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 .
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 RCE dated 09/11/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 4, 7, and 16 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A process chamber for film deposition comprising: a process chamber…”. It is unclear how a structure can comprise itself yet also comprise other components. This is contradictory. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “An apparatus for film deposition comprising: a process chamber…”.
Claim 1 recites “wherein an inner most endpoint of the top surface extends horizontally to the radially outward surface of the substrate support and above the upper most surface of the substrate support”. It is unclear how an endpoint could extend horizontally. A point cannot extend in any direction. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “wherein an inner most endpoint of the top surface is positioned above the upper most surface of the substrate support”.
Regarding claims 2-8:
Claims 2-8 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2016/0068996) in view of Gage et al (US 2024/0200191).
Regarding claim 1:
Lau teaches an apparatus (700) for film deposition [fig 7 & 0029] comprising: a process chamber (700) having a chamber body (702) enclosing a chamber volume (interior of 700) [fig 7 & 0030]; a substrate support (714) disposed in the chamber volume (interior of 700), the substrate support (714) having a radially outward surface (outer edge of 714) and an upper most surface (upper surface of 714) [fig 2, 7 & 0030]; and a pre-heat ring (732/400) supported by the chamber body (702) and surrounding the substrate support (714) [fig 4-7 & 0024, 0029], the pre-heat ring (732/400) comprising: a bottom surface (409) [fig 4-6 & 0027]; a top surface (407) [fig 4-6 & 0027]; and a facing wall (interface defining outer edge of the opening 410) facing the radially outward surface (outer edge of 714) [fig 4-7 & 0027, 0029].
Lau does not specifically disclose the facing wall being a tapered wall extending from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface of the pre-heat ring at an angle towards the radially outward surface of the substrate support, wherein an inner most endpoint of the top surface is positioned above the upper most surface of the substrate support.
Gage teaches a tapered wall (remainder of 332) extending from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface of the pre-heat ring at an angle (slopes upward toward the distal end 307 of 300) towards the radially outward surface of the substrate support (202), wherein an inner most endpoint of the top surface (352) is positioned above the upper most surface of the substrate support (level with the tip surface of the substrate) [fig 4 & 0126, 0135].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facing wall of the pre-heat ring of Lau to comprise a tapered wall, as in Gage, to direct purge gas toward the substrate to prevent deposition on a bottom surface of the substrate [Gage - 0131]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify an inner most endpoint of the top surface of the pre-heat ring of Lau to be positioned above the upper most surface of the substrate support, as in Gage, to help the purge gas to flow out faster which further prevents the deposition on the backside of the substrate and does not affect the deposition on the top surface of the substrate [Gage – 0136].
It is noted that the limitation “the tapered wall extending from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface of the pre-heat ring at an angle” have been interpreted consistent with the instant specification. Specifically, the specification discloses: “While the taper wall 260 is illustrated as coming to an end point 210 near the innermost surface of the pre-heat ring 166 as a sharp point, it is contemplated that the end point 210 may be a rounded, curved, concave or convex, shaped as a gear (e.g., a toothed wheel), substantially flat, chamfered, the like, or some combination thereof.” [0025]. No structural difference appears between that which is depicted and Gage (see fig 4). Additionally/alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the tapered wall of modified Lau to extend from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 2:
Lau teaches the radially outward surface of the substrate support (outer edge of 714) is substantially flat (see fig 2) [fig 2, 7 & 0030].
Regarding claim 3:
Lau teaches the tapered wall (remainder of 332) is substantially flat (see fig 4) [Gage - fig 4 & 0126, 0135].
Regarding claim 6:
Lau teaches the pre-heat ring (732/400) further comprises: an outer bottom surface (409) disposed parallel to the top surface (407) [fig 6 & 0027]; an outer wall (outer wall of 400) extending from the top surface (407) to the outer bottom surface (409) [fig 6 & 0027]; an inner wall (vertical portion of 415), the inner wall (vertical portion of 415) disposed substantially parallel to the outer wall (outer wall of 400) and extending from the outer bottom surface (409) toward the top surface (407), at least a portion of the top surface (407) extending radially inward of the inner wall (vertical portion of 415) [fig 6 & 0027]; and an inner bottom surface (horizontal portion of 415), the inner bottom surface (horizontal portion of 415) disposed substantially parallel to the outer bottom surface (409) and extending radially inward from the inner wall (vertical portion of 415) [fig 6 & 0027].
11. Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2016/0068996) in view of Gage et al (US 2024/0200191) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6 above, and further in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 6 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4-5:
Modified Lau teaches the tapered wall (interface defining outer edge of the opening 410 of Lau was modified to be the remainder of 332 sloping upward toward the distal end 307 of 300 of Gage) and the radially outward surface (outer edge of 714) form a passageway therebetween having an adjustable diameter (see fig 7) [Lau - fig 4-7 & 0027, 0029 and Gage - fig 4 & 0126, 0135]; and wherein the top surface (352) is substantially flat (see fig 4) [Gage - fig 4 & 0126, 0135].
Modified Lau does not specifically teach the tapered wall is substantially parallel to the radially outward surface.
Yudovsky teaches a tapered wall (inner wall of 264) is substantially parallel to the radially outward surface (outer surface of 202) [fig 2A & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the radially outward surface of the substrate support of modified Lau to be substantially parallel to the tapered wall, as in Yudovsky, because such a configuration is effective to direct purge gas toward the substrate edge in order to minimize deposition at the substrate edge [Yudovsky -0057]. As such, this is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP 2143 (I)(B)].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Lau does not specifically disclose the tapered wall extends horizontally to overlap the radially outward surface of the substrate support.
Yudovsky teaches a tapered wall (inner wall of 264) extends horizontally to overlap the radially outward surface of the substrate support (outer surface of 202) [fig 2A & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tapered wall of modified Lau to extend horizontally to overlap the radially outward surface of the substrate support, as in Yudovsky, because such a configuration is effective to direct purge gas toward the substrate edge in order to minimize deposition at the substrate edge [Yudovsky -0057]. As such, this is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP 2143 (I)(B)].
12. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 2016/0068996) in view of Gage et al (US 2024/0200191) and Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) as applied to claims 4-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Chiang et al (US 6,800,173).
The limitations of claims 4-5 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Lau teaches the angle the tapered wall (remainder of 332 sloping upward toward the distal end 307 of 300) extends at is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to plane of the inner bottom surface (see fig 4) [Gage - fig 4 & 0126, 0135].
Modified Lau does not specifically teach the tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm.
Chiang does not specifically disclose a “tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm” but teaches the length of the tapered wall is a result-effective variable [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the length of the tapered wall of modified Lau through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conductance of gas between the tapered wall and the radially outward surface of the substrate support [Chiang - fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
13. Claim(s) 9-12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al (US 2024/0200191) in view of Chiang et al (US 6,800,173).
Regarding claim 9:
Gage teaches a pre-heat ring (edge ring, 108/350) for a substrate processing chamber (102) [fig 1A, 4 & 0101, 0103, 0135], the pre-heat ring (108/350) comprising: an annular body of the pre-heat ring (body of 350) [fig 4 & 0103, 0135], the annular body (body of 350) comprising: a top surface (352) [fig 4 & 0103, 0135]; an outer bottom surface (305) disposed parallel to the top surface (352) [fig 4 & 0122, 0135]; an outer wall (outer surface of 302) extending between the top surface (352) and the outer bottom surface (305) [fig 4 & 0122, 0135]; an inner wall (322), the inner wall (322) disposed substantially parallel to the outer wall (outer surface of 302) and extending from the outer bottom surface (305) toward the top surface (352), at least a portion of the top surface (352) extends radially inward of the inner wall (322) [fig 4 & 0124, 0135]; an inner bottom surface (first portion of 332), the inner bottom surface (first portion of 332) disposed substantially parallel to the outer bottom surface (305) and extending radially inward from the inner wall (322) [fig 4 & 0126, 0135]; and a tapered wall (remainder of 332 slopes upward toward the distal end 307 of 300), the tapered wall (remainder of 332) extending from the top surface (352) to the inner bottom surface (first portion of 332), the tapered wall (remainder of 332) at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the inner bottom surface (see fig 4) [fig 4 & 0126, 0135].
It is noted that the limitation “the tapered wall extending from the bottom surface to the inner bottom surface” have been interpreted consistent with the instant specification. Specifically, the specification discloses: “While the taper wall 260 is illustrated as coming to an end point 210 near the innermost surface of the pre-heat ring 166 as a sharp point, it is contemplated that the end point 210 may be a rounded, curved, concave or convex, shaped as a gear (e.g., a toothed wheel), substantially flat, chamfered, the like, or some combination thereof.” [0025]. No structural difference appears between that which is depicted and Gage (see fig 4). Additionally/alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the tapered wall of Gage to extend from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
Gage does not specifically disclose the tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm.
Chiang does not specifically disclose a “tapered wall having a length of about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 30 mm” but teaches the length of the tapered wall is a result-effective variable [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the length of the tapered wall extending between the top surface and the inner bottom surface of Gage through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conductance of gas between the tapered wall and a radially outward surface of the substrate support [Chiang - fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 10:
Gage does not specifically disclose the length of the tapered wall is about 1 mm to about 16 mm.
Chiang does not specifically disclose “the length of a tapered wall is about 1 mm to about 16 mm” but teaches the length of the tapered wall is a result-effective variable [fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the length of the tapered wall of Gage through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired conductance of gas between the tapered wall and a radially outward surface of the substrate support [Chiang - fig 2(a) & col 8, lines 8-21]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 11:
Gage teaches the top surface (352) is substantially flat (see fig 4) [fig 4].
Regarding claim 12:
The limitations “wherein the top surface has a length of about 30 mm to about 70 mm” amount to a mere change in size of a component. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the desired dimensions for the annular body to scale for different size chambers and/or substrates. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claims 16-17:
The claim limitations “a thermal mass between a plane aligned with the inner bottom surface and the top surface is greater than a thermal mass between the plane aligned with the inner bottom surface and the outer bottom surface” and “a thermal mass between a plane aligned with the inner wall and the outer wall is less than a thermal mass between the plane aligned with the inner wall and an intersection of the top surface and the tapered wall” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 18-19:
The limitations “wherein the annular body has an outer diameter of about 200 mm to about 500 mm” and “wherein the annular body has an inner diameter of about 90 mm to about 400 mm” amount to a mere change in size of a component. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the desired dimensions for the annular body to scale for different size chambers and/or substrates. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 20:
Gage teaches a length of the top surface (352) is longer than a combined length of the inner bottom surface and the outer bottom surface (see fig 4) [fig 4 & 0135].
14. Claim(s) 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al (US 2024/0200191) in view of Chiang et al (US 6,800,173) as applied to claims 9-11 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Kuenle et al (US 2022/0018023).
The limitations of claims 9-11 and 16-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Gage does not specifically disclose the top surface has a length of about 30 mm to about 70 mm.
Kuenle teaches a top surface has a length (ring width, RW) of about 30 mm to about 70 mm (radial dimension in a range from 20 mm to 50 mm) [fig 1 & 0029].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top surface of the pre-heat ring of modified Gage with the dimensions of Kuenle to scale the pre-heat ring to process substrates of a desired diameter [Kuenle – 0021, 0029].
Regarding claims 14-15:
Modified Gage does not specifically disclose the annular body is constructed from graphite; and the annular body is constructed from silicon carbide coated carbon graphite.
Kuenle teaches an annular body is constructed from graphite (graphite coated with silicon carbide) [0030]; and the annular body is constructed from silicon carbide coated carbon graphite (graphite coated with silicon carbide) [0030].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pre-heat ring of modified Gage to be constructed from silicon carbide coated carbon graphite, as in Kuenle, because such a material is resistant to chemical and thermal impact during processing [Kuenle – 0030] Furthermore, it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
15. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage et al (US 2024/0200191) in view of Chiang et al (US 6,800,173) as applied to claims 9-12 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Sa et al (US 2023/0290610).
The limitations of claims 9-12 and 16-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Gage does not specifically teach the tapered wall is angled at about 20 degrees to about 70 degrees.
Sa teaches a tapered wall (154c) is angled at about 20 degrees to about 70 degrees (may be about 70 degrees) [Sa - fig 1, 4 & 0079].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tapered wall of the pre-heat ring of modified Gage with the angle of Sa because such an angle allows the purge gas to be stably supplied [Sa - 0079].
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/11/2026, with respect to the objection of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim(s) 1 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1.
17. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
18. 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
