DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on November 26, 2025, has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended; claims 21-26 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim 1 stipulations of a susceptor which “supports a preheat ring…when the susceptor is in an elevated processing position and [disengages] the preheat ring from the susceptor when the susceptor is in a lowered…position.” Claim 1 further requires the preheat ring to “engage the liner when the susceptor is in the lowered…position.” The Office cites Beinglass and Brillhart, but the former does not teach a lowered position and the latter’s preheat ring does not contact the susceptor (p. 6).
In response, the examiner observes that Beinglass fixes a preheat ring (140) to an inner sidewall which, in turn, comprises an extension (144) that “mates” with a corresponding extension (142) of the susceptor (136) when the latter occupies a processing position (3, 26-47; Fig. 2). Although Beinglass is formally silent regarding the matter, one of ordinary skill would intuit from the chamber’s design that the susceptor must descend from the mated, processing position to facilitate substrate transfer. Brillhart has been cited merely for the sake of thoroughness, simply to demonstrate that, with regard to a chamber of Beinglass’ paradigm, substrate transfer necessarily proceeds when the susceptor is lowered from the processing position.
Thus, given the premise that Beinglass’ susceptor (136) can lower from the position shown by Figure 2, the new material is satisfied inherently. That is, in the elevated position, Beinglass’ susceptor “mates” with the preheat ring and, since the preheat ring is fixed to the sidewall, disengages therefrom in a lowered position. (The examiner understands Beinglass’ verb of choice, “mate,” to read upon the diction of claim 1, where the susceptor must “support” and “contact” the preheat ring.)
Lastly, Figure 2 of Beinglass depicts a sidewall appearing to comprise inner and outer circumferential sections, whereby the former may be taken as the claimed “liner.” In this way, because Beinglass’ preheat ring (140) is fixedly attached to the inner circumferential section, it can be said that the preheat ring “engages the liner,” as required by the closing lines of claim 1. The rejections are maintained.
Restriction/Election
Newly submitted claims 21-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed because claim 21 recites a distinct subcombination of the processing chamber. Formally, it may be said that the inventions of claims 1-6 and 21-26 are related, respectively, as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable (MPEP § 806.05(d)). In the instant case, the subcombination of claims 1-6 has separate utility in a system where the susceptor’s outward surface is flat, not stepped; the subcombination of claims 21-26 has separate utility in a system where the processing position is below the loading/unloading position.
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claims depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 (MPEP § 821.04(a)). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 282, which denotes a “pocket” according to paragraph [0030] of Applicant’s specification. This feature is also recited by claims 11 and 21. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beinglass et al., US 5,576,059, in view of Brillhart et al., US 2015/0368830.
Claim 1: Beinglass discloses a semiconductor processing chamber, comprising:
A chamber body (132) enclosing an interior volume (3, 25ff; Fig. 2);
The interior volume including:
A susceptor (136);
A purge volume below the susceptor;
A process volume above the susceptor;
A liner (133) disposed radially outward of the susceptor;
A preheat ring (140) configured to contact the susceptor (136) when the susceptor is in an elevated processing position (4, 12-15; Fig. 2).
Although it is strongly implied that the susceptor descends to promote substrate transfer, Beinglass does not explicitly refer to a “lowered loading/unloading position.” For thoroughness, then, the Office cites Brillhart to address this omission. As clarified by paragraph [0042], Brillhart lowers the susceptor (107) from an upper processing position to a lowered loading/unloading position to permit substrate transfer via the loading port (103) (Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to endow Beinglass’ susceptor with the capacity for vertical translation, as using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Subsequent this modification, when Beinglass’ susceptor descends, the preheat ring, which is fixedly attached to the innermost sidewall, i.e., the “liner,” will necessarily disengage from the susceptor. Further, in the susceptor’s lowered position, the preheat ring remains engaged with the liner.
Claim 2: As limned by Figure 3 of Beinglass, the upper surface (143) of the preheat ring (140) is coplanar with an upper surface (146) of the susceptor (136).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beinglass in view of Brillhart, and in further view of Cong et al., US 2022/0325400.
Claim 3: Although Beinglass forms the top and bottom chamber walls of quartz, the reference is silent regarding the material composition of the liner composing the sidewall (3, 26-28). Cong, however, elaborated fully in the previous Office letter, 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: Beinglass is silent regarding the material composition of the preheat ring and susceptor, but Cong suggests forming the susceptor of graphite and the preheat ring of silicon carbide [0026, 0032]. It would have been obvious to avail these materials to compose Beinglass’ 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 Beinglass in view of Brillhart and Cong, and in further view of Lau et al., US 2014/0137801.
Claim 4: Beinglass does not situate an insert in an upper surface of the liner. In supplementation, Lau interposes an insert (122) between the liner (116) of a processing chamber and the 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 Beinglass’ 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. Because the Beinglass-Cong combination, above, already discloses a silicon carbide preheat ring, forming the insert of the same 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].
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