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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 7, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitney (US 2016/0340799) in view of Kanaya (US 2006/0180086) and Narahara (US 11,501,996).
Regarding claim 1, Pitney teaches a susceptor supporting a semiconductor wafer in a heated chamber[0008],
the semiconductor wafer comprising a forward surface, a back surface, and a peripheral edge joining the forward and back surfaces [0008],
the susceptor comprising:
a body having a front surface (110), a rear surface (120) opposite the front surface, and a central plane extending between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 7);
a recess (126) extending into the body from the front surface (110) to a recess floor (126), the recess receiving the semiconductor wafer (300, fig. 7) therein;
and a ledge (106) circumscribing an outer periphery of the recess floor in the recess, the ledge supporting the back surface of the semiconductor wafer (300) proximate the peripheral edge (Fig. 7),
the ledge comprising:
a first surface (128) oriented at a first acute angle relative to a horizontal plane extending parallel to the central plane (Fig. 5, [0033]);
a second surface (130) extending radially inward from the first surface, the second surface oriented at a second acute angle relative to the horizontal plane (Fig. 5, [0033]);
and a third surface (132) extending between the second surface (130) and the recess floor (126, Fig. 5), the third surface (132) oriented at a third acute angle (beta) relative to the horizontal plane [0035].
Pitney does not teach wherein each of the first, second, and third surfaces extends circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge.
Kanaya directed to a susceptor supporting a semiconductor wafer in a heated chamber. It teaches a first surface (20), a second surface (20b), and a third surface (21) extend circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge (Fig. 2b).
Kanaya teaches that it is well known and operable for a ledge to be continuous along the circumference of a susceptor wafer pocket. The ledge as taught by Pitney is well known in the art and operable for processing substrate to reduce deposits on the backside of the substrate near a notch. The extension of the ledge of Pitney along the circumference of the wafer pocket as taught by Kanaya would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art. Additionally, Pitney does not teach away from extending its advantageous ledge around the circumference. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that the claimed elements are well known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ledge of Pitney by providing the ledge extends circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge, as taught by Kanaya, because the claimed elements are well known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Pitney teaches the susceptor comprises a recess wall (124) extending between the front surface (110) and the ledge.
Pitney does not teach wherein the ledge comprises a fourth surface extending form the recess wall to the first surface and parallel to the horizontal plane.
Narahara teaches comprising a recess wall (110A) extending between the front surface (110C, fig. 4D) and the ledge (110l), wherein the ledge comprises a fourth surface (110D) extending from the recess wall (110A) to the first surface (110C) and parallel to the horizontal plane (Fig. 4D, col. 8, ln. 62-67).
Narahara teaches a feature of a susceptor connecting the recess wall and first surface of a ledge with a fourth surface that is parallel to a horizontal plane is operable for susceptors holding wafers for processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the fourth surface of Narahara with the ledge of Pitney with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ledge of Pitney by providing a fourth surface extending from the recess wall to the first surface and parallel to the horizontal plane, as taught by Narahara, because it would increase the circumferential flatness uniformity of the wafer and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A..
Regarding claim 2, Pitney teaches the first surface has a first length (L4) and the second surface has a second length (L3) that is longer than the first length (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Pitney teaches wherein the third surface (132) has a third length (l3) that is shorter than the second length (L2, [0036], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Pitney teaches the first and second lengths are each longer than the third length (claim 8).
Regarding claim 6, Pitney teaches the second surface (130) is oriented at the second acute angle (theta, 0-3 degrees), and wherein the first (alpha, 2-4 degrees, [0031]) and third angles (beta, 3-10 degrees) are each larger than the second angle [0036].
Regarding claim 7, Pitney teaches the third angle (beta; 3-10 degrees [0035]) is larger than the first angle (alpha 2-4 degrees [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Pitney teaches the second angle (Theta) is between 0° to 3° [0035].
Regarding claim 9, Pitney teaches the third angle (beta) is between 3° to 10° [0035].
Regarding claim 10, Pitney teaches the third angle (beta) is 10°[0035].
Regarding claim 11, in the Matter of the application of Percy St. George Kirke, 5, USPQ 539 (1930), the Board of Appeals held that, there is nothing patentable in making a machine or apparatus larger or smaller, if it produces the same result in the same manner. Therefore in light of Percy, Pitney teaches a length of the third surface is between 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
Regarding claim 12, Pitney teaches the second surface (130) is oriented at the second angle (theta), and wherein the first angle (angle) is between 3° to 4°, the second angle (theta) is between 0° to 1°, and the third angle (beta) is between 3° to 10° [0031], [0035].
Regarding claim 13, in the Matter of the application of Percy St. George Kirke, 5, USPQ 539 (1930), the Board of Appeals held that, there is nothing patentable in making a machine or apparatus larger or smaller, if it produces the same result in the same manner. Pitney provides relative lengths for each surface required by the claims [0036] but does not specify a length of the surfaces. The Examiner takes the position that the teachings of Pitney in light of Percy would render obvious a first length of the first surface is between 0.5 mm to 2 mm, a second length of the second surface is between 3 mm to 6 mm, and a third length of the third surface is between 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm.
Regarding claim 14, Pitney teaches a susceptor for supporting a semiconductor wafer in a heated chamber, the susceptor comprising:
a body (100) having a front surface (110), a rear surface (120) opposite the front surface, and a central plane extending between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 5 and 7);
a wall (124) extending from the front surface (100) and defining a recess (126) in the body (100), the recess being sized and shaped for receiving the semiconductor wafer 300) therein (Fig. 5 and 7);
and a ledge extending between the wall (124) and a recess floor (126),
the ledge comprising: a first surface (128) oriented at a first acute angle (alpha) relative to a horizontal plane extending parallel to the central plane;
a second surface (130) oriented at a second angle (theta) relative to the horizontal plane that is smaller than the first angle (Fig. 5, [0031], [0035]);
and a third surface (132) oriented at a third acute angle (beta) relative to the horizontal plane (Fig. 5);
wherein the second surface (130) is positioned between the first surface (128) and the third surface (132, fig. 5).
Pitney does not teach wherein each of the first, second, and third surfaces extends circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge.
Kanaya directed to a susceptor supporting a semiconductor wafer in a heated chamber. It teaches a first surface (20), a second surface (20b), and a third surface (21) extend circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge (Fig. 2b).
Kanaya teaches that it is well known and operable for a ledge to be continuous along the circumference of a susceptor wafer pocket. The ledge as taught by Pitney is well known in the art and operable for processing substrate to reduce deposits on the backside of the substrate near a notch. The extension of the ledge of Pitney along the circumference of the wafer pocket as taught by Kanaya would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art. Additionally, Pitney does not teach away from extending its advantageous ledge around the circumference. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that the claimed elements are well known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ledge of Pitney by providing the ledge extends circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge, as taught by Kanaya, because the claimed elements are well known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Pitney does not teach wherein the ledge comprises a fourth surface extending from the recess wall to the first surface and parallel to the horizontal plane.
Narahara teaches comprising a recess wall (110A) extending between the front surface (110C, fig. 4D) and the ledge (110l), wherein the ledge comprises a fourth surface (110D) extending from the recess wall (110A) to the first surface (110C) and parallel to the horizontal plane (Fig. 4D, col. 8, ln. 62-67).
Narahara teaches a feature of a susceptor connecting the recess wall and first surface of a ledge with a fourth surface that is parallel to a horizontal plane is operable for susceptors holding wafers for processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the fourth surface of Narahara with the ledge of Pitney with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ledge of Pitney by providing a fourth surface extending from the recess wall to the first surface and parallel to the horizontal plane, as taught by Narahara, because it would increase the circumferential flatness uniformity of the wafer (col. 5, ln. 25-35) and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A..
Regarding claim 16, Pitney teaches the first surface has a first length (L4), the second surface has a second length (L2), and the third surface has a third length (L3), wherein the second length is longer than each of the first and third lengths (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Pitney teaches the third angle is 10° (beta, [0035].
In the Matter of the application of Percy St. George Kirke, 5, USPQ 539 (1930), the Board of Appeals held that, there is nothing patentable in making a machine or apparatus larger or smaller, if it produces the same result in the same manner. Therefore it would be obvious over Pitney in light of Percy to provide a length of the third surface is between 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
Regarding claim 18, Pitney teaches an epitaxial deposition reactor for growing a thin layer of material on a semiconductor wafer, the reactor comprising:
a reaction chamber (202, fig. 3);
and a susceptor (100) to support the semiconductor wafer (300) within the reaction chamber (202, fig. 3), the susceptor comprising:
a body (100) having a front surface (110), a rear surface (120) opposite the front surface, and a central plane extending between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 5 and 7);
a recess (126) extending into the body from the front surface to a recess floor (126, Fig. 5 and 7), the recess being sized and shaped for receiving the semiconductor wafer (300) therein;
and a ledge circumscribing an outer periphery of the recess floor in the recess, the ledge comprising:
a first surface (128) oriented at a first acute angle (alpha) relative to a horizontal plane extending parallel to the central plane (Fig. 5);
a second surface (130) extending radially inward from the first surface (128, fig. 5), the second surface oriented at a second acute angle (theta) relative to the horizontal plane (Fig. 5);
and a third surface (132) extending between the second surface (130) and the recess floor (126), the third surface oriented at a third acute angle (beta) relative to the horizontal plane (Fig. 5);
Pitney does not teach wherein each of the first, second, and third surfaces extends circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge.
Kanaya directed to a susceptor supporting a semiconductor wafer in a deposition reactor. It teaches a first surface (20), a second surface (20b), and a third surface (21) extend circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge (Fig. 2b).
Kanaya teaches that it is well known and operable for a ledge to be continuous along the circumference of a susceptor wafer pocket. The ledge as taught by Pitney is well known in the art and operable for processing substrate to reduce deposits on the backside of the substrate near a notch. The extension of the ledge of Pitney along the circumference of the wafer pocket as taught by Kanaya would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art. Additionally, Pitney does not teach away from extending its advantageous ledge around the circumference. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that the claimed elements are well known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ledge of Pitney by providing the ledge extends circumferentially along at least 60% of a circumferential extent of the ledge, as taught by Kanaya, because the claimed elements are well known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Pitney does not teach wherein the ledge comprises a fourth surface extending from the recess wall to the first surface and parallel to the horizontal plane.
Narahara teaches comprising a recess wall (110A) extending between the front surface (110C, fig. 4D) and the ledge (110l), wherein the ledge comprises a fourth surface (110D) extending from the recess wall (110A) to the first surface (110C) and parallel to the horizontal plane (Fig. 4D, col. 8, ln. 62-67).
Narahara teaches a feature of a susceptor connecting the recess wall and first surface of a ledge with a fourth surface that is parallel to a horizontal plane is operable for susceptors holding wafers for processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the fourth surface of Narahara with the ledge of Pitney with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ledge of Pitney by providing a fourth surface extending from the recess wall to the first surface and parallel to the horizontal plane, as taught by Narahara, because it would increase the circumferential flatness uniformity of the wafer (col. 2, ln. 45-55) and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Regarding claim 19, Pitney teaches the second surface (130) is oriented at the second angle (theta), the second angle being smaller than each of the first angle and the third angle [0031],[0035],
and wherein a first length (L4) of the first surface (128) and a third length (L3)of the third surface (132) are each shorter than a second length (L2) of the second surface (130, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Pitney teaches the first surface (128, fig. 5) supports the back surface of the semiconductor wafer proximate the peripheral edge [0031-0033].
Regarding claim 22, Pitney does not teach the fourth surface has a varying radial length along the circumferential extent of the ledge.
Narahara the fourth surface has a varying radial length along the circumferential extent of the ledge (110c, fig. 4a) because it teaches the circumference embodies four elliptical arcs because it would increase the circumferential flatness uniformity of the wafer (col. 5, ln. 25-35; col. 7, ln. 1-24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fourth surface of Pitney by providing the fourth surface has a varying radial length along the circumferential extent of the ledge, as taught by Narahara, because it would increase the circumferential flatness uniformity of the wafer (col. 5, ln. 25-35) and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A..
Regarding claim 23, Pitney does not teach the radial length of the fourth surface is varied between 0 millimeters (mm) and 1.1 mm.
Narahara teaches the radial distance of the wafer pocket varies within a range of 1 mm to 4 mm (col. 8, ln. 10-15). Narahara teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range of 0-1.1 mm, as such a prima facie case for obviousness has been made. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fourth surface of Pitney by providing the radial length of the fourth surface is varied between 0 millimeters (mm) and 1.1 mm, as taught by Narahara, because it would increase the circumferential flatness uniformity of the wafer (col. 5, ln. 25-35) and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights