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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites “wherein the second tuning element has a third emissivity that is greater than the first emissivity”. A third emissivity is already disclosed to be a property of the first tuning element. It is unclear if the second tuning element has the same emissivity as the first tuning element or a different emissivity.
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) 1-2, 7, 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20220333239 to Saurabh et al. (Saurabh).
Regarding claim 1, Saurabh teaches a reflector plate (300, Figure 3), the reflector plate comprising a first surface having a first region with a first emissivity (surface of 300 and/or 310, Figure 3); and a first tuning element disposed on the first surface of the reflector plate (306 and/or 308, Figure 3), the first tuning element comprising a reflecting surface, the reflecting surface having a second emissivity different than the first emissivity (306 is transparent, 308 is partially transparent, and 310 is non-transparent, Paragraphs 0102-0103. Similar objects and orientations are shown in Figures 11-12).
Regarding claim 2, Saurabh teaches wherein the reflector plate further comprises:a shaft aperture (center of 300, Figure 3); and one or more tuning apertures disposed around the shaft aperture (304 and/or 320, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Saurabh teaches wherein the second tuning element and the first tuning element have about the same shape (shown in Figure
Regarding claim 9, Saurabh teaches wherein the first tuning element is in a crescent shape (shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Saurabh teaches a substrate support (104 and 106, Figure 1) disposed in a processing volume of the processing chamber (101, Figure 1), the substrate support comprising a support column (104 is a column, Figure 1) and a heater disposed within the substrate support (207, Figure 2); a heat reflection assembly comprising: a reflector plate, the reflector plate comprising a first surface having a first region with a first emissivity; and a first tuning element disposed on the first surface of the reflector plate, the first tuning element comprising a reflecting surface, the reflecting surface having a second emissivity different than the first emissivity (taught in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Saurabh teaches wherein the reflector plate further comprises a second tuning element, the first and second tuning elements disposed radially outward of a shaft aperture of the reflector plat (all of 306 and 308 meet this requirement, Figures 3 and 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-6, 11, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh in view of U.S. PGPUB 20230130756 to Huang et al. (Huang).
Regarding claim 3, Saurabh is silent on a tuning ring, the tuning ring disposed on the reflector plate and about co-axial with the shaft aperture, wherein the tuning ring has a third emissivity different than the first emissivity.
Huang teaches a tuning ring, the tuning ring disposed on the reflector plate and about co-axial with the shaft aperture, wherein the tuning ring has a third emissivity different than the first emissivity (Outer ring in 4C, 4G, and 5D has a higher emissivity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Huang to provide a tuning ring, the tuning ring disposed on the reflector plate and about co-axial with the shaft aperture, wherein the tuning ring has a third emissivity different than the first emissivity. Doing so would provide desired properties to the substrates due to imparting a different temperature profile.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Saurabh is silent on wherein the first surface further comprises a second region, the second region having a third emissivity less than the first emissivity.
Huang teaches wherein the first surface further comprises a second region, the second region having a third emissivity less than the first emissivity (Inner ring in 4C, 4G, and 5D has a lower emissivity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Huang to provide wherein the first surface further comprises a second region, the second region having a third emissivity less than the first emissivity. Doing so would provide desired properties to the substrates due to imparting a different temperature profile.
Regarding claim 5, Saurabh teaches a second tuning element, the second tuning element disposed opposite the first tuning element (a number of tuning elements are shown in Figure 3 labeled 306, 308, and 310 and at least some are shown diametrically opposed in Figures 3, 4, and 11).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of teaches wherein the second region is disposed between the first tuning element and the second tuning element (shown in Figures 3 and 11 either radially or circumferentially).
Regarding claim 14, Saurabh is silent on wherein the reflector plate further comprises a tuning ring having a third emissivity greater than the first emissivity, the tuning ring is co-axial with a shaft aperture of the reflector plate.
Huang teaches wherein the reflector plate further comprises a tuning ring having a third emissivity greater than the first emissivity, the tuning ring is co-axial with a shaft aperture of the reflector plate (Outer ring in 4C, 4G, and 5D has a higher emissivity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Huang to provide wherein the reflector plate further comprises a tuning ring having a third emissivity greater than the first emissivity, the tuning ring is co-axial with a shaft aperture of the reflector plate. Doing so would provide desired properties to the substrates due to imparting a different temperature profile.
