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 with traverse of Group I claims 1-14 and 20 in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of Group 1 would include methods making the same. This is not found persuasive because no method of making is required by Group 1. The method of making the susceptor of Applicant’s specification appear directed to class B23K 26/0624 which is outside the search for the susceptor of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-4,7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Knyazik (US 2018/0204747).
Regarding claim 1, Knyazik teaches a susceptor for supporting a substrate inside a processing chamber, the susceptor comprising:
a body having an upper surface area (mesa 315) and a lower surface area (recess Fig. 3a);
a first plurality of blind holes (recesses) formed in the upper surface area of the body (310, fig. 3a);
and a second plurality of blind holes (recessed features, 322) formed in the lower surface area of the body,
wherein at least one blind hole from the first and second plurality of blind holes has a diameter of at least 5 um (10 microns [0048], a depth of at least 5 um, and an aspect ratio of at least 1:1 ([0048] teaches the same depth 510 and diameter 520).
Regarding claim 2, Knyazik teaches walls separating adjacent blind holes in the first plurality of blind holes and having a thickness no greater than 15 um [0048].
Regarding claim 3, Knyazik teaches the first plurality of blind holes include at least two adjacent rows of blind holes, and blind holes in the two adjacent rows are offset from each other such that a blind hole in one of the two adjacent rows is disposed between two blind holes in the other one of the two adjacent rows (Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 4, Knyazik teaches a layer of protective material (136, [0026], fig. 2) disposed on the upper surface area of the body; and a layer of protective material disposed on the lower surface area of the body (164, [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Knyazik teaches the first plurality of the blind holes (230) extend through the layer of protective material (136) disposed on the upper surface area of the body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Knyazik teaches a surface texture formed on the upper surface area of the body because a surface texture is inherent to all materials.
Regarding claim 9, Knyazik teaches the surface texture is formed on a mesa on the upper surface area among the first plurality of the blind holes because a surface texture is inherent to all materials.
Regarding claim 13, Knyazik teaches the body is made of silicon carbide or tantalum carbide [0031].
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Miyama (US 2021/0384033).
Regarding claim 5, Knyazik does not teach the layer of protective material disposed on the upper surface area of the body has an emissivity value greater than that of the body.
Miyama teach the layer of protective material (70) disposed on the body (14a) has an emissivity value greater than that of the body [0039].
Accordingly Miyama teaches it was well known in the susceptor art to have used a coating with an emissivity higher than that of the body it covers. Because Nakamura teaches such materials were operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the coating of Miyama as the coating in Knyazik with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the layer of protective material disposed on the upper surface area of the body of Knyazik by providing it has an emissivity value greater than that of the body, as taught by Miyama, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more that predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 6,129,047)
Regarding claim 6, Knyazik does not teach the layer of protective material disposed on the upper surface area of the body includes silicon carbide.
Nakamura teach the layer of protective material disposed on the upper surface area of the body includes silicon carbide (col. 1, 25-30). Accordingly Nakamura teaches it was well known in the susceptor art to have used a silicon carbide coating over a base material such as graphite. Because Nakamura teaches such materials were operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used silicon carbide as the coating in Knyazik with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have bene obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify teach the layer of protective material disposed on the upper surface area of the body includes silicon carbide, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more that predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang (US 4,872,947).
Regarding claim 10, Knyazik does not teach an emissivity value of the susceptor is higher than 0.95 for a light having a wavelength of about 1 um.
Wang teaches a high emissivity susceptor provides thermal efficiency because surfaces with high emissivity emit a high degree of thermal efficiency (col. 17, ln. 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “an emissivity value of the susceptor is higher than 0.95 for a light having a wavelength of about 1 um.” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rao (US 2016/0083840).
Regarding claim 11, Knyazik does not teach the body is made of graphite.
Rao teach a susceptor body is made of graphite [0007].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the body of Knyazik by providing it is made of graphite, as taught by Rao, because it would promote temperature uniformity across a substrate [0012].
Regarding claim 12, Knyazik teaches forming the holes by laser drilling [0034],[0052],[0054]. Therefore it teaches the first plurality of blind holes are formed by a laser drilling process.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Knyazki teaches the first plurality of blind holes form a scribed line (Fig. 5a, [0048] form rows and columns).
Knyazik further teaches that with decreasing distance (540, fig. 5a) between blind holes increases the effective thermal conductivity of the susceptor ([0049], Fig. 5b). Therefore Knyazki teaches that the distance between blind holes 540 is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “the first plurality of blind holes overlap with each other” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik (US 2018/0204747)
in view of Wang (US 4,872,947).
Regarding claim 20, Knyazki teaches a processing chamber for processing a substrate, the processing chamber comprising:
a susceptor comprising a body (fig. 2), the body having an upper surface area (mesa 315, fig. 3a) and a lower surface area (recess, fig. 3a);
wherein a plurality of blind holes are formed in the upper surface area (recesses) and the lower surface area (recessed features 322), at least one blind hole of the plurality of the blind holes has a diameter of at least 5 um, a depth of at least 5 um, and an aspect ratio of at least 1:1 [0048].
Knyazki does not teach a heating lamp operable to heat the susceptor.
Wang teaches a heating lamp operable to heat the susceptor (col. 4, ln. 33-45)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heating of Knyazki by providing a heating lamp operable to heat the susceptor, as taught by Wang, because it would heat the wafer uniformly (col. 4, ln. 45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
