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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter discussed below in the §112 rejection must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 3-9, 11, and 14 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. Amended claim 1 reads in part “…a liner (Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) disposed around a perimeter of the substrate support (Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) and the shaft (Applicant’s 32; Figure 1) and coupled to the substrate support (Applicant’s 30; Figure 2)…”. Because Applicant’s figures do not show Applicant’s “liner (Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) … coupled to the substrate support (Applicant’s 30; Figure 2)…”, the Examiner is interpreting the claimed clause as “…a liner (Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) disposed around a perimeter of the substrate support (Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) and the shaft (Applicant’s 32; Figure 1) and the shaft (Applicant’s 32; Figure 1) coupled to the substrate support (Applicant’s 30; Figure 2)…”
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, 3-7, 9, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankarakrishnan; Ramprakash et al. (US 20110294303 A1) in view of Son; Ryou et al. (US 20210005477 A1). Sankarakrishnan teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,3), comprising: a reaction chamber (164; Figure 1) provided with a chamber wall (walls of 164; Figure 1) comprising a first sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1) , a second sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1) disposed opposite to the first sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1) , a bottom wall (bottom wall of 164; Figure 1) connected to the first sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1) and the second sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1) ;a gate valve tunnel (114; Figure 1) disposed in the first sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1);a substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) provided with a top plate (110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 31; Figure 2) and a shaft (118; Figure 1), the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) being disposed within the reaction chamber (164; Figure 1) and configured to support a substrate on the top plate (110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 31; Figure 2), wherein the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) is configured to be vertically movable ([0017]-”...the shield member 116 and the substrate support 106 move into a position below the substrate transfer opening 114 allowing access to the support surface 110.”) between a process position (“During processing”; [0017]) and a transfer position (“loading or unloading”; [0017]); and a liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) disposed around a perimeter of the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) and the shaft (118; Figure 1) and the shaft (see above) coupled to the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2), the liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2), the liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) configured to move concurrently ([0017]-”...the shield member 116 and the substrate support 106 move into a position below the substrate transfer opening 114 allowing access to the support surface 110.”) with the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2), wherein an outer wall of the liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) is configured to cover (Figure 2) the gate valve tunnel (114; Figure 1) when the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) is in the process position (“During processing”; [0017]), wherein the liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) comprises a first vertical section (118; Figure 1) about the shaft (118; Figure 1), a horizontal section (172; Figure 1) coupled to the first vertical section (118; Figure 1) and located beneath the top plate (110; Figure 1), and a second vertical section (174; Figure 1-Applicant’s 48; Figure 2; 9/2/25 drawings) coupled to the horizontal section (172; Figure 1) and extending from below the top plate (110; Figure 1) to substantially align (in the loading position) with a top of the top plate (110; Figure 1), wherein a height of the second vertical section (174; Figure 1-Applicant’s 48; Figure 2; 9/2/25 drawings) extends from below a bottom surface of the gate valve tunnel (114; Figure 1) to above a top surface of the gate valve tunnel (114; Figure 1) when the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) is in the process position (“During processing”; [0017]) - claim 1
Sankarakrishnan further teaches:
The apparatus (Figure 1,3) of claim 1, wherein the liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) comprises at least one of: a ceramic material (148; Figure 1) or a ceramic coated material, as claimed by claim 3
Sankarakrishnan’s apparatus (Figure 1,3) of claim 1, further comprising a substrate transfer chamber (304; Figure 3) connected to Sankarakrishnan’s reaction chamber (164; Figure 1); and a substrate transfer robot (310; Figure 3) disposed within the substrate transfer chamber (304; Figure 3) for transferring Sankarakrishnan’s substrate between Sankarakrishnan’s reaction chamber (164; Figure 1) and the substrate transfer chamber (304; Figure 3) through Sankarakrishnan’s gate valve tunnel (114; Figure 1) - claim 4
The apparatus (Figure 1,3) of claim 1, further comprising a gas supply unit (136; Figure 1) disposed in the reaction chamber (164; Figure 1), the gas supply unit (136; Figure 1) being configured to supply a gas to the substrate, as claimed by claim 5
The apparatus (Figure 1,3) of claim 5, wherein the gas supply unit (136; Figure 1) comprises a showerhead (136; Figure 1) provided with a plurality of holes (140; Figure 1) for supplying gas to the substrate, as claimed by claim 6
The apparatus (Figure 1,3) of claim 6, wherein the showerhead (136; Figure 1) is configured to face the substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 7
The apparatus (Figure 1,3) of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,3) comprises a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (148; Figure 1) apparatus (Figure 1,3), as claimed by claim 9
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a portion (118) of the liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) disposed around the perimeter of the shaft (118; Figure 1) extends through the bottom wall (bottom wall of 164; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 11
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second vertical section (174; Figure 1-Applicant’s 48; Figure 2; 9/2/25 drawings) substantially aligns with the top of the top plate (110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 31; Figure 2) in the process position (“During processing”; [0017]), as claimed by claim 14. The italicized claim text is believed to be and intended use clause in the pending apparatus claims. Based on Sankarakrishnan’s ingress/egress port (114), Sankarakrishnan is capable of the use. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Sankarakrishnan does not teach Sankarakrishnan’s gate valve tunnel (114; Figure 1) disposed in Sankarakrishnan’s first sidewall (sidewall of 164; Figure 1) is configured to be closed by a gate valve - claim 1, 4
Son teaches a similar wafer processing system (Figure 1) including a gate valve (12g) for the gate valve tunnel (12p).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sankarakrishnan to add Son’s gate valve.
