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 1-16) in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Threaded member (lead screw or ball screw or the like, para. [0048]) in at least claims 1-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation " wherein: the mount support" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 appears to be dependent on claim 1 which does not introduce a mount support, but rather could be dependent on claim 4, which introduces a mount support. Examiner will interpret claim 6 to be dependent on claim 4. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 13, 14, 15 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 13 recites the limitation " wherein: the mounting bracket is configured to be coupled with a bracket” in the claim. Is the bracket the mounting bracket or a different bracket? Also is the mounting bracket in claim 11 the same as the one introduced in claim 1, or the one introduced in claim 4? It is unclear as the terms have become more nebulous. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested in all instances.
Claims 12 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 12 recites the limitation "wherein: the mount support is configured to be secured to a bottom plate of a processing chamber” in the claim. In the specification (para. [0051]) the mount support is recited as merely coupled (not secured) to the bottom plate. Examiner interprets as “"wherein: the mount support is configured to be coupled to a bottom plate of a processing chamber.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
(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) 11-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190360633 to Schaller.
Claim 11: Schaller discloses a tilt actuator (140, Fig. 2A) for a substrate support assembly, comprising: a motor (138 [servomotor]); a threaded member (208 [bolt], Fig. 2B) that is coupled with an output of the motor (138, para. [0022-0023]); a ramp actuator (218 [inner race]) threadingly engaged with the threaded member (208), wherein the ramp actuator (218) comprises an angled top surface (Fig. 2B);
a mount support (220) comprising an angled bottom surface (Fig. 2B), wherein the angled bottom surface is slidingly engaged with the angled top surface (para. [0025]); and a mounting bracket (206 [guide adaptor]), wherein the ramp actuator (218) is slidable relative to the mounting bracket (206, slides through 220, para. [0025]).
Claim 12: Schaller discloses wherein: the mount support (220, Fig. 2B, Schaller) is configured to be coupled to a bottom plate of a processing chamber (202 of 102).
Claim 13: Schaller discloses wherein: the mounting bracket (220, Fig. 2B, 1) is configured to be coupled with a bracket (116) that secures a substrate support assembly (104 [susceptor assembly]) with a bottom plate of a processing chamber (202 of 102).
Claim 15: Schaller discloses further comprising: a first hard stop (one end of 218, Fig. 2B, Schaller) that limits travel of the ramp actuator (218) in a first direction relative to the mounting bracket (220); and a second hard stop (another end of 218) that limits travel of the ramp actuator (218) in a second direction relative to the mounting bracket (220, 218 having radial motion, para. [0025]).
Claim 16: Schaller discloses wherein: the angled top surface (top surface of 218, Fig. 2B, Schaller) and the angled bottom surface (bottom of 220) are angled in opposite directions relative to horizontal (Fig. 2B).
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190360633 to Schaller.
Claim 1: Schaller discloses a semiconductor processing chamber, comprising: a chamber body (102 [processing chamber], Fig. 1); a bottom plate (202 [base bracket]) coupled with a bottom surface of the chamber body (120 [chamber base] of 102); a substrate support assembly (104 [substrate support assembly]) disposed within the chamber body (102), the substrate support assembly (104) comprising a support plate (110 [pedestal]) and a support stem (112 [stem]) coupled with the support plate (110, Fig. 1);
a mounting bracket (116 [pedestal assembly carrier]) that couples the support stem (112) with a lower surface of the bottom plate (202); and a plurality of tilt actuators (140 [spherical thrust assemblies]), wherein: each of the plurality of tilt actuators (140) couples the mounting bracket (116) with the lower surface of the bottom plate (202, Fig. 2A); and each of the plurality of tilt actuators (140) is operable to adjust a vertical distance between the lower surface of the bottom plate (202) and the mounting bracket (116) at a mounting site of the respective tilt actuator to adjust a planarity of the support plate (110) relative to the showerhead (para. [0019]).
However Schaller does not disclose adjusting a planarity of the support plate relative to the bottom plate.
Yet Schaller teaches repeatably positioning the pedestal using precision dynamic leveling for the purpose of improving positional resolution (para. [0005]). It is noted that a plate and a shower head both necessarily have substantially flat surfaces to adjust planarity relative to, thus reasonably reading on the claim limitation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Schaller with motivation to improve positional resolution.
Claim 2: Schaller discloses further comprising: a ball joint (142 [joint], Fig. 2A, Schaller) that vertically fixes a position of one point of the mounting bracket (116) relative to the bottom plate (202), wherein the plurality of tilt actuators (140) comprises two tilt actuators (140) spaced apart from the ball joint (142).
Claim 3: Schaller discloses further comprising: a faceplate (124 [showerhead], Fig. 1, Schaller) seated atop the chamber body (102, Fig. 1).
Claim 4: Schaller discloses wherein: each of the plurality of tilt actuators (140, Fig. 2A, Schaller) comprises: a motor (138 [servomotor]); a threaded member (208 [bolt], Fig. 2B) that is coupled with an output of the motor (138, para. [0022-0023]); a ramp actuator (218 [inner race]) threadingly engaged with the threaded member (208), wherein the ramp actuator (218) comprises an angled top surface (Fig. 2B);
a mount support (220) comprising an angled bottom surface (Fig. 2B), wherein the angled bottom surface is slidingly engaged with the angled top surface (para. [0025]); and an actuator mounting bracket (206 [guide adaptor]), wherein the ramp actuator (218) is slidable relative to the actuator mounting bracket (206, slides through 220, para. [0025]).
Claim 5: Schaller discloses wherein: the actuator mounting bracket (206, Fig. 2B, Schaller) is coupled with the mounting bracket (116, Fig. 2B).
Claim 6: Schaller discloses wherein: the mount support (220, Fig. 2B, Schaller) is coupled with the lower surface of the bottom plate at a fixed location (202, Fig. 1).
Claim 7: Schaller discloses wherein: the mount support (220) comprises a ball mount (220, Fig. 2B, para. [0025]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of US 20220316066 to Santiago.
Claim 8: The apparatus of Schaller does not disclose wherein: the plurality of tilt actuators are operable to adjust the planarity of the support plate to have a maximum tilt amplitude of at least 0.5 mm.
However Santiago teaches that it is contemplated that a maximum tilt of the substrate support assembly may be above 0.1 inches or less (and other ranges are given), for the purpose of adjusting the orientation of the support body in relation to the showerhead (para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of maximum tilt as taught by Santiago with motivation to adjust the orientation of the support body in relation to the showerhead.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of US 20160355927 to Weaver.
Claim 9, 10: The apparatus of Schaller does not disclose (claim 9) wherein: a lift motor coupled with the support stem, the lift motor being operable to translate the substrate support assembly vertically within the chamber body; (claim 10) wherein: the lift motor and the plurality of tilt actuators are operable independently of one another.
Weaver discloses (claim 9) wherein: a lift motor (428 [z-axis motor], fig. 10) coupled with the support stem (160 [shaft]), the lift motor (428) being operable to translate the substrate support assembly (140 [susceptor assembly]) vertically within the chamber body (101 [vacuum chamber]); (claim 10) wherein: the lift motor (428) and the plurality of tilt actuators (316/310 [v-blocks][actuators] of 300 [positioning system]) are operable independently of one another (para. [0055]) for the purpose of positioning the susceptor in close proximity to a gas injector plate (para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Weaver with motivation to position the susceptor in close proximity to a gas injector plate.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller as applied to claims 11-13, 15-16 above, and further in view of US 20160355927 to Weaver.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Schaller does not disclose further comprising: a linear bearing disposed between the ramp actuator and the mounting bracket.
Weaver discloses different kinds of bearings disposed between two components including a linear bearing (379) as an option (Fig. 8A, 8B, para. [0050]) for the purpose of allowing adequate range of motion and providing positive retention of the supported elements (para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the radial bearing of Schaller with an option of a linear bearing as taught by Weaver with motivation to allow adequate range of motion and providing positive retention of the supported elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250062156 discloses six linear actuators (122, Fig. 3) coupled to a stationary mount (114) and a movable mount (116), the linear actuators capable to have different lengths and radial or non-radial symmetry (para. [0069]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights