DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-13) and Species I (claims 1-2, 11-13, 20) in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 1-2, 11-13 are being examined and claims 3-10 and 14-20 are being withdrawn from further examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 136. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because it does not disclose the following reference character(s) included in the drawings: 136. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 2, 11-12 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the weight" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 2 recites “the weight element”. It is not clear whether “the weight” refers to “the weight element” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, both “the weight” in line 3 and line 4 are interpreted as --the weight element--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "”the weight element opening" in lines 1-2 and “the weight” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that claim 11 recites “the weight element”. It is not clear whether “the weight” refers to “the weight element” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “the weight element opening” and “the weight” are interpreted as --[[the]]a weight element opening-- and --the weight element-- respectively.
Claim 12 is recited as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 10-1327742 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (‘742) discloses a semiconductor fabrication processing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a reaction chamber 100 (7th para on pg3, fig3); a susceptor 120 (7th para on pg3, fig3) disposed in the reaction chamber 100 for placing a semiconductor substrate 130 (pg3 7th para, fig3) thereon, the susceptor 120 having through-holes 122 (2nd para on pg4, fig3) in an axial direction of the susceptor; lift pins 140 (7th para on pg3, fig3) slidably disposed in the respective through-holes 122 for lifting the semiconductor substrate 130 over the susceptor 120, wherein the lift pins 140 comprise a weight element 143 (6th para on pg4, figs3,5(a)) disposed along an end of the lift pin 140 that is disposed below the susceptor 120 (fig3), wherein the weight element 143 is removably retained on the lift pin 140 by a retaining element selected from the group consisting of a clip element, an O-ring element, and differently configured lift pin and weight element threaded sections (fig5(a)).
Regarding claim 11¸ Kim discloses the semiconductor fabrication processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a weight element opening 144 (3rd para on pg5, fig5(a)) comprises a threaded section 144a (3rd para on pg5, fig5(a)) that is configured to differently than a threaded portion 141b (5th para on pg5, fig5(a)) of the lift pin 140 to cause the lift pin 140 to form a locking engagement with the weight element 143 when threadably engaged therebetween to retain axial placement of the weight element 143 relative to the lift pin 140.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-1327742 B1) in view of Savandaiah et al (US 2022/0076971 A1) and Sneh (US 2007/0051312 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the semiconductor fabrication processing apparatus of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose that the lift pin is made from molybdenum and treated to have a lubricating layer of molybdenum disulfide. Savandaiah et al (‘971) teaches a use of a pin made of molybdenum for a semiconductor fabrication processing apparatus (fig2A, para[0053]) in order to reduce total constriction resistance (para[0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to use molybdenum to make pins, as taught by Savandaiah et al, in order to reduce total constriction resistance (para[0053]). Sneh (‘312) teaches a use of a lubricating layer of molybdenum disulfide for a semiconductor fabrication processing apparatus as molybdenum disulfide is a vacuum compatible lubricant (para[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to use a lubricating layer of molybdenum disulfide, as taught by Sneh, as molybdenum disulfide is a vacuum compatible lubricant (para[0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 2 not found was a use of a sleeve section having an outer diameter sized smaller than the flange section (the flange section extending a distance from a top axial end of the weight element); in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 2 and any intervening claims of the instant invention.
The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 12 not found was a use of a ramp surface of the threaded section of the weight element that is configured differently than the threaded portion of the lift pin; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 12 and any intervening claims of the instant invention.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights