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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4, 8, 11, 17 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. Claim 4 does not account for the claim 1 alternative of “one substrate support ring”. Claim 8 permits the claim 1 “one substrate support ring” but depends from claim 4. Claim 11 also does not account for “one substrate support ring” and also depends from claim 4. Claim 17 also does not account for “or more substrate support ring” and also depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1) in view of, if necessary, Burrows; Brian H. et al. (US 20110121503 A1). Collins teaches a cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4), comprising: a pedestal assembly (124; Figure 2), comprising: a shaft (165; Figure 1,2); a plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) coupled to the shaft (165; Figure 1,2) and extending radially from the shaft (165; Figure 1,2), wherein at least two radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) are separated by an angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) of about 130º or greater; a plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5), each cassette supporting arm (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) extending from an end of an arm included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5); and one or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), each substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) comprising: a ridge (148; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 325a-c; Figure 7) defined along an inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), the ridge (148; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 325a-c; Figure 7) configured to receive a substrate (125; Figure 2B).
Collins further teaches:
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the shaft (165; Figure 1,2) and the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) form a monolithic body, as claimed by claim 3. Collins does not illustrate coupling hardware between shaft and arms supporting a monolithic manufacture.
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the pedestal assembly (124; Figure 2) comprises one or more spacers (212; Figure 4), wherein each spacer (212; Figure 4) is disposed around a corresponding cassette supporting arm (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) between a pair of neighboring substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) included in the one or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 4
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the pedestal assembly (124; Figure 2) comprises at least three arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) and at least three cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5), as claimed by claim 10
A processing system, comprising: a processing chamber (110; Figure 1; [0016]); and the cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, as claimed by claim 12
The processing system of claim 12, further comprising a lift pin assembly (128; Figure 2B) having a plurality of lift pins (128; Figure 2B), wherein the lift pin assembly (128; Figure 2B) is vertically adjustable, as claimed by claim 13
The processing system of claim 13, wherein a shaft (128; Figure 2B) of the lift pin assembly (128; Figure 2B) is coaxially arranged outside of the shaft (165; Figure 1,2), as claimed by claim 14
A cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4), comprising: a pedestal assembly (124; Figure 2), comprising: a shaft (165; Figure 1,2); a plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) coupled to the shaft (165; Figure 1,2) and extending radially from the shaft (165; Figure 1,2), wherein at least two radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) are separated by an angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) of about 130º or greater; a plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5), each cassette supporting arm (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) extending from a different arm included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5); and at least one substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), comprising: a ridge (148; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 325a-c; Figure 7) defined along an inner circumference of each of the at least one substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 19
Under BRI, Collins is believed to teach wherein at least two radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) are separated by an angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) of about 130º, where 120º ≈ 130º as claimed by claim 1, 19.
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are not accepted, then, Burrows also teaches a wafer processing system (Figure 1) including a carrier plate (114) supported by three (Figure 5A) or six (Figure 5B) arms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Collins to optimize Collins’ arm separation as taught by Burrows.
Motivation for Collins to optimize Collins’ arm separation as taught by Burrows is for optimized carrier plate design as taught by Burrows ([0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1) in view of Schaller; Jason M. et al. (US 20190148186 A1). Collins is discussed above. Collins does not teach the cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the pedestal assembly (124; Figure 2) comprises quartz, as claimed by claim 2
Schaller teaches a similar wafer cassette (130; Figure 1A) made from quartz ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Collins to use quartz material for Collins’ cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) as taught by Schaller.
Motivation for Collins to use quartz material for Collins’ cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) as taught by Schaller is for thermal management as taught by Schaller ([0023]).
Claims 5-6, 9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1) in view of Burrows; Brian H. et al. (US 20110121503 A1). Collins is discussed above. Collins only teaches three radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) are separated by an angle of 120º (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3). As a result, Collins does not teach:
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) is about 150º or greater, as claimed by claim 5
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) is about 170º or greater, as claimed by claim 6
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) comprises at least two horizontal arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), as claimed by claim 9
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the ends of the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 17
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 17, wherein the minimum distance is greater than 200mm, as claimed by claim 18
Burrows is discussed above. Burrows further teaches a level plate replacement (Figure 5C) for Burrow’s lift arms (Figure 5A,B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Collins to optimize Collins’ arm separation and level as taught by Burrows.
Motivation for Collins to optimize Collins’ arm separation and level as taught by Burrows is for optimized carrier plate design as taught by Burrows ([0045]).
Claims 7-8, 11, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1) in view of Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 A1). Collins is discussed above. Collins only teaches a single substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7). As a result, Collins does not teach:
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 4, wherein the one or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) comprise at least three substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) separated by at least two sets of spacers (212; Figure 4) included in the one or more spacers (212; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 7
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 4, wherein the one or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) comprise at least four substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) separated by at least three sets of spacers (212; Figure 4) included in the one or more spacers (212; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 8
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 4, wherein a distance between the substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) corresponds to a height of the one or more spacers (212; Figure 4) disposed on the arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), as claimed by claim 11
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) comprises a plurality of through holes, as claimed by claim 15
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 15, wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) are disposed within the plurality of through holes, as claimed by claim 16
Cook teaches plural, vertical stacking, of substrates in a wafer processing system (Figure 6) including successively stacked and perforated susceptors (168; Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Collins to reproduce Collins’ support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) as taught by Cook.
Motivation for Collins to reproduce Collins’ support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) as taught by Cook is for increased throughput in production.
D(170; [0026])300-600mm = D()
Claims 7-8, 11, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1) and, if necessary, Burrows; Brian H. et al. (US 20110121503 A1) in view of required Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 A1). Collins is discussed above and further teaches a cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4), comprising: a pedestal assembly (124; Figure 2), comprising: a shaft (165; Figure 1,2); three or more arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) coupled to the shaft (165; Figure 1,2) and extending radially from the shaft (165; Figure 1,2), wherein two radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) included in the three or more arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) are separated by an angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) of about 130º or greater; three or more cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5), each cassette supporting arm (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) extending from a different arm of the three or more arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5); and a single substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), comprising: a ridge (148; Figure 2; [0019]-Applicant’s 325a-c; Figure 7) defined along an inner circumference of each of the substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7); a first set of spacers (212; Figure 4) disposed between a first substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and a second substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), wherein each spacer (212; Figure 4) is disposed around a corresponding vertical cassette supporting arm (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5); and a second set of spacers (212; Figure 4) disposed between the second substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and a third substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7), wherein each spacer (212; Figure 4) is disposed around a corresponding vertical cassette supporting arm (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) – claim 20
Burrows and Cook are discussed above.
Under BRI, Collins is believed to teach wherein at least two radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) included in the plurality of arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5) are separated by an angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) of about 130º, where 120º ≈ 130º as claimed by claim 1, 19.
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are not accepted, then, Burrows also teaches a wafer processing system (Figure 1) including a carrier plate (114) supported by three (Figure 5A) or six (Figure 5B) arms.
Collins only teaches a single substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4) and thus does not teach three or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Collins to optimize Collins’ arm separation as taught by Burrows.
Motivation for Collins to optimize Collins’ arm separation as taught by Burrows is for optimized carrier plate design as taught by Burrows ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Collins to reproduce Collins’ support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) as taught by Cook.
Motivation for Collins to reproduce Collins’ support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) as taught by Cook is for increased throughput in production.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vertically stacked wafers in accommodating processing chambers include US 20190252229 A1; US 20200303228 A1; US 11424149 B2; US 20220351999 A1; US 11784076 B2; US 20230420279 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716