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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/19/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and 13. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3-14, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 13 require “where a height of the pocket is at least two times greater than the wafer support level”; however, a reading of the specification fails to establish that the applicant had possession of the full breadth of the instant claims, that is the pocket height that is “at least two times greater” as now instantly claimed. In other words, the claims as drafted include an open ended range and therefore the pocket height has no upper bound and this full scope is not described and thus is new matter. Additionally, the examiner can not locate a disclosure that the height is at least two times the wafer support level or any relationship that would suggest that the wafer support level determines the pocket height. Applicant’s argued support (0.35 inches), see Remarks dated 12/19/2025, while does meet the requirement of at least two times greater than the wafer support height, this single point does not provide support for the entire breadth of the now instantly claimed range (0.002 inches to unbounded height).
If the applicant can provide explicit or implicit support for this requirement, the examiner will withdraw this rejection.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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, 3-5, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6454866 by Halpin et al. taken with US Patent Application 20160099166 by Yudovsky or US Patent 9130002 by Frank et al. , each taken further with US Patent Application Publication 20130000848 by Wongsenakhum et al.
Claim 1: Halpin discloses a pedestal assembly for use in a process chamber (see Figure 1), comprising:
a pedestal comprising a pedestal top surface that is horizontally-oriented along a first plane, the pedestal top surface having a plurality of wafer supports configured to support a wafer at a wafer support level above the pedestal top surface (Figure 2);
a raised annular rim that protrudes from the pedestal top surface and is disposed on an outer edge of the pedestal top surface, wherein the raised annular rim comprises a mesa surface that is horizontally-oriented along a second plane and that is elevated above the pedestal top surface (Figure 2), and wherein the raised annular rim and the pedestal top surface define a pocket configured to receive the wafer (figure 2);
and a beveled surface that extends from the mesa surface to the pedestal top surface (figure 2, Figure 21C-21D), wherein each of the plurality of wafer supports sits within a hole that opens up at the pedestal top surface and rests on a compliant spacer that sits at a bottom of the hole, wherein the compliant spacer is configured to prevent each of the wafer supports from breaking (Figure 21C-21D, where wafer support includes what can reasonably be considered “compliant spacer” at bottom of hole to provide support from breaking).
Halpin discloses supporting the wafer at a level of 0.010 inches, within the range as claimed and a range the overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus makes obvious such (see column 10, lines 20-25 “space a wafer above the recess in a range of about 0.010 inches to 0.2 inches). As for the requirement that the height of the pocket is at least two times the height of support level, the examiners notes the following disclosures
Halpin discloses 0.01 inches for the height of the wafer as well as 0.075 is 3 times the thickness of the wafer (column 10, lines 25-35) and thus a standard wafer thickness can reasonably be considered 0.025 inches. In addition, Halpin discloses that the depth of the recess and spacer height are preferably set so that the top surface of the wafer is in plane with the pocket edge and thus it would have been obvious to provide a pocket that would hold the wafer in plane, including one that has a height that is larger then two times the wafer support level as claimed. Here, pocket would be 0.035 inches, which is the height of wafer (0.01 inches) plus the thickness of the wafer (0.025 inches) and so that the wafer top surface would be in plane.
Additionally, Halpin discloses that the recess height can be adjustable, stating “the ledge 84 might be formed above or below the top of the wafer 44 as desired” and therefore the height of the ledge, which defines the height of the pocket and gas flow characteristics, is illustrated by Halpin as a result effective variable and such can be above the top level of the wafer “as desired” and thus determination of the optimum height of the wafer support as well as the optimum height of the pocket, i.e. height of the recess, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine through routine experimentation as such is taught by Halpin as adjustable to have a specific benefits and as desired.
Halpin discloses using wafer supports as noted above for height modulation; however, fails to disclose a compliant material. However, Yudovsky discloses a wafer support with a spring (i.e. compliant material) to provide height modulation. Therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Halpin to include the spring as such is known to support the wafer and pin in a processing apparatus.
Alternatively, Frank discloses a wafer chuck with a pins include a dampening system to extend their lifetime of the pins (column 3, lines 22-23) and including a pin with a compliant material (see Figures 4A-4B) to absorb the energy on the pins, including a spring or elastic material (column 4, lines 42-56) and therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a dampening mechanism below the pin to absorb the energy on the pins to thereby extend the lifetime of the pins.
Halpin with Yudovsky or Frank discloses all that is taught above and discloses a beveled surface as claimed; however, fails to disclose the angle. However, Wongsenakhum discloses a raised annular rim similar to that of Halpin. Wongsenkhum discloses alternative arrangements of the rim and discloses such includes a annular rim that has a beveled surface rising uniformly from the pedestal top surface to the mesa surface that extends from the outer diameter of the pocket to the outer edge of the pedestal (see Figure 10A) and using an angle of greater than 0 to less than 90o (0048) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Halpin with raised annular rim arrangement as taught by Wongsenkhum in Figure 10A as such is shown by Wongsenkhum as a known method for providing an annular ring relative to the pedestal and using an angle that is taught as effecting the gas flow.
Applicant’s requirement that the beveled surface is configured to contact an outer edge of the wafer to promote sealing of the wafer to the pedestal is intended use of the instantly claimed pedestal structure and therefore met by the prior art reference. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 3: Halpin discloses SiC material (column 8, lines 64-68).
Claim 4: Halpin discloses the mesa surface extends from an outer diameter of the pocket to a curved surface that joins the mesa surface to the outer edge of the pedestal, wherein the outer edge of the pedestal is vertically-oriented relative to the mesa surface (Figure 2).
