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 .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 14 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn.
Specification
Specification filed 14 May 2026 is acknowledged and accepted.
Drawings
Drawings filed 14 May 2026 are acknowledged and drawing objections discussed in non-final rejection filed 19 Feb 2026 page 3 para. a-c, f, g, and h are withdrawn.
However, drawing objections related to non-final rejection filed 19 Feb 2026 page 3 para d and e remain as further discussed below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 283 in Fig. 2B.
The drawings are objected to because amended Specification filed 14 May 2026 did not include amendments to para. [0028] and [0029]. Examiner explains that Fig. 2B has been amended to include reference numeral 283 and replace reference numeral 382 with reference numeral 282. However, para. [0028] and [0029] have not been amended to reflect the changes in Fig. 2B.
Examiner explains that amendment to para. [0028] to change "a processing facing surface 282, and a top surface 303 opposite the process facing surface 282" to "a processing facing surface 283, and a top surface 303 opposite the process facing surface 283" and amendment to para. [0029] bottom page 8 to change "inner 382" to "inner 282" would overcome the drawing objection discussed in non-final rejection filed 19 Feb 2026 page 3 paragraph d and e.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objection discussed in the non-final rejection of 19 Feb 2026 is withdrawn.
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.
Claim 6 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, discussed in the non-final rejection of 19 Feb 2026 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 14 May 2026.
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, 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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2010/0288728 A1 hereinafter “Han”) in view of Nasman et al. (US 2019/0035646 A1 hereinafter “Nasman”) and Dhindsa (US 2009/0081878 A1), Choi (KR100777467B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) and Kim et al. (US 2011/0024399 A1 hereinafter "Kim '399").
Regarding independent claim 1 Han teaches: a processing system (comprising Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) comprising:
a chamber body (comprising chamber 100, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7, para. [0035]) comprising:
an upper chamber body (comprising upper half of 110, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7, para. [0036]) having a lid (comprising lid 120, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7, para. [0036]); and
a lower chamber body (comprising lower half of 110, Fig .1, 5, 6, 7, para. [0036]) having a bottom (comprising bottom of 110, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7), wherein the upper chamber body and lower chamber body enclose an area defining a processing environment (i.e. reaction space within 100, para. [0035]);
an upper body (comprising 600, Fig. 7) moveably disposed in the upper chamber body (comprising upper half of 110, Fig. 7), the upper body comprising:
a moveable support (comprising drive shaft 611, Fig. 7, para. [0052]) attached to the body (comprising 600, Fig. 7); and
an upper step (see annotated Fig. 7 below) formed in the body along an outer perimeter and exposed to the processing environment (i.e. inner space of 100); and
a lower showerhead disposed in the lower chamber body, the lower showerhead comprising:
a showerhead body (comprising stage 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) having a top surface configured to support a substrate (comprising 10, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) (para. [0040]), the showerhead body (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) having a lower step (see annotated Fig. 1 below) disposed along an outer perimeter, wherein the substrate (comprising 10, Fig. 5) is configured to extend from the top surface partially over the lower step (para. [0040]); and
gas holes (comprising openings shown but not labeled in Fig. 1, 5, 6,7) disposed through the showerhead body (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) along a top surface of the showerhead body (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) configured to supply process (i.e. reaction) or non-process (i.e. non-reaction gas) (para. [0037]), wherein the processing system is configured to perform deposition on a backside and bevel edge of the substrate (para. [0054, [0056]]).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Han does not teach the upper body is a heater comprising a heater body have two or more heaters disposed in concentric zones; the lower showerhead is fixedly disposed in the lower chamber body; lift pins disposed in the showerhead body configured to extend through the top surface and support the substrate thereon, wherein the lift pins are further configured to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead during a plasma process; the gas holes are disposed in a first zone along the top surface and a second zone on the lower step, the gas holes configured to independently flow both a process and non-process gas in the first zone and the second zone.
However, Nasman teaches an upper heater (comprising 177, Fig. 1, para. [0031]) comprising a heater body that is movable (para. [0032]). Nasman teaches that such a configuration enables heating a front side of the substrate (para. [0031]).
Dhindsa further teaches an upper heater (comprising heater plate 150, Fig. 1) comprising two or more heaters (comprising heating elements 172, Fig. 1) disposed in concentric zones (para. [0030]). Dhindsa teaches that such a configuration enables variable controlled heating of different regions or zones of the upper heater(para. [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the upper body to include a heater comprising a heater body having two or more heaters disposed in concentric zones because Nasman teaches/suggests providing an upper heater enables heating a front side of the substrate (Nasman: para. [0031]) and because Dhindsa teaches an arrangement of two or more heaters disposed in concentric zones in an upper heater arrangement that enables variable controlled heating of different regions or zones of the upper heater (Dhindsa: para. [0030]).
Han in view of Nasman and Dhindsa as applied above do not explicitly teach the lower showerhead is fixedly disposed in the lower chamber body; lift pins disposed in the showerhead body configured to extend through the top surface and support the substrate thereon, wherein the lift pins are further configured to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead during a plasma process; the gas holes are disposed in a first zone along the top surface and a second zone on the lower step, the gas holes configured to independently flow both a process and non-process gas in the first zone and the second zone.
However, Han teaches various configurations of providing moveable upper and lower body arrangements to adjust a spacing of the substrate with respect to the upper body (comprising 600, Fig. 7) and lower body (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) (Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7). Examiner notes that the lower showerhead (comprising 200, Fig. 7) would be capable of being fixed while the upper body (comprising 600, Fig. 7) is moved.
Nasman further teaches providing a moveable upper heater as an obvious alternative embodiment to providing a moveable lower showerhead (para. [0032]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a fixed lower showerhead and a moveable upper body is an obvious alternative embodiment to providing a moveable lower body/showerhead and a fixed upper body/showerhead or moveable lower body/showerhead and moveable upper body/showerhead to adjust a spacing of the substrate with respect to either of the upper body and the lower body/showerhead.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lower showerhead to be fixedly disposed in the lower chamber body because Han already teaches various embodiments with moveable upper and lower bodies including an arrangement with a moveable upper body and it would be obvious that the lower showerhead can be fixed while the upper body is moved, because Nasman teaches/suggests that providing a moveable upper heater is an obvious alternative to an embodiment to providing a moveable lower showerhead wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try/select one of three possible options of moveable upper and lower body arrangements for adjusting a spacing of the substrate with respect to either of the upper body and the lower body/showerhead.
Han in view of Nasman and Dhindsa as applied above does not explicitly teach lift pins disposed in the showerhead body configured to extend through the top surface and support the substrate thereon, wherein the lift pins are further configured to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead during a plasma process; the gas holes are disposed in a first zone along the top surface and a second zone on the lower step, the gas holes configured to independently flow both a process and non-process gas in the first zone and the second zone.
However, Han already teaches/suggests different lifting configurations (comprising support unit 410 and second driving unit 420, Fig. 6, para. [0041]-[0042]; comprising support unit 710 and second driving unit 720, Fig. 7, para. [0052]) to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead (comprising 200, Fig. 5 and 7) during a plasma process to process the back surface of the substrate (para. [0041]-[0042], [0052]).
Additionally, Choi teaches a plasma processing system including lift pins (comprising lifting unit (40 and 50, Fig. 1), and lift pins (42, 52, Fig. 5, 6a, 6b), page 10-11) disposed in the showerhead body (comprising lower electrode 20 having plurality of gas injection holes 23 dispersed on the upper surface 22, Fig. 1, page 8) configured to extend through the top surface (comprising 22 Fig. 1) and support the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) thereon, wherein the lift pins (comprising 42, 52, Fig. 6a and 6b; shown but not indicated in Fig. 1) are further configured to raise and support the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 1) above the lower showerhead (comprising 20, Fig. 1) during a plasma process (page 9-11, Fig. 1 and 2). Choi teaches that such a configuration enables processing the back surface of the substrate (page 9-10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide lift pins disposed in the showerhead body configured to extend through the top surface and support the substrate thereon, wherein the lift pins are further configured to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead during a plasma process (i.e. provide an embodiment of the processing system which includes lift pins as the lifting mechanism rather than the support mechanism 410 and/or 710 of Han) because Han already teaches different lifting configurations to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead and because Choi teaches that lift pins disposed in the showerhead body configured to extend through the top surface and support the substrate thereon, wherein the lift pins are further configured to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead during a plasma process is a known suitable alternative lifting configuration which would suitably lift and support the substrate during plasma processing.