Regarding claim 16, Saurabh teaches wherein the heat reflection assembly is configured to enable movement of the substrate support independent of the heat reflection assembly (heat reflection assembly shown in Figure 3 is configured to enable movement of the substrate support, in other words the substrate support is not prevented from moving due to the heat reflection assembly which enables movement). The rest of claim 16 is taught by claims 2, 3, 10, and 14 above.
Regarding claim 17, Saurabh teaches wherein the reflector plate further comprises four quadrants, wherein the first region is partially in each of the four quadrants (shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Saurabh teaches wherein the reflector plate further comprises a second tuning element disposed opposite a central axis from the first tuning element (a number of tuning elements are shown in Figure 3 labeled 306, 308, and 310 and at least some are shown diametrically opposed in Figures 3, 4, and 11).
Regarding claim 19, Saurabh is silent on wherein the second tuning element has a third emissivity that is greater than the first emissivity.
Huang teaches higher and lower emissivities toward and away from the center of the plate (shown in Figures 4-5) and a portion of these emissivites would be less than the emissivity of the inserts of Saurabh. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Huang to provide wherein the second tuning element has a third emissivity that is greater than the first emissivity. Doing so would provide desired properties to the substrates due to imparting a different temperature profile.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh in view of U.S. PGPUB 20040079746 to Jennings et al. (Jennings).
Regarding claim 8, Saurabh is silent on wherein the reflecting surface comprises anodized aluminum.
Jennings teaches wherein the reflecting surface comprises anodized aluminum (Paragraph 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Jennings to provide wherein the reflecting surface comprises anodized aluminum. Doing so would be a simple change in material and provide an absorptive surface that is known in the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh in view of Huang and Jennings.
Regarding claim 12, Saurabh is silent on wherein the reflector plate is an aluminum plate and the second region is a machined aluminum surface.
Jennings teaches wherein the reflector plate is an aluminum plate and the second region is a machined aluminum surface (Paragraph 0048, this would apply to both regions and it is noted that a machined aluminum surface does not have a structurally different feature than an aluminum surface, therefore when an aluminum surface is provided the claim is taught. Alternatively the method of constructing the aluminum surface is a simple matter of design choice and Applicant did not identify a particular reason or purpose of this particular construction technique). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Jennings to provide wherein the reflector plate is an aluminum plate and the second region is a machined aluminum surface. Doing so would be a simple change in material and provide an absorptive surface that is known in the art.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh in view of KR20170138359 to Gangakhedkar et al. (Gangakhedkar).
Regarding claim 15, Saurabh is silent wherein the first and second tuning elements each comprise an alignment pin, each alignment pin disposed opposite of the reflecting surface, the alignment pin configured to be disposed within a tuning aperture of one or more tuning apertures of the reflector plate.
Gangakhedkar teaches wherein the first and second tuning elements each comprise an alignment pin, each alignment pin disposed opposite of the reflecting surface, the alignment pin configured to be disposed within a tuning aperture of one or more tuning apertures of the reflector plate (312 and/or 391 with aperture 392 shown in Figure 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Gangakhedkar to provide wherein the first and second tuning elements each comprise an alignment pin, each alignment pin disposed opposite of the reflecting surface, the alignment pin configured to be disposed within a tuning aperture of one or more tuning apertures of the reflector plate. Doing so would assist in keeping the tuning elements in place either in addition to the means provided in Saurabh or replacing the means.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurabh in view of Huang and Gangakhedkar.
Regarding claim 20, Saurabh is silent wherein the first tuning element and the second tuning element comprises one or more alignment pins configured to be placed in one or more of the one or more tuning apertures.
Gangakhedkar teaches wherein the first tuning element and the second tuning element comprises one or more alignment pins configured to be placed in one or more of the one or more tuning apertures (312 and/or 391 with aperture 392 shown in Figure 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saurabh with the teachings of Gangakhedkar to provide wherein the first tuning element and the second tuning element comprises one or more alignment pins configured to be placed in one or more of the one or more tuning apertures. Doing so would assist in keeping the tuning elements in place either in addition to the means provided in Saurabh or replacing the means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762