Motivation for Sankarakrishnan to add Son’s gate valve is for process environment isolation during Sankarakrishnan’s processing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankarakrishnan; Ramprakash et al. (US 20110294303 A1) and Son; Ryou et al. (US 20210005477 A1) in view of Moslehi; Mehrdad M. (US 5252178 A). Sankarakrishnan and Son are discussed above. Sankarakrishnan further teaches the apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 7, further comprising an RF generator (148; Figure 1) that may be electrically coupled to the showerhead (136; Figure 1).
Sankarakrishnan and Nguyen do not teach wherein Sankarakrishnan’s substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) is electrically grounded.
Moslehi also teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,4) including switches (116,114; Figure 4) connected to Moslehi’s showerhead (76; Figure 1,4) and chuck (26; Figure 1,4) respectively for cycling between ground and power states.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sankarakrishnan to add Moslehi’s switches.
Motivation for Sankarakrishnan to add Moslehi’s switches is for carrying out distinct fabrication processes as taught by Moslehi (column 7; lines 31-54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
First, the shield 116 of Sankarakrishnan is not "coupled to the substrate support" as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, as shown by FIG. 1, the shield 116 is spaced apart from both the substrate support 106 and the support surface 110.
“
In response, neither is Applicant’s liner (Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) … coupled to the substrate support (Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) as claimed. See above 112§ rejection and drawing objection.
Applicant states:
“
Second, the shield 116 is not "configured to move concurrently with the substrate support" as claimed. Sankarakrishnan teaches at [0016] "The substrate support 106 has a shaft portion 122 that extends through an opening 144 in the bottom wall 146 of the chamber body 164 and couples to an actuator (not shown) that moves the substrate support 106 inside the processing chamber 104..." and at [0017] "The shield member 116 comprises an extension 118 through a second opening 120 in the bottom wall 146 that couples to a second actuator (not shown) for positioning the shield member 116 inside the processing chamber 104." The substrate support 106 and therefore the support surface 110 of Sankarakrishnan are moved separately from the shield 116 of Sankarakrishnan, by a first actuator and a second actuator respectively.
“
In response, Applicant points to the very reason why Sankarakrishnan’s independently controlled substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) and Sankarakrishnan’s independently controlled liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) are capable of moving “concurrently” as claimed. Each of Sankarakrishnan’s first and second actuators are capable of moving Sankarakrishnan’s independently controlled substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) and Sankarakrishnan’s independently controlled liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) “concurrently” as claimed.
Applicant states:
“
Claim 11 recites "wherein a portion of the liner disposed around the perimeter of the shaft extends through the bottom wall." The Office Action cites extension 118 of Sankarakrishnan extending through bottom wall 146 as disclosing the claimed portion of the liner. Office Action page 5. See FIG. 1 of Sankarakrishnan above. However, extension 118 of Sankarakrishnan is not "disposed around the perimeter of the shaft" as claimed. Rather, Applicant asserts that extension 118 is merely an extension rod structure for "couple[ing] (the shield 116) to a second actuator." See Sankarakrishnan at [0017]. Therefore, Sankarakrishnan fails to contemplate or disclose each and every element of claim 11. Son and Moslehi do not cure the deficiency of Sankarakrishnan.
“
In response, Sankarakrishnan’s portion (118) of Sankarakrishnan’s liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) is disposed around the perimeter of Sankarakrishnan’s shaft (118; Figure 1) and extends through the bottom wall (bottom wall of 164; Figure 1). Notably, the Examiner interprets “disposed around the perimeter” as equivalent to “being located in the vicinity of” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant states:
“
Claim 14 recites "wherein the second vertical section substantially aligns with the top of the top plate in the process position." The Office Action cites wall portion 174 of Sankarakrishnan against Applicant's claimed second vertical section. Office Action page 3. However, wall portion 174 does not "substantially align[] with the top of the top plate in the process position" as claimed. See FIG. 1 of Sankarakrishnan above. Sankarakrishnan teaches at [0023] "During processing, the substrate support 106 moves to a position proximate the insulator 128 and/or the electrode 130, and the support surface 110 forms a floor for the processing zone 112. Process gases exit the processing zone at the edge of the support surface 110 and flow toward the pumping plenum 156, which is below and spaced apart from the support surface 110" and at [0017] "During processing,...and the shield member 116 moves to a position proximate a pumping plenum 156 disposed along a side wall 178 of the processing chamber 104." Sankarakrishnan further teaches at [0019] "When processing a substrate, the wall portion 174 is positioned proximate to a lower extent of the opening or openings 160" (i.e., of the pumping plenum 156, see Sankarakrishnan at [0018]). Therefore, Sankarakrishnan fails to contemplate or disclose each and every element of claim 14. Son and Moslehi do not cure the deficiency of Sankarakrishnan.
“
In response, and as noted above, Sankarakrishnan’s second vertical section (174; Figure 1-Applicant’s 48; Figure 2; 9/2/25 drawings) substantially aligns with the top of the top plate (110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 31; Figure 2) in the process position (“During processing”; [0017]), as claimed by claim 14. The italicized claim text is believed to be and intended use clause in the pending apparatus claims. Based on Sankarakrishnan’s ingress/egress port (114), Sankarakrishnan is capable of the use. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shielding with liners to protect plasma facing surfaces is a common practice in the art and include additional examples:
US 20170275753 A1
US 20240021419 A1
US 20220367151 A1
US 20210391146 A1
US 6528180 B1
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
Prosecution Insights