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 Request for Reconsideration dated 05/05/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 6, 8-10, and 16 have been amended.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “the pre-heat ring comprising: a bottom surface a top surface; and…” A semicolon appears to be missing after “a bottom surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) and Sa et al (US 2023/0290610).
Regarding claim 1:
Comita teaches a process chamber (210) for film deposition [fig 2 & col 3, lines 30-42] comprising: a process chamber (deposition chamber, 212) having a chamber body (body of 212) enclosing a chamber volume (interior of 212) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 30-42]; a substrate support (220) disposed in the chamber volume (interior of 210), the substrate support (220) having a radially outward surface (outer edge of 220) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62]; and a pre-heat ring (pre-heat ring, 228) supported by the chamber body (body of 212) and surrounding the substrate support (220), the pre-heat ring (pre-heat ring, 228) comprising: a bottom surface (bottom surface of 228); a top surface (top surface of 228); and a facing wall (inner wall of 228) facing the radially outward surface (outer edge of 220) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62].
Comita does not specifically disclose the facing wall being a tapered wall extending at an angle towards the substrate support.
Yudovsky teaches a tapered wall (inner wall of 264) extending at an angle towards the substrate support (see fig 2A) [fig 2A & 0048].
Yudovsky teaches a pre-heat ring (shadow ring, 258) comprising: a tapered wall (inner wall of 264) facing the radially outward surface (outer surface of 202), the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) narrows towards a top surface of the pre-heat ring and towards the substrate support (see fig 2A) [fig 2A & 0048].
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 Comita to comprise a tapered wall substantially parallel to the radially outward surface, as in Yudovsky, to direct purge gas toward the substrate edge in order to minimize deposition at the substrate edge [Yudovsky -0057].
Comita modified by Yudovsky does not specifically disclose the tapered wall extending from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface of the pre-heat ring at an angle.
Sa teaches a tapered wall (tapered portion, 154c) extending from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface of the pre-heat ring at an angle (angle of inclination) [fig 1, 4 & 0079].
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 Comita to extend from the bottom surface upwards to meet the top surface of the pre-heat ring at an angle, as in Sa, because such a configuration allows the purge gas to be stably supplied [Sa - 0079]. Additionally/alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the tapered wall of modified Comita 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:
Comita teaches the radially outward surface of the substrate support (outer edge of 220) is substantially flat (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Modified Comita teaches the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) is substantially flat (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky – fig 2A & 0048]; and wherein the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) is substantially parallel to the radially outward surface (outer surface of 202) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
Regarding claim 5:
Comita teaches the top surface (top surface of 228) is substantially flat (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62].
Regarding claim 6:
Comita teaches the pre-heat ring (228) further comprises: an outer bottom surface disposed parallel to the top surface (see fig 2) [fig 2]; an outer wall extending from the top surface to the outer bottom surface (see fig 2) [fig 2]; an inner wall, the inner wall disposed substantially parallel to the outer wall and extending from the outer bottom surface toward the top surface, at least a portion of the top surface extending radially inward of the inner wall (see fig 2) [fig 2]; and an inner bottom surface, the inner bottom surface disposed substantially parallel to the outer bottom surface and extending radially inward from the inner wall (see fig 2) [fig 2].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Comita teaches the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) extends between the top surface and the inner bottom surface of the pre-heat ring (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
10. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520) and Sa et al (US 2023/0290610) as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Chiang et al (US 6,800,173).
The limitations of claims 1-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Comita teaches the angle the tapered wall (154c) extends at is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to plane of the inner bottom surface (may be about 70 degrees) [Sa - fig 1, 4 & 0079].
Modified Comita 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 Comita 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].
11. Claim(s) 9-11, 13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520), Sa et al (US 2023/0290610), and Chiang et al (US 6,800,173).
Regarding claim 9:
Comita teaches a pre-heat ring (pre-heat ring, 228) for a substrate processing chamber (210) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 30-62], the pre-heat ring (228) comprising: an annular body of the pre-heat ring (body of 228) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 43-62], the annular body (body of 228) comprising: a top surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an outer bottom surface disposed parallel to the top surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an outer wall extending between the top surface and the outer bottom surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an inner wall, the inner wall disposed substantially parallel to the outer wall and extending from the outer bottom surface toward the top surface, at least a portion of the top surface extends radially inward of the inner wall (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; an inner bottom surface, the inner bottom surface disposed substantially parallel to the outer bottom surface and extending radially inward from the inner wall (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3]; and a facing wall, the facing wall extending from the top surface to the inner bottom surface (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3].
PNG
media_image1.png
715
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comita does not specifically disclose the facing wall being a tapered wall, the tapered wall at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to inner bottom surface.
Yudovsky teaches a tapered wall (inner wall of 264), the tapered wall (inner wall of 264) at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to inner bottom surface (see fig 2A) [fig 2A & 0048].
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 Comita to comprise a tapered wall, as in Yudovsky, to direct purge gas toward the substrate edge in order to minimize deposition at the substrate edge [Yudovsky -0057].
Comita modified by Yudovsky does not specifically disclose the tapered wall extending from the top surface.
Sa teaches a tapered wall (tapered portion, 154c) extending from a top surface (see fig 1, 4) [fig 1, 4 & 0079].
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 Comita to extend from the top surface, as in Sa, because such a configuration allows the purge gas to be stably supplied [Sa - 0079]. Additionally/alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the tapered wall of modified Comita to extend from 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].
Comita modified by Yudovsky and Sa 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 modified Comita 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:
Modified Comita 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 modified Comita 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:
Comita teaches the top surface is substantially flat (see annotated fig 3) [fig 3].
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Comita teaches the 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.
Regarding claims 16-17:
Modified Comita teaches 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 (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048]; 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 (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
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:
Modified Comita teaches a length of the top surface is longer than a combined length of the inner bottom surface and the outer bottom surface (see fig 2A) [Yudovsky - fig 2A & 0048].
12. Claim(s) 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comita et al (US 6,254,686) in view of Yudovsky et al (US 2003/0136520), Sa et al (US 2023/0290610), and Chiang et al (US 6,800,173) as applied to claims 9-11, 13 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Kuenle et al (US 2022/0018023).
The limitations of claims 9-11, 13 and 16-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Comita 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 Comita 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 Comita 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 Comita 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].
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 6, 10, and 16.
14. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/05/2026, 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 the shadow ring of Yudovsky is different from the ring of Comita in size, operation, and location.
In response examiner disagrees. The rings of both references are disclosed to surround a substrate support. Therefore, one would expect the rings to be substantially the same size. Furthermore, as admitted by applicant, both ring rings operate to direct a purge gas.
Applicant argues that the purge gas entering the process volume as taught by Yudovsky would destroy the laminar flow of the processing gas taught by Comita.
In response, it is noted that these assertions are completely unsubstantiated. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, similar to Yudovsky, Comita introduces purge gas into the processing volume (via 402a) [Comita - fig 3 & col 6, lines 30-62]. Therefore, this argument is found wholly unpersuasive.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments (that is, the taper wall taught by Yudovsky does not extend all the way to the top surface but to a small vertical sidewall) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Sa et al (US 2023/0290610) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims. Additionally, examiner notes that this feature is directed to an obvious matter of design choice. The instant application even appears to admit as much (“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].
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. 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