Claim 5: As for the requirement of “an outer diameter of the pocket is configured to promote sealing of a wafer edge of the wafer to the pedestal” this requirement is intended use of the claimed structure, i.e. the claimed apparatus does not require a wafer of particular size or shape and therefore this requirement is intended use of the claimed apparatus. Assembly as claimed is not limited to the wafer or size thereof, but selection of a wafer is intended use of the claimed assembly and therefore the claimed apparatus can be utilized with a wafer that will provide the claimed dimensions. In other words, as outlined above, because the assembly can be used with various wafers of various sizes and thicknesses, the examiner maintains that the prior art can be utilized with a wafer that meets the claimed requirements, that is rests on the beveled surface. While Halpin does not explicitly disclose that the wafer rests against the beveled surface, the examiner notes that they are capable of being configured to contact a wafer circumference at a wafer edge of the water and therefore meets the intended use requirement of the claims as drafted.
Claim 10: As for the requirement of “a height of the pocket is configured to promote sealing of a wafer edge of the wafer to the pedestal” this requirement is intended use of the claimed structure, i.e. the claimed apparatus does not require a wafer of particular size or shape and therefore this requirement is intended use of the claimed apparatus. Assembly as claimed is not limited to the wafer or size thereof, but selection of a wafer is intended use of the claimed assembly and therefore the claimed apparatus can be utilized with a wafer that will provide the claimed dimensions. In other words, as outlined above, because the assembly can be used with various wafers of various sizes and thicknesses, the examiner maintains that the prior art can be utilized with a wafer that meets the claimed requirements, that is rests on the beveled surface. While Halpin does not explicitly disclose that the wafer rests against the beveled surface, the examiner notes that they are capable of being configured to contact a wafer circumference at a wafer edge of the water and therefore meets the intended use requirement of the claims as drafted.
Claim 12: Halpin discloses a raises annular rim as claimed and such will necessarily limit the lateral movement of the wafer as claimed.
Claims 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6454866 by Halpin et al. taken with US Patent Application 20160099166 by Yudovsky or US Patent 9130002 by Frank et al. and further with Wongsenkhum as applied above, each taken further with JP 2016100483, hereinafter JP 483.
Halpin with Yudovsky or Frank and further with Wongsenkhum discloses all that is taught above and discloses wafers contained within a pocket on a susceptor for deposition; however, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed dimensions. However, JP 483 discloses a similar vapor phase deposition including a susceptor with a pocket and discloses that the pocket dimensions, including diameter and depth, are determined based on the substrate dimensions (page 2 of translation) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the depth and the diameters as claimed to reap the benefits of processing substrates. Therefore determination of the appropriate pedestal dimensions to process wafers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Here, additionally, the reference specifically disclosed 300 mm diameter meets the claims as drafted (i.e. reads on approximately 11.968 inches and less than 11.968 inches).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6454866 by Halpin et al. taken with US Patent Application 20160099166 by Yudovsky or US Patent 9130002 by Frank et al. further with Wongsenkhum as applied above, each taken further with US Patent 6315878 by Patadia et al.
Halpin with Yudovsky or Frank and further with Wongsenkhum discloses all that is taught above and disclose using a plurality of support pins; however, fails to disclose a plurality of lift pins extending through shafts disposed in the pedestal. However, Patadia, also in supporting the substrate discloses a wafer support for supporting the wafers above a pedestal surface in combination with a lift pin assembly (see Figure 4 and accompanying text) to reap the benefits of providing a mechanism for lifting the wafer for placement and removal. As such, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include lift pin assembly as claimed to provide the benefit of wafer placement and removal.
Claims 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6454866 by Halpin et al. taken with US Patent Application Publication 20130000848 by Wongsenakhum et al.
Claim 13: Halpin discloses all that is taught above and discloses a beveled surface as claimed; however, fails to disclose the angle. However, However, Wongsenakhum discloses a raised annular rim similar to that of Halpin. Wongsenkhum discloses alternative arrangements of the rim and discloses such includes a annular rim that has a beveled surface rising uniformly from the pedestal top surface to the mesa surface that extends from the outer diameter of the pocket to the outer edge of the pedestal (see Figure 10A) and using an angle of greater than 0 to less than 90o (0048) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Halpin with raised annular rim arrangement as taught by Wongsenkhum in Figure 10A as such is shown by Wongsenkhum as a known method for providing an annular ring relative to the pedestal and using an angle that is taught as effecting the gas flow.
The beveled surface as taught by Wongsenkhum would include an inner diameter at the mesa surface and outer diameter at the top surface as claimed (Figure 10A).
As to the claim requirement with respect to the outer diameter of the top surface is less than a diameter of the wafer is intended use of the claimed structure and the assembly as claimed is not limited to any inner diameter and/or wafer diameter and therefore the structure of Halpin with Wongsenkhum can be utilized with a wafer that meets this requirement (i.e. a wafer diameter that is greater than the inner diameter as claimed).
Applicant’s requirement that the beveled surface contacts a lower portion of an outer edge of the wafer to promote sealing of the wafer to the pedestal is intended use of the instantly claimed pedestal structure and therefore met by the prior art reference. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 14: This claims are taught and made obvious by Halpin for the reasons set forth above.
Claim16: Wongsenkhum discloses greater than 0 to less than 90o (0048) and thus encompasses the claimed range and makes obvious using such.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11702748. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11702748 fully encompass and teach all the limitations of the instant claims and therefore anticipate and/or make obvious the instant claims.
Conclusion
Examiner has included pertinent art on the 892 as it relates to the added requirement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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 on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718