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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 02/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-22 are pending. Claims 18-22 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2025. Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are under examination on the merits. In the amendment filed 02/04/2026, claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended, claim 15 was cancelled, and no claims were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The term “susceptor ring” is interpreted as a ring (note “ring” does not require a round shape and is inclusive of an encircling arrangement) that surrounds the susceptor. The term is not required to be supporting a susceptor or directly in physical contact with the susceptor. Applicant may amend the claims to require a specific shape or contact if applicant wishes to do so. This is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of the specification.
The instant specification indicates that the susceptor is to receive and retain a substrate [0045]. Therefore, the susceptor is interpreted inclusive of a substrate support, table, holder, and/or chuck. This interpretation is consistent with the use of susceptor in the art of semiconductor processing apparatuses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0307129 of Zhang et al., hereinafter Nguyen (second named inventor) in view of Zhang (prev. presented US 2019/0362940) and Sato (prev. presented US 2015/0155201).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches a susceptor ring assembly (152 Fig 1A-2B) comprising: a susceptor ring (152 Fig1A-2B [0039]) comprising a top surface (upper surface of 171 Fig 1B [0039]), a bottom surface (lower surface of 173 Fig 1B [0029]), a first edge (outer surface of 175 Fig 1B [0039]), a second edge (inner surface of 174 Fig 1B [0039]), and a susceptor opening at the interior of the susceptor ring (opening through which substrate support 138 fits Fig 1A-2B, the pedestal 138 [0021] is a susceptor), the susceptor ring (152 Fig 1A-2B) comprising an opening (opening 181 Fig 1B) extending to a first injector cavity (cavity 177 Fig 1B, [0039]), wherein one or more of the bottom surface and a sidewall surface of the susceptor ring comprise one or more first outlets (outlets 179 Fig 1B, [0040]); wherein each of the one or more first outlets are configured to be disposed below a bottom surface of a susceptor (Fig 2B demonstrates the susceptor raised to a position such that the outlets are below a bottom surface of the susceptor 138 [0050]). Nguyen fails to teach the first edge comprises an opening extending to the first injector cavity and fails to teach a first injector tube at least partially disposed within the first injector cavity.
Regarding the a first injector tube at least partially disposed within the first injector cavity, Zhang teaches a first injector tube (548 Fig 5A, [0042]) at least partially disposed within the first injector cavity (Fig 5A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen to include the injector tube as taught by Zhang extending into the first injector cavity because Zhang demonstrates that this allows for gas introduction into the gas injecting ring [0042].
Regarding the first edge comprises the opening extending to the first injector cavity, Nguyen has taught the opening but taught it on the upper surface instead of on the first edge. Initially it is noted that the position of the opening represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a ring for supplying gas (Fig 1), Sato teaches a ring (5 Fig 1) having a gas supply from the outer edge (see line 271A Fig 1 [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 modify Nguyen to include the gas supply from the outer edge (first edge) because Sato demonstrates this as a functional alternative position for the purpose of supplying gas to a plenum in the ring.
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen teaches the susceptor ring comprises a second injector cavity (other of left or right side of 177 or cavity having 184c Fig 1B, note the cavities are not required to be fluidically separated) and the susceptor ring comprises one or more second outlets (corresponding other of left or right side of the ring 152 Fig 1B). Zhang as applied in the combination teaches a second injector tube disposed therein (corresponding other of left or right side 548 Fig 5A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second injector tube as taught by Zhang because this represents a mere duplication of parts and because Zhang teaches more than one may be used to supply gas to the ring.
Regarding claim 5, Nguyen teaches the one or more first outlets comprise substantially horizontal outlets spanning a portion of the sidewall (179 Fig 1B).
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato (prev. presented US 2010/0132614).
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato fails to teach the first injector tube comprises quartz because Zhang and Sato fail to teach the material of the injector tube. In the same field of endeavor of deposition apparatuses [0113], Kato teaches the tube (42 Fig 2) for injecting inert gas is made of quartz [0073]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen and the combination to include the first injector tube comprises quartz because Kato teaches quartz is a sufficient material for a gas injector tube [0073].
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato fails to teach the first injector tube comprises a first aperture within a wall of the first injector tube. Zhang appears to demonstrate a hole at the end of the tube (i.e. not within a wall of the tube), in the same field of endeavor of deposition apparatuses [0113], Kato teaches the tube (42 Fig 2) for injecting inert gas includes a hole in the wall (port 40 Fig 4A and [0078]) for supplying the gas. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the injector tube of the combination to include holes in the wall of the tube because this is a functional alternative arrangement for the opening in the tube to supply purge gas to the plenum of the ring.
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. The first aperture in the first injector tube is in fluid communication with at least one of the one or more first outlets (see Zhang Fig 5A in which the gas leaving the tube 548 is in fluid communication with the outlets of the ring).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno (prev. presented US 2001/0042514).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nguyen fails to teach the one or more first outlets comprise substantially vertical outlets spanning a portion of the bottom surface because Nguyen teaches outlets from the side of the ring. Note that Nguyen teaches the holes may be at different angles including vertically [0040]. In the same field of endeavor of a gas supplying ring (abstract), Mizuno teaches the outlets may be from the side surface (202 Fig 2(a)) or substantially vertical outlets spanning a portion of the bottom surface (202 Fig 2(b)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen to include the vertical outlets spanning a portion of the bottom surface of the embodiment of Fig 2(b) of Mizuno because Mizuno teaches this us a functional alternative arrangement for the gas supply and obtains higher adhesion preventive effect [0069].
Claim(s) 6-7, 10-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato and Leeser (prev. presented US 2023/0402259).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nguyen fails to teach the one or more first outlets comprise corner outlets spanning a portion of the bottom surface and a portion of the sidewall. Note that Nguyen teaches the holes may be at different angles [0040]. In the same field of endeavor of a gas supplying ring (abstract), Leeser teaches the gas supplying edge ring 200 (Fig 5A-D, Fig 8A) includes downwardly angled holes (520M-1 Fig 6A-1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include the downwardly facing angled holes because Leeser demonstrates this position as a functional alternative. Regarding specifically being at the corner, this represents a mere rearrangement of the position of the outlet of the hole to be closer to the inner edge of the ring.
Regarding claim 7 and 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 or the analogous limitations of claim 1 above. Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato fails to teach a rotatable susceptor within the susceptor opening because Nguyen teaches the susceptor (138 Fig 2A) is able to be vertically moved [0020] but fails to teach it may be rotated. Leeser teaches the substrate holding pedestal 140 (susceptor) positioned within the opening of the ring (200 Fig 8A) and is rotatable [0103]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate support (susceptor) of Nguyen to be rotatable because Leeser teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement for the substrate support. Regarding specifically claim 10, Nguyen teaches a reactor comprising a reaction chamber (100 Fig 1A-2B) comprising an upper chamber area (110 Fig 1B) and a lower chamber area (108 Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. Nguyen teaches the apparatus may be used for etching processes [0018] (note teaching of fluorine gases and cleaning is a type of etching) and Nguyen teaches the processing gas is fluidly coupled to the first injector tube [0040].
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. Nguyen teaches an exhaust flange (160 Fig 1B, [0030]) coupled to a first end of the reaction chamber [0035].
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. Nguyen fails to teach lift pins. However, Leeser teaches the rotatable substrate pedestal 140 (susceptor) comprises one or more lift pin apertures (895 Fig 8D [0110]) and at least one lift pin (890 Fig 8D [0110]) is received by the one or more lift pin apertures [0110]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen to include the lift pins because Leeser teaches this enables loading and unloading of the wafer substrate [0110].
Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 12 above. Nguyen further teaches an injection flange (104, 124, 126 Fig 1B) [0018] connected to a second end of the reaction chamber (Fig 1B) (note the claims do not require the second end to be opposite the first end and the upper surface is another end of the chamber vs the side of the chamber). Also note that Sato demonstrates there may be a lower vacuum exhaust with lower gas supply (see vacuum 225 and gas supply 250a, both Fig 1) at a bottom end of the chamber with an upper gas injection showerhead (230 Fig 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. Nguyen further teaches an injection flange (104, 124, 126 Fig 1B) [0018] which injects gas in a downward direction (Fig 1B) and teaches the openings in the ring are arranged for horizontal gas injection (Fig 1B-2B). In the combination as applied to claim 10, Nguyen was modified to include the injector tube is positioned to enter the plenum of the ring from a horizontal direction (direction of tube 271a Fig 1 of Sato). The aperture of the tube in Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato is at the end of the tube and therefore in the combination is directing gas in a substantially horizontal flow direction. Therefore the combination of Nguyen in view of Zhang and Sato as applied includes the first injector tube comprises an aperture configured to provide gas substantially perpendicular to a direction of flow of process gas from the injection flange.
Regarding claim 17, Nguyen teaches a plurality of gas sources [0028] and teaches purge gas coupled to the injector tube [0046]. Therefore the inclusion of a purge gas source is obvious. Further Zhang teaches purge gas sources [0027] and teaches these connected to the susceptor ring [0042]. Sato also teaches inert (purge) gas coupled to the edge ring [0079].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,635,474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of US 12,635,474 include or render obvious all the limitations of instant claims 1-14 and 16-17. Note that changes in the position of the outlets in the susceptor ring represent mere rearrangement of parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (reply p6-9) regarding the previously applied rejections including Zhang, Sato, and Leeser not teaching the amended limitation of claim 1 and 10 are moot because the newly applied reference Nguyen teaches the positioning of the outlets as claimed. Zhang, Sato, and Leeser are relied upon for teaching additional details but are not relied upon for the newly amended limitation which is taught by Nguyen. Therefore the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, the rejection has been updated to reflect the amendments and to reflect that the previously pending application has now issued as a patent (i.e. the rejection is no longer provisional).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0047566 teaches gas introduction below the susceptor (129 Fig 1A). US 2003/0084849 teaches purge gas introduction below the susceptor (90 Fig 1A). US 2022/0075270 teaches purge gas introduction below the susceptor (1600 Fig 8).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights