DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on May 12, 2026. Claims 1 and 21 are amended.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material presently recited by the final paragraph of claim 1 – namely, the disengagement of the preheat ring from the liner when the susceptor is in the processing position (p. 7).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the rejections, accordingly. Subsequent further search, new rejections have been applied below.
Drawings
The replacement drawing of Figure 2E was received on May 12, 2026, and it is acceptable.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al., US 2014/0261186.
A processing chamber, suitable for use in semiconductor processing, comprising:
A chamber body (211) enclosing an interior volume (Fig. 9);
The interior volume including:
A susceptor (214);
A purge volume below the susceptor;
A process volume above the susceptor;
Wherein the susceptor is configured to support a preheat ring (230) when in an elevated processing position ([0051]; Figs. 11-12);
Wherein the susceptor is configured to disengage from the preheat ring when in a lowered loading/unloading position ([0050]; Fig. 9);
A liner (212) disposed radially outward of the susceptor [0047];
Wherein the preheat ring contacts the susceptor and disengages from the liner in the elevated processing position (Figs. 11-12);
Wherein the preheat ring engages the liner when the susceptor is in the lowered/unloading position (Fig. 9).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Beinglass et al., US 5,576,059.
As shown by Figure 12, the upper surface of Cho’s preheat ring (230) is slightly higher than the upper surface of the susceptor (214). Even so, alternative configurations are known, as Beinglass suggests. As limned by Figure 3, Beinglass forms a notch at the periphery of the susceptor (136) to accommodate the preheat ring (140) such that the upper surface of the susceptor’s central region (146) is coplanar with the preheat ring’s upper surface (143). It would have been obvious to configure the engagement between Cho’s susceptor and preheat ring in the manner shown by Beinglass since using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Cong et al., US 2022/0325400.
Claim 3: Cho is silent regarding the material composition of the liner. Cong, however, elaborated fully in the Office letter of March 14, 2025, situates a quartz liner (130) about the inner circumference of the processing chamber’s sidewall, thereby demonstrating the suitability of the material for this particular purpose [0031]. It would have been obvious to employ a liner formed of quartz since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 6: Cho is silent regarding the material composition of the preheat ring and susceptor, but Cong suggests forming both the susceptor and preheat ring of silicon carbide due to the material’s high thermal conductivity [0026, 0032]. It would have been obvious to avail SiC to compose Cho’s corresponding components since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Cong, and in further view of Lau et al., US 2014/0137801.
Claim 4: Cho does not situate an insert in an upper surface of the liner. In supplementation, Lau interposes an insert (122) at the contact site between the liner (116) of a processing chamber and its preheat ring (125) ([0025]; Fig. 1). By providing a mediating structure, criterion such as thermal insulation can be better optimized. It would have been obvious to provide an insert within Cho’s system, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 5: Lau is silent regarding the composition of the insert, but given that it serves as a physical and functional extension of the preheat ring, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to form the insert of the same material. Cong, relevantly, nominates silicon carbide as a suitable compositional material of a preheat ring due to its chemical resistance and thermal stability [0032]. As such, forming Lau’s insert of silicon carbide, as well, would have been obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Oki et al., US 2021/0015004. Oki provides processing chamber comprising a chamber body (105) and a susceptor (104) disposed within an interior volume (Fig. 1). In turn, the interior volume includes a purge volume (113) below the susceptor and a process volume (111) above the susceptor [0025]. A liner (163) is disposed radially outward of the susceptor, and a preheat ring (168) selectively engages the susceptor [0028].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights