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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-8, 10-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1) in view of, if necessary, Burrows; Brian H. et al. (US 20110121503 A1) and in view of Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 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 plurality of 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), wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of the single (not claimed) substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of the single (not claimed) substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) – claim 1. From the claimed geometry and teaching of Collins, the claimed “minimum distance” is equal to the radial distance to any of the cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5)1. Any of these distances are greater than “the diameter of the inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7)” as is clearly shown in 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 plurality of 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 plurality of 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), wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the single (not claimed) of substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of the single (not claimed) substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) – claim 19. From the claimed geometry and teaching of Collins, the claimed “minimum distance” is equal to the radial distance to any of the cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5)2. Any of these distances are greater than “the diameter of the inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7)” as is clearly shown in Figure 2B - 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.
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:
wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of each substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) – claim 1.
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 4, wherein the plurality of 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 plurality of spacers (212; Figure 4), as claimed by claim 7
The cassette support system (124; Figure 1-4) of claim 4, wherein the plurality of 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 plurality of 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 plurality of 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 plurality of 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
wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of each substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) – claim 19. From the claimed geometry and teaching of Collins, the claimed “minimum distance” is equal to the radial distance to any of the cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5)3 – claim 19
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds 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.
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 optimize Collins’ arm separation as taught by Burrows and 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 optimize Collins’ arm separation as taught by Burrows is for optimized carrier plate design as taught by Burrows ([0045]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins; Richard O. et al. (US 20130025538 A1), Burrows; Brian H. et al. (US 20110121503 A1), and Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 A1) in view of Schaller; Jason M. et al. (US 20190148186 A1). Collins, Burrows, and Cook are discussed above. Collins, Burrows, and Cook do 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, 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) and Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 A1). Collins, Burrows, and Cook are 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 16, 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]).
Claim 20 is 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), wherein three or more cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the single (not claimed) support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of the single (not claimed) substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) – claim 20. From the claimed geometry and teaching of Collins, the claimed “minimum distance” is equal to the radial distance to any of the cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5)4. Any of these distances are greater than “the diameter of the inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7)” as is clearly shown in Figure 2B – claim 20
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 wherein three or more cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the three or more substrate support rings (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) and the angle (360º/3 = 120º; Figure 3) forms a minimum distance between the radially adjacent arms (134; Figure 1,2; “three”; [0029]-Applicant’s 310a-c; Figure 5), wherein the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of each substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7) – claim 20. From the claimed geometry and teaching of Collins, the claimed “minimum distance” is equal to the radial distance to any of the cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5)5. Any of these distances are greater than “the diameter of the inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7)” as is clearly shown in Figure 2B – 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 20.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Thus, Collins teaches a single ring 123 for supporting a single substrate 125, not "a plurality of substrate support rings," as recited in amended claims 1 and 19. Collins also does not teach or suggest "wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings," as recited in amended claims 1 and 19.
“
In response, the Examiner agrees to the first argument. As a result, the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection, supported by POSITA, is proposed above. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s second position. As stated above, Collins indeed teaches, in the singular, wherein the plurality of Collins cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5) collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of Collins single (not claimed) substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7).
Applicant states:
“
Collins also fails to teach or suggest the amended minimum-distance limitation. Collins discloses that "the ring 123 may be supported by a plurality of support pins 166," and that "[t]he support pins 166 may be in turn, supported by respective support arms 134 of the substrate support assembly 164" (Collins, para. [0023]). Collins does not teach or suggest an arrangement in which "the minimum distance is greater than the diameter of the inner circumference of each substrate support ring," as recited in amended claims 1 and 19. Rather, Collins teaches support pins and support arms for supporting a single ring 123 and a substantially planar member 170.
“
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As stated above, from the claimed geometry and teaching of Collins, the claimed “minimum distance” is equal to the radial distance to any of the cassette supporting arms (166; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 315a-c; Figure 5)6. Any of these distances are greater than “the diameter of the inner circumference of the substrate support ring (123; Figure 1,2,4-Applicant’s 320a-c; Figure 7)” as is clearly shown in Figure 2B.
Applicant states:
“
Burrows fails to cure the deficiencies of Collins. Burrows is directed to a CVD apparatus including a carrier plate/susceptor support arrangement, not the claimed cassette support system. Burrows discloses that "a carrier plate 114 is disposed at the other end of the processing volume 108" (Burrows, para. [0039]). Burrows further discloses that "the carrier plate 114 may include one or more recesses 116 within which one or more substrates 140 may be disposed during processing" (Burrows, para. [0040]). Accordingly, Burrows teaches a carrier plate having recesses for substrates, not "a plurality of substrate support rings" each having "a ridge defined along an inner circumference," as recited in amended claims 1 and 19. Burrows also does not teach or suggest "wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings," as recited in amended claims 1 and 19.
“
And…
“
Further, Burrows'support structure is centered around a central shaft and lift tube arrangement. Burrows discloses that "the susceptor support shaft 118 comprises a central shaft 132 with three lift arms 134 extending radially from the central shaft 132" (Burrows, para. [0045]). Burrows further discloses that "the carrier plate lift mechanism 150 comprises a vertically movable lift tube 152 arranged so as to surround the central shaft 132" (Burrows, para. [0046]). Thus, Burrows does not teach or suggest the claimed cassette support structure in which "the plurality of cassette supporting arms collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings." Accordingly, Collins and Burrows, alone or in combination, do not teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claims 1, 19, and claims dependent thereon. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
“
In response, the Examiner does not apply Burrows for the argued feature. The Examiner explicitly applies Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 A1) who teaches plural, vertical stacking, of substrates in a wafer processing system (Figure 6) including successively stacked and perforated susceptors (168; Figure 12).
Applicant states:
“
Schaller fails to cure the deficiencies of Collins. Schaller discloses that "[t]he cassette 130 may be fabricated from quartz, ceramic, or other thermally non-conductive material" (Schaller, para. [0023]). Schaller does not teach or suggest the amended structural limitations of claim 1, including "a plurality of substrate support rings" or "wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings." Accordingly, Collins and Schaller, alone or in combination, do not teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious claim 2. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
“
In response, the Examiner does not apply Schaller for the argued feature. The Examiner explicitly applies Cook, Robert C. et al. (US 20010029892 A1) who teaches plural, vertical stacking, of substrates in a wafer processing system (Figure 6) including successively stacked and perforated susceptors (168; Figure 12).
Applicant states:
“
Cook fails to cure the deficiencies of Collins. Cook discloses that "[t]he wafer boat includes susceptors for suspending wafers horizontally, spaced apart in a vertical stack" (Cook, para. [0010]). Cook further discloses that "[a]n RF plate is positioned in the boat above each wafer for generating an enhanced plasma" (Cook, para. [0010]). Cook also discloses that "[t]he wafer boat 36 includes susceptors for holding wafers horizontally, in a stacked, spaced apart array" (Cook, para. [0032]). Thus, Cook relates to a PECVD wafer boat including susceptors and RF plates, not "a plurality of substrate support rings" each having "a ridge defined along an inner circumference," as recited in amended claim 1, and not "three or more substrate support rings," as recited in amended claim 20.
“
In response to applicant's argument that Cook relates to a PECVD wafer boat including susceptors and RF plates and is thus nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, processing plural wafers motivated by increased throughput.
Applicant states:
“
Cook also does not teach or suggest "wherein the plurality of cassette supporting arms collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the plurality of substrate support rings," as recited in amended claim 1. Cook likewise does not teach or suggest "wherein three or more cassette supporting arms collectively define a central opening having a diameter greater than a diameter of the inner circumference of each of the three or more substrate support rings," as recited in amended claim 20. At most, Cook discloses vertically stacked wafers supported by susceptors in a wafer boat, but Cook does not disclose the claimed cassette support structure having the recited substrate support rings and central-opening relationship.
“
In response, Applicant’s above arguments are addressed above by the Examiner on separate claims with identical claim clauses.
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
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.
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
1 The geometry requires three equalateral triangles with 120º at each angle when looking from above.
2 The geometry requires three equalateral triangles with 120º at each angle when looking from above.
3 The geometry requires three equalateral triangles with 120º at each angle when looking from above.
4 The geometry requires three equalateral triangles with 120º at each angle when looking from above.
5 The geometry requires three equalateral triangles with 120º at each angle when looking from above.
6 The geometry requires three equalateral triangles with 120º at each angle when looking from above.
Prosecution Insights