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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A, drawn to claims 1-4 and 9-10 in the
reply filed on 04/27/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 5 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carducci et al. (US 20090188625).
Regarding Claim 1: Carducci teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber comprising an exhaust port (exhaust port 113) in a bottom portion of the chamber; a substrate support (pedestal 106) disposed within the chamber; a partition member (lower chamber liner 120) that partitions a substrate processing region from an exhaust region connected to the exhaust port; one or more plate-shaped members (baffle 116) provided upstream of the partition member with respect to a flow of exhaust gas to the exhaust port and configured to block particles from the partition member, wherein at least one of the one or more plate-shaped members comprises a through-hole (the baffle 116 may have a plurality of slots therethrough) configured to allow the exhaust gas to the exhaust port to pass therethrough, the through-hole opened to be directed to a side surface of the substrate support or to an inner surface of the chamber (the slots in the baffle 116 permit processing gas to be drawn therethrough to be evacuated out of the processing chamber body 102) [Fig. 1 & 0019-21].
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20150245460) in view of Miyata et al. (US 20160172217) and Santiago et al. (US 6716287), with Shan et al. (US 5891350), Honda et al. (US 20120000886) and Gurary (US 20120027936) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yoshida teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber comprising an exhaust port (exhaust line 56) in a bottom portion of the chamber; a substrate support (mounting table 14) disposed within the chamber; a partition member (baffle plate 52) that partitions a substrate processing region from an exhaust region (passageway VL) connected to the exhaust port [Fig. 1 & 0042].
Yoshida does not specifically disclose one or more plate-shaped members provided upstream of the partition member with respect to a flow of exhaust gas to the exhaust port and configured to block particles from the partition member.
Miyata teaches one or more plate-shaped members (conductors 201 and 202) provided upstream of the partition member (baffle plate 108) with respect to a flow of exhaust gas to the exhaust port and configured to block particles from the partition member [Fig. 2A & 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Yoshida to include plate-shaped members upstream of a partition member, as in Miyata, to more uniformly exhaust gas and to protect a chamber from backflow [Miyata - 0040]. It's also noted that Shan et al. (US 5891350) discloses that utilizing a choke structure (similar to the structure in Miyata) in an exhaust flow path would be beneficial to further protect an exhaust pump from unwanted deposits. Furthermore, utilizing choke members in an exhaust flow path is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Honda et al. (US 20120000886) and Gurary (US 20120027936) [Honda - 0059; Gurary - 0064].
Modified Yoshida does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the one or more plate-shaped members comprises a through-hole configured to allow the exhaust gas to the exhaust port to pass therethrough, the through-hole opened to be directed to a side surface of the substrate support or to an inner surface of the chamber.
Santiago discloses wherein at least one of the one or more plate-shaped members (flow-restricting ring 300) comprises a through-hole (holes 308) configured to allow the exhaust gas to the exhaust port to pass therethrough, the through-hole opened to be directed to a side surface of the substrate support or to an inner surface of the chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the holes 308 are directed to at least an inner surface of the chamber) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 52-67, Col. 5 lines 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plate-shaped members of Modified Yoshida to comprise a through-hole, as in Santiago, to provide greater control over exhaust conductance [Santiago - Col. 4 lines 52-67, Col. 5 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 2:
Yoshida teaches wherein, in the chamber, the exhaust port is provided at a position lower than a support surface of the substrate support on which a substrate is supported, around the substrate support (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the exhaust line 56 is disposed below the mounting table 14), the partition member is arranged upstream of the exhaust port with respect to the flow of the exhaust gas to the exhaust port, around the substrate support (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the baffle plate 52 is arranged upstream of the exhaust line 56) [Fig. 1 & 0042].
Yoshida does not specifically disclose the one or more plate-shaped members are arranged upstream of the partition member with respect to the flow of the exhaust gas to the exhaust port, around the substrate support.
Miyata teaches the one or more plate-shaped members are arranged upstream of the partition member with respect to the flow of the exhaust gas to the exhaust port, around the substrate support (as evidenced by Fig. 2A, the conductors 201 and 202 are arranged upstream of the baffle plate 108) [Fig. 2A & 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Yoshida to include plate-shaped members upstream of a partition member, as in Miyata, to more uniformly exhaust gas and to protect a chamber from backflow [Miyata - 0040]. It's also noted that Shan et al. (US 5891350) discloses that utilizing a choke structure (similar to the structure in Miyata) in an exhaust flow path would be beneficial to further protect an exhaust pump from unwanted deposits. Furthermore, utilizing choke members in an exhaust flow path is a very well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Honda et al. (US 20120000886) and Gurary (US 20120027936) [Honda - 0059; Gurary - 0064].
Claim(s) 3-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20150245460) in view of Miyata et al. (US 20160172217) and Santiago et al. (US 6716287), with Shan et al. (US 5891350), Honda et al. (US 20120000886), Gurary (US 20120027936), as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20130284288), with Komiya et al. (US 20030094135), Guha et al. (US 20140051253), and Walko et al. (US 6221202) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1-2 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Yoshida teaches a ring member (focus ring FR) disposed around the substrate [Yoshida - Fig. 1 & 0018].
Modified Yoshida does not specifically disclose wherein the through-hole is provided in the at least one of the one or more plate-shaped members to open to be directed to a ring member disposed around the substrate.
Although Kim does not specifically disclose "wherein the through-hole is provided in the at least one of the one or more plate-shaped members to open to be directed to a ring member disposed around the substrate," Kim does disclose that baffle through-hole angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, the angle of a through-hole can be changed to determine gas conductance [Kim - 0047]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum angles for a baffle plate to obtain a desired gas flow profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Komiya et al. (US 20030094135) also discloses that the shapes of baffle through-holes can be chosen to obtain a desired conductance [Komiya - 0054, 0210, 0214]. Guha et al. (US 20140051253) and Walko et al. (US 6221202) also disclose that hole angle can be adjusted to control conductance [Guha - 0024; Walko - Col. 5 lines 18-37, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 28-35].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Yoshida does not specifically disclose the through-hole is provided in the first plate-shaped member to open to be directed to the ring member.
Although Kim does not specifically disclose "the through-hole is provided in the first plate-shaped member to open to be directed to the ring member," Kim does disclose that baffle through-hole angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, the angle of a through-hole can be changed to determine gas conductance [Kim - 0047]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum angles for a baffle plate to obtain a desired gas flow profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Komiya et al. (US 20030094135) also discloses that the shapes of baffle through-holes can be chosen to obtain a desired conductance [Komiya - 0054, 0210, 0214]. Guha et al. (US 20140051253) and Walko et al. (US 6221202) also disclose that hole angle can be adjusted to control conductance [Guha - 0024; Walko - Col. 5 lines 18-37, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 28-35].
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Yoshida does not specifically disclose an inclination equal to or larger than an angle θh2 based on an angle θm2 formed between the first plate-shaped member and a line interconnecting an upper end portion of the side surface of the substrate support and a position of the through-hole in the first plate-shaped member, a thickness of the first plate-shaped member, and a diameter of the through-hole.
Although Kim does not specifically disclose "an inclination equal to or larger than an angle θh2 based on an angle θm2 formed between the first plate-shaped member and a line interconnecting an upper end portion of the side surface of the substrate support and a position of the through-hole in the first plate-shaped member, a thickness of the first plate-shaped member, and a diameter of the through-hole," Kim does disclose that baffle through-hole angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, the angle of a through-hole can be changed to determine gas conductance [Kim - 0047]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum angles for a baffle plate to obtain a desired gas flow profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Komiya et al. (US 20030094135) also discloses that the shapes of baffle through-holes can be chosen to obtain a desired conductance [Komiya - 0054, 0210, 0214]. Guha et al. (US 20140051253) and Walko et al. (US 6221202) also disclose that hole angle can be adjusted to control conductance [Guha - 0024; Walko - Col. 5 lines 18-37, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 28-35].
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is written as a product by process limitation, and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight. It is noted that Kim discloses that baffle through-hole angle is a result effective variable, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of finding any angle desired [Kim - 0047].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Schneider et al. (US 6261408) and Kim (US 20020189762) teach baffle plates [Schneider – Fig. 3; Kim – Fig. 3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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 at (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 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights