DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/30/2026.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended.
Claims 7-8 are cancelled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US Pub. 2022/0367151) in view of Steger (US Patent 5,788,799), Arami (US Patent 5,938,850), and Pavloff (US Pub. 2008/0178801).
Regarding claim 1, Aida teaches a substrate processing apparatus ([0022] and Fig. 1, CVD apparatus #100) comprising: a chamber part ([0022] and Fig. 1, chamber #10) configured to provide an inner space in which a substrate is processed (Fig. 1, space surrounding substrate 1a); a gas supply part configured to supply a process gas to the inner space ([0022] and Fig. 1, showerhead #40); a substrate support configured to support the substrate ([0022] and Fig. 1, susceptor #20); a heating liner provided inside the chamber part to at least partially surround the inner space ([0030] and Fig. 1, liners #30a+b; Fig. 2 shows surrounding position), wherein the heating liner is provided with a first exhaust port configured to exhaust the inner space (Fig. 1, hole in #30a adjacent to #30d; [0022] details exhaust on bottom side of chamber #10).
Aida does not teach a heating part configured to heat the heating liner.
However, Steger teaches a heating part configured to heat the heating liner (Steger – C7, L50-54 and Fig. 1, resistance heaters #110/#108 for liner #102).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the heaters of Steger with the liner of Aida in order to control liner temperature to prevent or remove deposits formed during processing (Steger – C5, L5-13) and to extend the lifetime of the liner which protects process chamber surfaces (Steger – C6, L25-31).
Modified Aida does not teach a cylindrical inner liner provided between the heating liner and the substrate support and having a height lower than that of the heating liner or a cylindrical outer liner provided between the inner liner and the heating liner.
However, Arami teaches a cylindrical inner liner (Arami – C5, L26-32 and Fig. 1, member #30), a cylindrical outer liner provided between the inner liner and the heating liner (Arami – Fig. 1, #32).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Aida apparatus to include the inner liner of Arami in order to prevent process gas from entering/flowing around the back surface of the susceptor, prevent film formation thereby, and preventing uneven temperature distribution (Arami – C3, L53-65).
Regarding the limitation: “having a height lower than that of the heating liner”, the combination of references would reasonably teach this limitation considering the height of the heating liner of Aida and the height of the inner liner of Arami relative to their respective susceptors.
Modified Aida does not teach wherein the outer liner is provided with a second exhaust port that exhausts the inner space through the first exhaust port via the second exhaust port.
However, Pavloff teaches wherein a liner is provided with an exhaust port (Pavloff – [0022] and Fig. 2A, gas conductance holes #249).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify each of the liners of modified Aida to comprise the equalizer holes of Pavloff in order to allow gas to pass through with improved conductance (Pavloff – [0022]).
Regarding the limitation: “that communicates with the first exhaust port to exhaust the inner space”, the combination of references would teach this limitation considering the open nature of the Arami structures and the exhaust hole positioning of Aida.
Regarding claim 2, Aida teaches wherein the heating liner is provided to be at least partially spaced apart from an inner surface of the chamber part (Fig. 1, #30a/b spaced apart from chamber sidewalls/bottom wall).
Regarding claim 3, Aida teaches wherein the heating liner comprises: a sidewall part extending at least partially along an inner wall of the chamber part; a bottom part bent inward from a lower end of the sidewall part to extend at least partially along a bottom surface of the chamber part (Fig. 1, #30a/b forming bottom/side parts); and a space maintenance part provided on an outer surface of the sidewall part or the bottom part to maintain a distance from an inner surface of the chamber part ([0035]: chamber side/bottom walls may comprise a concave/convex portion that interfaces with concave/convex portion of liners #30a/b).
Regarding claim 4, Aida teaches wherein the space maintenance part comprises: a protrusion provided on an outer surface of the bottom part ([0035]: chamber side/bottom walls may comprise a concave/convex portion that interfaces with concave/convex portion of liners #30a/b).
Regarding claim 5, Aida does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Steger teaches wherein the heating part comprises a linear heat generating element and a planar heat generating element extending an outer circumferential surface of the heating liner (Steger – C6, L17-29 and Fig. 1, both #110 and #108 are foil/wire-wound heating elements).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the heaters of Steger with the liner of Aida in order to control liner temperature to prevent or remove deposits formed during processing (Steger – C5, L5-13) and to extend the lifetime of the liner which protects process chamber surfaces (Steger – C6, L25-31).
Regarding claim 6, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
The modified Aida apparatus is regarded as capable of performing the claimed function by virtue of the multiple heaters, temperature-sensing means, and controller as taught by Steger (C6, L17-47).
Regarding claim 10, Aida teaches wherein the substrate support comprises: a heater configured to heat the substrate ([0025] and Fig. 1, #21/#22 operate as a heater); a heater support flange connected to a lower end of the heater to support the heater ([0024] and Fig. 1, plate #23); and a passage which is provided in the heater support flange and through which a temperature control fluid flows ([0032] and Fig. 1, gas supply pipe #32d).
Regarding claim 12, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Modified Aida is regarded as capable of performing the intended use by virtue of the gas supplying means as disclosed by Aida ([0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US Pub. 2022/0367151), Steger (US Patent 5,788,799), Arami (US Patent 5,938,850), and Pavloff (US Pub. 2008/0178801), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Ghosh (US Pub. 2018/0261453).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, and 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Aida does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Arami teaches wherein the outer liner has an upper inner diameter the same as a lower inner diameter – Fig. 1).
However, Ghosh teaches a liner with such a profile (Ghosh – [0035] and Figs. 1 and 4, liner #140).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the outer liner of modified Aida to comprise that of Ghosh in order to direct gas flowing around the liner to prevent undesirable gas flows (Ghosh – [0035]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US Pub. 2022/0367151), Steger (US Patent 5,788,799), Arami (US Patent 5,938,850), and Pavloff (US Pub. 2008/0178801), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Fukasawa (US Patent 5,342,471).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, and 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, Aida teaches a bellows connected between a portion of the chamber part and the heater support flange (see Fig. 1, connecting bottom wall and #23).
Modified Aida does not teach an elastic member provided between the bellows and the heater support flange.
However, Fukasawa teaches such an elastic member (Fukasawa – C2, L44-51 and Fig. 1, O-ring #15a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Aida apparatus to include an elastic member around the bellows in order to properly seal the connection (Fukasawa – C2, L44-51).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US Pub. 2022/0367151), Steger (US Patent 5,788,799), Arami (US Patent 5,938,850), and Pavloff (US Pub. 2008/0178801), as applied to claims 1-6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Saito (US Pub. 2004/0149227).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10, and 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Aida does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Saito teaches wherein the substrate support comprises: a clamp configured to fix a lower end of the heater to the heater support flange (Saito – [0052] and Fig. 2, upper flange #204c part of holding structure fixing bottom end of #202 in place); and a cover member provided at least partially on the clamp to cover the clamp (Saito – [0052] and Figs. 2-3, cover #207).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Aida apparatus to comprise the substrate support clamping structure of Saito in order to provide plasma resistance, prevent contamination (Saito – [0052]), maintain rigidity during heat stress (Saito – [0053]), and reduce electric power by reducing heat escape (Saito – [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Aida does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Saito teaches wherein the substrate support further comprises a plate-shaped thermal choke part provided between the clamp and the cover member to suppress heat transfer (Saito – Fig. 2, spacing between #207 and #204c with “air gap”, which would necessarily reduce heat transfer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Aida apparatus to comprise the substrate support clamping structure of Saito in order to provide plasma resistance, prevent contamination (Saito – [0052]), maintain rigidity during heat stress (Saito – [0053]), and reduce electric power by reducing heat escape (Saito – [0054]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US Pub. 2022/0367151), Steger (US Patent 5,788,799), Arami (US Patent 5,938,850), Pavloff (US Pub. 2008/0178801), and Saito (US Pub. 2004/0149227), as applied to claims 13-14 above, and further in view of Narushima (US Pub. 2016/0083837).
The limitations of claims 13-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Aida teaches wherein the chamber part has a hole in a central portion of a bottom surface of the chamber part so that a portion of the substrate support passes to move through the hole ([0022] and Fig. 1, hole #13).
Modified Aida does not teach wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a purge gas supply part configured to supply a purge gas so that the purge gas is ejected through a gap between the hole and the cover member.
However, Narushima teaches such a purge gas supply part (Narushima – [0071] and Fig. 4, nitrogen gas supply path #141 with source #63b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Aida apparatus to comprise the purge gas supply part of Narushima in order to prevent reaction gas from contacting and damaging the bellows (Narushima – [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Modified Aida is regarded as capable of performing the intended use by virtue of the gas supplying means as disclosed by Narushima ([0073]).
Conclusion
The Examiner agrees the amended claims are no longer anticipated by Bosch, thus the §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits Pavloff remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights