DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 06/23/2026.
4. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending.
5. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbaas (US 2019/0051544) in view of Tan et al (US 2018/0233326).
Regarding claim 1:
Verbaas teaches a reaction chamber (reactor, 400) [fig 4 & 0039], comprising: an interior space (interior of 400) defined by a sidewall (wall, 430), a bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) coupled to the sidewall (430), and a showerhead (showerhead, 401) arranged opposite the bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) and coupled to the sidewall (430), wherein the sidewall (430) comprises an interior-facing surface (interior surface of 430) that forms a circular shape having a first circumference (see fig 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0045]; a spacer plate (plate supporting 435) integrated in the sidewall (430), and comprising a lip (interior extending portion of plate supporting 435) that extends outwards from the sidewall and into the interior space (interior of 400), and extends along the entire first circumference of the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (see fig 4 and 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0052]; and a flow control ring (flow control ring, 435) positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435), wherein the flow control ring (435) extends along an entire outer edge of the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052].
Verbaas does not specifically disclose a spacer plate comprising a heating element.
Tan teaches a spacer plate (spacer, 212) comprising a heating element (heating element, 216) [fig 1-2C & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is embedded within the spacer plate (embedded in the groove 214 of 212) [Tan – fig 1-2C & 0029].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Verbaas teaches the flow control ring (435) extends outwards from the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) and into the interior space (interior of 400) [fig 4 & 0052]; and wherein the flow control ring (435) has a circumference that is less than (see fig 4) the circumference of the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) comprises a resistive heating element (resistor coil) [Tan - fig 1-2C & 0049].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is a single element (coil) that extends along the entire circumference of the spacer plate (212) [Tan - fig 1, 2A-2C & 0049].
Regarding claim 10:
Verbaas teaches a reaction chamber (reactor, 400) [fig 4 & 0039], comprising: an interior space (interior of 400) defined by a sidewall (wall, 430), a bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) coupled to the sidewall (430), and a showerhead (showerhead, 401) arranged opposite the bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) and coupled to the sidewall (430), wherein the sidewall (430) comprises an interior-facing surface (interior surface of 430) that forms a circular shape having a first circumference (see fig 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0045]; a spacer plate (plate supporting 435) extending from the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (interior surface of 430) into the interior space (interior of 400) and having a second circumference (see fig 4 and 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0052]; and a flow control ring (flow control ring, 435) positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435), wherein the flow control ring (435) extends along an entire outer edge of the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) and has a third circumference that is less than the second circumference (circumference of 435 is less than the circumference of the plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052].
Verbaas does not specifically disclose a heating element embedded within the spacer plate.
Tan teaches a heating element (heating element, 216) embedded within the spacer plate (embedded in the groove 214 of 212) [fig 1-2C & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element embedded therein, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022].
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is a single element (coil) that extends along the entire circumference of the spacer plate (212) [Tan - fig 1, 2A-2C & 0049].
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) comprises a resistive heating element (resistor coil) [Tan - fig 1-2C & 0049].
Regarding claim 15:
Verbaas teaches a system (apparatus depicted in figure 4) [fig 4 & 0039], comprising: a reaction chamber (reactor, 400) comprising an interior space (interior of 400) defined by: a sidewall (wall, 430) comprising an interior-facing surface (interior surface of 430) that forms a circular shape having a first circumference (see fig 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0039]; a bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) coupled to the sidewall (430) [fig 4 & 0039]; and a showerhead (showerhead, 401) arranged opposite the bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) and coupled to the sidewall (430) [fig 4 & 0045]; a spacer plate (plate supporting 435) extending from the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (interior surface of 430) into the interior space (interior of 400), wherein the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) extends along the entire first circumference of the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (interior surface of 430) [fig 4, 15 & 0052]; a flow control ring (flow control ring, 435) positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435), wherein the flow control ring (435) extends from an outer edge of the spacer plate into the interior space and has a second circumference (see fig 4) [fig 4 & 0052]; a susceptor (base, 420) disposed in the interior space (interior of 400) and adjacent to the flow control ring (435), the susceptor (420) comprising a top surface (top surface of 420) [fig 4 & 0043]; and a cap (cap, 422) disposed on and entirely covering the top surface of the susceptor (top surface of 420), wherein the cap (422) is adjacent to and spaced apart from the flow control ring (435) [fig 4 & 0043-0044].
Verbaas does not specifically disclose a heating element embedded within the spacer plate.
Tan teaches a heating element (heating element, 216) embedded within the spacer plate (embedded in the groove 214 of 212) [fig 1-2C & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element embedded therein, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022].
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is a single element (coil) that extends along the entire first circumference (see fig 2A-2C) [Tan - fig 1, 2A-2C & 0049].
Regarding claim 19:
Verbaas teaches the second circumference of the flow control ring is less than the first circumference of the sidewall (circumference of 435 is less than the circumference of 430) [fig 4 & 0052].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) comprises a resistive heating element (resistor coil) [Tan - fig 1-2C & 0049].
9. Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbaas (US 2019/0051544) in view of Tan et al (US 2018/0233326) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Fodor et al (US 8,444,926).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 8-9:
Modified Verbaas does not specifically disclose the heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements, wherein the heating elements are spaced equidistant from each other; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements.
Fodor teaches a heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements (plurality of heating elements, 402), wherein the heating elements (402) are spaced equidistant from each other (see fig 4A) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements (each heating element 402 may be individually controlled) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heating element of modified Verbaas to comprise a plurality of heating elements, as in Fodor, to produce a predetermined temperature profile to compensate for areas of increased heat transfer [Fodor - col 5, lines 44-60].
Regarding claims 12-13:
Modified Verbaas does not specifically disclose the heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements, wherein the heating elements are spaced equidistant from each other; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements.
Fodor teaches a heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements (plurality of heating elements, 402), wherein the heating elements (402) are spaced equidistant from each other (see fig 4A) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements (each heating element 402 may be individually controlled) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heating element of modified Verbaas to comprise a plurality of heating elements, as in Fodor, to produce a predetermined temperature profile to compensate for areas of increased heat transfer [Fodor - col 5, lines 44-60].
Regarding claims 17-18:
Modified Verbaas does not specifically disclose the heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements, wherein the heating elements are spaced equidistant from each other; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements.
Fodor teaches a heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements (plurality of heating elements, 402), wherein the heating elements (402) are spaced equidistant from each other (see fig 4A) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements (each heating element 402 may be individually controlled) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heating element of modified Verbaas to comprise a plurality of heating elements, as in Fodor, to produce a predetermined temperature profile to compensate for areas of increased heat transfer [Fodor - col 5, lines 44-60].
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 5 under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 5 under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(d) has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim(s) 5.
11. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Verbaas’ heat shield 428 provides thermal separation between wall 430 and heater assembly 414. Therefore, there would be no motivation to include a heating element in Verbaas’ spacer plate because heat from such a heating element would be blocked by heat shield 428.
In response, it is noted that 428 would NOT block heat to the spacer from the heating element in Verbaas’ spacer plate in the proposed modification. The heating element is disclosed to be in direct contact with the spacer. It appears that applicant is arguing against a motivation that has NOT been set forth. Nowhere does the office action suggest that it would be obvious to include a heating element in Verbaas’ spacer plate to provide heat to the susceptor. As set forth in the body of the rejection above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element embedded therein, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022]. Specifically, maintaining the spacer plate/flow control ring at an elevated temperature prevents unwanted deposition on the spacer plate/flow control ring thereby “minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance” [Tan – 0022].
Applicant’s arguments that it would not be obvious to include a heating element in Verbaas’ spacer plate to provide heat to the susceptor because Verbaas includes a heater in the susceptor is NOT directed to the rejection of record. It is emphasized that nowhere does the office action suggest that it would be obvious to include a heating element in Verbaas’ spacer plate to provide heat to the susceptor.
Conclusion
12. 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 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 BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights