaja and Park) comprises a plurality of mesas 550 that are connected to a vacuum/purge gas [0077] such that they form gas channels thus allowing a backside gas to flow from a center portion of the raised central region to the outer portion of the pocket (as the mesas go to the edge of the raised central portion, which is support by Fig. 12 of the instant application) and as broadly recited.
In regards to Claim 17, Gangakhedkar in view of Park and Khaja teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3B with a pocket edge radius 394 of 0.02-0.030 inches [0044], or 0.508-0.762mm, a range that fulfills the clamped range of a pocket edge radius, as per the rejection of Claim 14 above.
In regards to Claims 18 and 19, Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja teaches a susceptor 200 Fig. 2A, 2B wherein the pocket edge angle is 292 that has an angle of 30-90°, a range that overlaps the claimed angles of 30° or 75°, as per the rejection of Claim 14 above.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach the pocket edge radius reduces cracking of the coating and coating defects at the pocket edge radius.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to prevent cracking and defects, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 20, Gangakhedkar configured for use in a CVD/ALD processing chamber teaches a susceptor assembly 140 Fig. 1, 2 comprising: a susceptor base made of graphite and coated with a silicon carbide coating [0062] (body of 140) having a plurality of pockets 142 formed in a surface/top surface 141 thereof, each of the pockets having a pocket edge angle of about 5-30° measured relative to an imaginary line perpendicular to the outer portion and the corner having a pocket edge radius [0033-0098].
Gangakhedkar teaches that the central region (which is a raised central region as it is directly under the substrate) comprises a plurality of mesas 550 that are connected to a vacuum/purge gas [0077] such that they form gas channels thus allowing a backside gas to flow from a center portion of the raised central region to the outer portion of the pocket (as the mesas go to the edge of the raised central portion, which is support by Fig. 12 of the instant application) and as broadly recited.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach the pockets include a raised central region defining a wafer placement surface and an outer portion that is deeper than the raised central region and an outer portion that is deeper than the raised central region, relative to the surface of the susceptor base and that the wafer placement surface is in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm higher than a surface of the outer portion of the pocket.
Park teaches a substrate support 20, 36 Fig. 4, 5c, 5d that supports a substrate W that has a raised central region “A” that has a continuous top surface that has a height of t of about 0.3-0.5 mm [0036] and a diameter difference between the substrate and the raised central portion of S which has a gap of 0.5-1.5 mm [0044; 0028-0049]. The raised central portion A thus creates an outer portion in the pocket that is deeper than the raised central portion (as shown in Fig. 5c, 5d, and results in the raised central region has a diameter such than an outer edge of the substrate is elevated above the outer portion of the pockets (as shown in Fig. 5 and the raised central region has a diameter that is 0.5-1.5 mm smaller than the diameter of the substrate. Park teaches that the structure allows for the undesired photoresist and polymer to be removed by plasma thus reducing the time necessary for cleaning equipment [0010-0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Gangakhedkar, and made the pocket have a raised central portion in the pocket with a deeper outer portion in the pocket, such that the wafer placement surface is in the range of 0.1-0.4mm higher than surface of the outer portion of the pocket with the dimensions as taught by Park. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing the time necessary for cleaning the equipment. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Gangakhedkar in view of Park does not expressly teach that the angle is at 30-75°.
Khaja teaches a susceptor 200 Fig. 2A, 2B wherein the pocket edge angle is 292 that has an angle of 30-90° [0034; 0019-0063].
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 Gangakhedkar with the pocket edge angle from Khaja, as an art analogous pocket edge angle. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach a pocket edge radius 394 in the range of 0.40 mm ± 0.05 mm to 1.20 mm ± 0.05 mm.
Khaja teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3B with a pocket edge radius 394 of 0.02-0.030 inches [0044], or 0.508-0.762mm, a range that fulfills the clamped range of a pocket edge radius.
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 Gangakhedkar with the pocket edge radius from Khaja, as an art analogous pocket edge shape.
Furthermore, both of these limitations can also be interpreted as a change of shape. It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the pocket edge (with rounded curvature radius and angle) that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the angles and rounded curvature radius edge as shown in Khaja. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Gangakhedkar does not expressly teach the pocket edge radius reduces cracking of the coating and coating defects at the pocket edge radius.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to prevent cracking and defects, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Gangakhedkar in view of Khaja and Park and that of the claim.
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 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
Prosecution Insights