Han in view of Nasman, Dhindsa, and Choi as applied above does not explicitly teach the gas holes are disposed in a first zone along the top surface and a second zone on the lower step, the gas holes configured to independently flow both a process and non-process gas in the first zone and the second zone.
However, Han already teaches a lower step in the lower showerhead (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7).
Further Han teaches/suggests gas holes in a first zone (comprising plurality of openings in 300 and connected to 322, Fig. 5) in along a surface of the upper showerhead (comprising 300, Fig. 5) and a second zone on the upper step (comprising openings connected to gas supply unit 321, Fig. 5) wherein the gas is independently flow into each zone from different gas sources (para. [0039]). Han teaches the configuration of holes in the step directs gas towards the edge of the substrate (para. [0039]).
Additionally, Kim '399 teaches a lower showerhead (Fig. 6) comprising gas holes that disposed in a first zone (comprising first gas injection holes 580, Fig. 6) along the top surface and gas holes a second zone (comprising second gas injection holes 560, Fig. 6) on the lower step/periphery (comprising 520B, Fig. 6), the gas holes configured to independently flow gas in the first zone and the second zone (para. [0037], [0062]-[0063]). Examiner explains that since the second zone gas hole (comprising 560, Fig. 6) and the gas holes in the first zone (comprising gas holes 530, Fig. 6) have separate gas lines (520 and 550, respectively, Fig. 6) the gas holes are configured/capable of independently flowing gases to each zone. Kim '399 teaches that the gas holes in the second zone enable directing gas toward the backside bevel edge of the substrate for processing the backside bevel edge of the substrate (para. [0063].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lower showerhead comprising gas holes are disposed in a first zone along the top surface and a second zone on the lower step, the gas holes configured to independently flow gas in the first zone and the second zone (i.e. provide gas holes in the lower step of Han connected to a separate gas line from the gas holes in the first zone) because Han already teaches a lower step and already suggests providing gas holes in a second zone in a step to independently direct gas toward the edge of the and because Kim '399 suggests providing gas holes in a second zone to direct gas to a backside edge of the substrate to enable processing the backside edge of the substrate.
Regarding "both a process and non-process gas" Han already teaches providing supply process (i.e. reaction) or non-process (i.e. non-reaction gas) to the lower showerhead (para. [0037]), wherein it would further be obvious to be able to supply a process and non-process gas to the second zone to enable desired processing of the backside edge of the substrate.
Regarding limitation "a process and non-process gas" and "to perform deposition on a backside and bevel edge of the substrate" is/are intended use limitations. Since the combination teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as applied, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the claimed intended use limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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 §2114. II
Regarding claim 2, Han in view of Nasman, Dhindsa, Choi, and Kim '399 {hereinafter "modified Han"} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including an upper step (see teachings of Han).
Modified Han does not clearly and explicitly teach the upper step has a height between about 3 mm and about 7 mm; and a length between about 1 mm and 7mm.
However, Han teaches that the upper body (comprising 300, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) has a size slightly smaller than that of the substrate and the size of the protruding portions may be varied depending on processing conditions and further teaches exposing an edge region of 0.1 to 5 mm from the end of the substrate to enable processing the exposed edge region of the substrate wherein the exposed edge region of the substrate appears to be about approximately the same or similar in size as the height and length of the upper step (para. [0040]). In other words, Han suggests a dimension of 0.1 to 5 mm for an upper step in order to expose the edge of the substrate for processing wherein the dimension of the upper step is a result-effective variable which affects processing conditions. Examiner further notes that the length and height of the upper step would define a volume where processing gas can reside which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would affect volume of gas available for processing of the edge region of substrate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the length and height of the upper step because Han teaches/suggest that the dimension of the upper step is a result-effective variable which affects processing conditions wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the dimensions of the upper step to enable optimized substrate processing.
Regarding claim 4, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the lift pins are positioned between 148 mm and about 149 mm from a center of the lower showerhead.
However, examiner notes that Han, Nasman, Dhindsa, Choi relate to semiconductor fabrication (Han: para. [0002]; Nasman: para. [0002]-[0003]; Dhindsa: para. [0014]; Choi: page 4-5), wherein Nasman further teaches a common substrate size is 300 mm diameter (i.e. 150 mm radius)(para. [0024]).
Recall Choi teaches the lift pins (comprising 42, 52, Fig. 5) are configured to lift and support the substrate during plasma processing (see Fig. 5 page 9-11).
Note the substrate is supported aligned with a central vertical axis of the lower showerhead (see Han: lower showerhead 200 and substrate 10, Fig. 5). Thus, the lift pins must be positioned less than 150 mm from the center of the substrate support/lower showerhead of the apparatus of modified Han in order to suitably support the substrate. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the distance between the lift pin position from a center of the lower showerhead is a result-effective variable which would affect the suitability of supporting/transporting of the substrate (i.e. a lift pin position that is greater than 150 mm from the center of the lower showerhead would not be able to support a 300 mm diameter water and a lift pin positioned too close to the center of the showerhead may not stably support the peripheral regions of the substrate).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the lift pins and the center of the lower shower because Choi teaches the lift pins are configured to raise/lift and support the substrate during plasma processing and because Nasman teaches/suggests a common size of a substrate is 150 mm in radius wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate that the distance between the lift pin position from a center of the lower showerhead is a result-effective variable which would affect the suitability of supporting/lifting of the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 4 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the lift pins are positioned between 148.5 mm from a center of the lower showerhead.
However, examiner notes that Han, Nasman, Dhindsa, Choi relate to semiconductor fabrication (Han: para. [0002]; Nasman: para. [0002]-[0003]; Dhindsa: para. [0014]; Choi: page 4-5), wherein Nasman further teaches a common substrate size is 300 mm diameter (i.e. 150 mm radius)(para. [0024]).
Recall Choi teaches the lift pins (comprising 42, 52, Fig. 5) are configured to lift and support the substrate during plasma processing (see Fig. 5 page 9-11).
Note the substrate is supported aligned with a central vertical axis of the lower showerhead (see Han: lower showerhead 200 and substrate 10, Fig. 5). Thus, the lift pins must be positioned less than 150 mm from the center of the substrate support/lower showerhead of the apparatus of modified Han in order to suitably support the substrate. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the distance between the lift pin position from a center of the lower showerhead is a result-effective variable which would affect the suitability of supporting/transporting of the substrate (i.e. a lift pin position that is greater than 150 mm from the center of the lower showerhead would not be able to support a 300 mm diameter water and a lift pin positioned too close to the center of the showerhead may not stably support the peripheral regions of the substrate).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the lift pins and the center of the lower shower because Choi teaches the lift pins are configured to raise/lift and support the substrate during plasma processing and because Nasman teaches/suggests a common size of a substrate is 150 mm in radius wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate that the distance between the lift pin position from a center of the lower showerhead is a result-effective variable which would affect the suitability of supporting/lifting of the substrate.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2010/0288728 A1 hereinafter “Han”) in view of Nasman et al. (US 2019/0035646 A1 hereinafter “Nasman”) and Dhindsa (US 2009/0081878 A1), Choi (KR100777467B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) and Kim et al. (US 2011/0024399 A1 hereinafter "Kim '399") as applied to claim 1, 2 and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0020848 A1 hereinafter "Kim '848").
Regarding claim 3, Han in view of Nasman, Dhindsa, Choi and Kim '399 {hereinafter "modified Han"} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Han further teaches the gas holes (plurality of openings, shown not labeled, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) of the lower showerhead (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) are fluidly coupled to a non-process gas (i.e. non-reaction gas) source (via first pipe 210, Fig. 1) (para. [0037]).
Modified Han as applied above does not explicitly teach a remote plasma source (RPS) fluidly coupled to the gas holes in the lower showerhead.
However, Han teaches that the lower showerhead (comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) is configured to generate plasma and the plasma generation configuration can be modified to any unit for generating plasma (para. [0043]).
Further, Kim '848 teaches/suggest the lower showerhead includes a remote plasma source (RPS) (comprising 184, Fig. 3B and 5C) fluidly coupled to the gas holes (comprising 305, Fig. 3B and 5C) in the lower showerhead (comprising 301, Fig. 3B and 5C) to direct plasma to the backside of the substrate (comprising workpiece 109, Fig. 3B and 5C)(para. [0048]-[0049], [0082]-[0085], [0096]-[0099]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a remote plasma source fluid coupled to the gas holes in the lower showerhead because Han already teaches a plasma generation configuration with the lower showerhead and teaches/suggests using different plasma generation configurations and because Kim '848 teaches that a remote plasma source fluid coupled to the gas holes in the lower showerhead is a known suitable plasma generation configuration for delivering/supplying plasma to the backside of the substrate for processing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2010/0288728 A1 hereinafter “Han”) in view of Nasman et al. (US 2019/0035646 A1 hereinafter “Nasman”) and Dhindsa (US 2009/0081878 A1), Choi (KR100777467B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) and Kim et al. (US 2011/0024399 A1 hereinafter "Kim '399") as applied claims 1, 2, 4, 5 above and further in view of Wi (KR101484273B1 hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 6, Han in view of Nasman, Dhindsa, Choi and Kim '399 {hereinafter "modified Han"} teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Modified Han further teaches wherein the lower showerhead (Han: comprising 200, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7) has one radio frequency (RF) power sources (Han: comprising power supply unit 530, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 7, para. [0043]).
Modified Han as applied above does not explicitly teach a dielectric sleeve, wherein the one or more RF power sources are coupled to at least one of the first or second zones and the dielectric sleeve is disposed between the first and second zones, which allows separation of energy between the first zone and the second zone.
However, Wi teaches a processing system having a lower support (comprising 14, Fig. 1 and 4) and one or more RF power source (comprising 51, 54, 55, Fig. 1, 4, bottom page 10-upper page 11) coupled to at least one of the inner/first zone (comprising central region of 14, Fig. 1 and 4) and outer/second zone (comprising second electrode 44, Fig. 4), and a dielectric sleeve (comprising insulating layer 13, Fig. 3, 4) disposed between the inner/first zone and the outer/second zone which allows separation of energy in the inner/first zone and the outer/second zone (page 9). Wi teaches that such a configuration enables providing energy to an inner/first zone for processing a central region of a substrate(see Fig. 4) and providing energy to an outer/second zone(comprising 44, Fig. 5) to process a bevel edge of the substrate(comprising 11, Fig. 5) (page 11 and page 13).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of modified Han to have a lower showerhead having one or more radio frequency power source and a dielectric sleeve, wherein the one or more RF power sources are coupled to at least one of the first or second zones and the dielectric sleeve is disposed between the first and second zones, which allows separation of energy between the first zone and the second zone because Han already teaches the lower showerhead has one RF power source and because Wi teaches a configuration with a RF power source with an inner/first zone and outer/second zone enables providing RF power/energy to an inner/first zone for processing a central region of a substrate and providing RF power/energy to an outer/second zone to process a bevel edge of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 15) regarding 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Han, Nasman, Dhindsa, and Kim '399 are silent at least to "lift pins disposed in the showerhead body configured to extend through the top surface and support the substrate thereon, wherein the lift pins are further configured to raise and support the substrate above the lower showerhead during a plasma process" and Kim '848 teaches away from the claimed subject matter since Kim '848 explicitly states in para. [0073] that "the set of lifting pins in the system 300 are not used as the dielectric support to support the workpiece 109 during plasma processing operations." Thus, there would be no motivation to apply the lifting pins of Kim '848 as the lift pins as claimed in the present application.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Han, Nasman, Dhindsa, Choi, and Kim '399, wherein Choi is cited to teach the limitations regarding the lift pins, as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Kim ‘848 is no longer cited to reject limitations of claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Kim ‘848 in combination with prior art of record in the rejection of independent claim 1 are moot.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claim 1, the dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected, as detailed above.
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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
