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 .
Remarks
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Specie B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/02/26.
This Office Action is in response to the Restriction Reply filed on 06/02/26. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo (US 2015/0340266).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Markup Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 1, Ngo teaches a susceptor assembly, comprising: a susceptor plate (Examiner markup Fig. 5: A) comprising a susceptor plate first surface (Examiner markup Fig. 5: C); and a susceptor attachment (Examiner markup Fig. 5: B) comprising: a susceptor attachment first surface (Fig. 5: 526), the susceptor attachment first surface comprising a ramp region (Fig. 5: 522) and; a susceptor attachment second surface (Fig. 5: upper surface of C) adjacent the susceptor plate first surface.
Ngo does not explicitly teach a conductance control region above and exterior of the ramp region. However, (Fig. 5: 510) is the edge region and exterior of the ramp region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ngo in order to understand that the thicker portion of the edge rim is able to have conductance control since the thickness controls the resistivity of how quickly electrons move generating conductance.
Claim(s) 2, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo as applied to claim 1 in view of (JP 4204466 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Ngo teaches the susceptor assembly of claim 1 except the susceptor plate comprises at least one of aluminum, nickel alloy, or ceramic.
‘466 is in the field of CVD (abstract) and teaches the susceptor plate comprises at least one of aluminum, nickel alloy, or ceramic ([0031] “nitride based new ceramics”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ngo with a ceramic susceptor as taught by ‘466 in order to be used for plasma processing since ceramic have high thermal conductivity and heat resistance.
Regarding Claim 8, Ngo teaches a reactor system, comprising: a reaction chamber ([0007] “processing chamber”); a susceptor plate (Examiner markup Fig. 5: A) comprising a susceptor plate first surface; and a susceptor attachment (Examiner markup Fig. 5: B) comprising: a susceptor attachment first surface (Fig. 5: 526), the susceptor attachment first surface comprising a ramp region (Fig. 5: 522) and a and a susceptor attachment second surface (Fig. 5: upper surface of C) adjacent the susceptor plate first surface.
Ngo does not explicitly teach a conductance control region above and exterior of the ramp region. However, (Fig. 5: 510) is the edge region and exterior of the ramp region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ngo in order to understand that the thicker portion of the edge rim is able to have conductance control since the thickness controls the resistivity of how quickly electrons move generating conductance.
Ngo does not teach a chamber comprising an upper region and a lower region; a gas distribution device disposed within the upper region, wherein the gas distribution device comprises a gas distribution device first surface.
‘466 is in the field of CVD (abstract) and teaches a chamber comprising an upper region (Fig. 10: 71) and a lower region (Fig. 10: 7); a gas distribution device (Fig. 10: 73) disposed within the upper region, wherein the gas distribution device comprises a gas distribution device first surface (Fig. 10: 73 had a surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ngo with a chamber and gas distribution as taught by ‘466 in order to be generate plasma to substrate processing since gas is required within the chamber for plasma processing.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ngo and ‘466 teach the reactor system of claim 8, wherein the susceptor attachment is a susceptor cap or a susceptor ring (Ngo Fig. 3A: 310 is a ring), or a combination thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-13 are 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.
Claims 15-17 and 18-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights