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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 3, 21, 2026 are entered.
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 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 is believed to teach Sankarakrishnan’s shaft (118; Figure 1) and Sankarakrishnan’s liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) are coupled to Sankarakrishnan’s substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) as claimed by claim 1 based on Sankarakrishnan’s [0017] statement – “During a substrate loading or unloading operation, 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.”
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.
In the event that Sankarakrishnan is deemed not to teach Sankarakrishnan’s shaft (118; Figure 1) and Sankarakrishnan’s liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) are coupled to Sankarakrishnan’s substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2), then, 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 couple Sankarakrishnan’s liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) and Sankarakrishnan’s substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2).
Motivation for Sankarakrishnan to couple Sankarakrishnan’s liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) and Sankarakrishnan’s substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) is for “allowing access to the support surface 110” as taught by Sankarakrishnan ([0017]).
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 August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
None of Sankarakrishnan, Son, or Moslehi, alone or in combination, disclose each and every limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over the cited references. Claims 3-9, 11, and 14 variously depend from claim 1, and are allowable at least for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, in addition to their own unique features. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 14. Applicant respectfully submits that at least claim 14 is additionally allowable over the cited references.
“
In response, the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection including the Examiner’s citation of Sankarakrishnan’s [0017] statement – “During a substrate loading or unloading operation, 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.” lends support for either anticipation or grounds for obviousness. See above.
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 6. 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 130,8 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." Accordingly, during processing, Sankarakrishnan's pumping plenum 156 is below the support surface 110. Sankarakrishnan further teaches at [0017] "During processing,... 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]). Accordingly, the wall portion 174 of Sankarakrishnan is proximate a bottom portion of pumping plenum 156, which is below support surface 110 during processing, consistent with Sankarakrishnan's FIG. 1 above. Therefore, Sankarakrishnan fails to contemplate or disclose each and every element of claim 14. Son and Moslehi do not cure the deficiency of Sankarakrishnan.
“
And…
“
The Office Action asserts that "in the process position" as recited in claim 14 "is believed to be an intended use clause in the pending apparatus claims." Office Action, page 6. Applicant respectfully disagrees. "Wherein the second vertical section substantially aligns with the top of the top plate in the process position," as recited by claim 14, provides a structural limitation to the liner including the second vertical section and the substrate support including the top plate.
“
In response, Sankarakrishnan is fully reconsidered and again is found to teach 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).
Further, it is noted that Sankarakrishnan’s [0017] states “During processing, the substrate support 106 moves the support surface 110 to the processing zone 112, 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.”. Assuming that Applicant’s claimed intended use requirement in the pending apparatus claims is weighed, Sankarakrishnan’s [0017] teaching supports the fact that Sankarakrishnan’s apparatus can meet the claimed intended use. The full range of motion of Sankarakrishnan’s liner (116; Figure 1; [0017]-ceramics, etc..-Applicant’s 40; Figure 2) and Sankarakrishnan’s substrate support (106+110; Figure 1-Applicant’s 30; Figure 2) is from Sankarakrishnan’s transfer opening 114 to at least the positions shown in Figure 1 meaning that the claimed “substantially aligns” clause can be met along this range. As a result, because 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
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