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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 4 (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (apparatus) and Species 1-3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Substrate mounting portion (concave space, inclined inner side wall, para. [0064]) in claims 1-13.
Gas supply device (gas injection device having plurality of through holes, gas channel on top, para. [0050]) in claims 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120309175 to Masumura in view of US 20060185795 to Choi.
Claims 1, 10-13: Masumura discloses a substrate supporting plate comprising: a top surface (top of 40 [susceptor], Fig. 4) comprising a substrate mounting portion (41 [pocket portion]) and a peripheral portion (43/41b/41c); a bottom surface (bottom of 40); a sidewall (sidewall of 40) spanning between the top surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 40); wherein the substrate mounting portion (41) is recessed relative to the peripheral portion (43/41b/41c), wherein the peripheral portion (43/41b/41c) comprises a first section (1st inner part of 41b) and a second section (2nd inner part of 41b).
However Masumura does not disclose (claim 1) and an insulating layer formed on the top surface, and wherein the insulating layer is formed on a top surface of the second section; (claim 10) wherein the first section comprises a metal, and wherein the second section comprises a metal oxide comprising the metal; (claim 11) wherein a thickness of the insulating layer is between about 10 µm and about 100 µm; (claim 12) wherein the insulating layer comprises alumina; (claim 13) wherein an edge of the insulating layer comprises a round profile
Choi discloses (claim 1) and an insulating layer (210 [coating], para. [0012]) formed on the top surface (top of 202 [body], Fig. 2), and wherein the insulating layer (210) is formed on a top surface of the second section (interpreted as top surface of 202); (claim 10) wherein the first section (top section of 200) comprises a metal (aluminum), and wherein the second section (top section of 200) comprises a metal oxide (anodized aluminum) comprising the metal (aluminum, para. [0035]); (claim 11) wherein a thickness of the insulating layer (210) is between about 10 µm and about 100 µm (para. [0037]); (claim 12) wherein the insulating layer (210) comprises alumina (210, para. [0037]); (claim 13) wherein an edge of the insulating layer comprises a round profile (Fig. 2), for the purpose of providing a protective coating (para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Choi with motivation to provide a protective coating.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi discloses wherein the second section (2nd inner part of 41b, Fig. 4, Masumura) is radially exterior the first section (1st inner part of 41b, Fig. 4).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi discloses wherein a shape of the second section (2nd inner part of 41b, Fig. 4, Masumura) is substantially an annular ring (Fig. 4-5).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi discloses wherein the peripheral portion (43/41b/41c, Fig. 4, Masumura) further comprises a third section (41c [taper end]) .
Claim 6: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi discloses wherein the third section (41c, Fig. 4, Masumura) is radially exterior the second section (2nd inner part of 41b, Fig. 4).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi discloses wherein a height of the third section (height of 41c, Fig. 4, Masumura) is less than a height of the second section (height of (2nd inner part of 41b, Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumura in view of Choi as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20160049323 to Ye.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi does not disclose wherein a top surface of the first section is conductive;
Ye discloses wherein a top surface of the first section (1st inner part of 202, Fig. 4C/4D) is conductive (para. [0044]) for the purpose of being comprised of a ceramic material capable of providing sufficient chucking force to the substrate in certain temperature ranges (para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirements as taught by Ye with motivation to be comprised of a ceramic material capable of providing sufficient chucking force to the substrate in certain temperature ranges.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumura in view of Choi as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 10-13 above, and further in view of US 20200141003 to Lee.
Claims 8-9: The apparatus of Masumura in view of Choi does not disclose (claim 8) wherein an inner diameter of the second section is substantially the same as an outer diameter of a gas supply device opposite the substrate supporting plate; (claim 9) wherein an outer diameter of the second section is substantially the same as an inner diameter of an inner surface of a reactor wall.
Lee discloses (claim 8) wherein an inner diameter of the second section (inner diameter of C2 [contact surface], Fig. 2) is substantially the same as an outer diameter of a gas supply device (120 [gas supply unit], Fig. 2) opposite the substrate supporting plate (130 [substrate supporting unit], para. [0050-0051]); (claim 9) wherein an outer diameter of the second section (outer diameter of C2) is substantially the same as an inner diameter of an inner surface of a reactor wall (inner diameter of inner surface of 110 [reactor wall]); for the purpose of being capable of generating uniform plasma on a substrate to form a uniform thin film on the substrate (para. [0074-0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Lee with motivation to be capable of generating uniform plasma on a substrate to form a uniform thin film on the substrate.
Claims 14-20: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights