DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 05/08/2026, addressing claims 1-20 rejection from the non-final office action (02/11/2026), by amending claims 1, 11, and 18 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Interpretations
The “a lower lid plate” of claim 2, there is no upper lid plate in the claims and “lower” can be considered as relative to any other component of the processing system.
The “A semiconductor processing system” of claims 1, 11 and 18, an apparatus that is capable of processing semiconductor is considered read into the claim.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20220127723, from IDS, hereafter ‘723), in view of MIZUISHI et. al. (US 20220108908, hereafter ‘908) and Nishimoto et al. (US 20050042881, hereafter ‘881).
‘723 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: FIG. 3 shows a schematic partial cross-sectional view of an exemplary semiconductor processing chamber 300 ([0033], includes the claimed “A semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber body comprising a bottom plate” as shown in Fig. 3);
FIG. 3 may illustrate a portion of a processing chamber 300. The chamber 300 may include a showerhead 305, as well as a substrate support assembly 310 … The substrate support assembly may include an electrostatic chuck body 325, which may include one or more components embedded or disposed within the body ([0034], includes the claimed “a substrate support disposed within the chamber body, the substrate support comprising a support plate”), Electrostatic chuck body 325 may be coupled with a stem 330, which may support the chuck body and may include channels for delivering and receiving electrical and/or fluid lines that may couple with internal components of the chuck body 325 ([0035], includes the clamed “and a shaft”),
The support stem 505 and a lower portion of the electrostatic chuck body 525 may define one or more cooling channels 540. Each cooling channel 540 may be coupled with an inlet channel and an outlet channel that extend into the cooling hub 545 … O-rings 575 may be provided about the inlet and/or outlet channels to help seal the inlet and/or outlet channels at connections between different components. For example, O-rings 575 may be disposed about the inlet and/or outlet channels between the insulator 555 and support stem 505, and/or between the insulator 555 and the cooling hub 545 (Fig. 5, [0051], includes the claimed “wherein the shaft comprises: a cooling hub that extends through the bottom plate” as cooling channel 540 extends the entire length of the stem 505, the cooling hub 545 including the cooling channel 540 extends “through the bottom of the chamber”, not Fig. 6 also includes a component 645 which is clearly a cooling hub);
the electrostatic chuck body 325 and/or the stem 330 may be insulative or dielectric materials … Exemplary materials may include ceramics, including aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, and any other metal or transition metal oxide, nitride, carbide, boride, or titanate ([0039]), Some or all of the monolithic support stem 505 and electrostatic chuck body 525 may be coated with a dielectric material 530 (Fig. 5, [0048], 7th sentence, includes the claimed “a shaft isolator that is seated atop the cooling hub, the shaft isolator comprising a ceramic material”);
Disposed between the electrostatic chuck body 625 and the support stem 605 may be one or more insulators 655 … the insulators 655 include an inner insulator 655a and an outer insulator 655b (Fig. 6, [0053], includes the claimed “an inner isolator coupled with a bottom of the support plate, the inner isolator defining an aperture therethrough that receives the shaft” and “an outer isolator”, obvious to combine Fig. 6 with Fig. 5);
The inner insulator 655a may be formed from an insulating material, such as, but not limited to, polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or other insulating material that is capable of withstanding high temperatures without deformation or cracking … The outer insulator 655b may be formed from an insulating material, such as aluminum oxide ([0053], 6th and 4th last sentences, includes the claimed “each of the inner isolator and the outer isolator comprises a ceramic material”).
‘723 further teaches that To prevent cracking or other damage to the outer insulator 655b, the outer insulator 655b may float or rest atop a surface of the support bowl 680 without any mechanical coupling to secure the outer insulator 655b in place. In some embodiments, only a single insulator 655 or more than two insulators 655 may be used ([0053], 3rd last sentence).
‘723 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: (1A) wherein an outer edge of the inner isolator defines a recessed ledge; and
(an outer isolator) comprising an inward-protruding flange, wherein:
the flange is seated atop the recessed ledge of the inner isolator;
(1B) a bottom end of the outer isolator extends downward beyond a bottom surface of the inner isolator.
‘908 is analogous art in the field of SHADOW RING KIT FOR PLASMA ETCH WAFER SINGULATION PROCESS (title), including an electrostatic chuck (abstract).
’908 teaches that A bottom insulator ring 218 is beneath the conductive pedestal 212. The edge insulator ring 210 and the bottom insulator ring 218 may be composed of a ceramic material such as alumina (Fig. 2A, [0047], 2nd sentence, corresponding to the claimed “outer isolator”), The electrostatic chuck assembly 200 further includes a cathode insulator 220 ([0048], 2nd sentence, corresponding to the claimed “inner isolator”, Fig. 2 shows insulator 220 has a recessed ledge at outer edge and the insulator ring 218 includes an inward-protruding flange seated atop the recessed ledge).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the junction between the insulator ring 218 and the insulator 220 including recesses and ledge, as shown in Fig. 2A of ‘908, as the interface between the inner insulator 655a and the outer insulator 655b of ‘723 (the limitation of 1A), for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. Note this replacement is still without any mechanical coupling as required by ‘723.
‘723 is silent on the material of the support bowl 680. Note that if it is an insulator/ceramics, then the insulator 655b and the ceramic support bowl, together, would have had “a bottom end of the outer isolator extends downward beyond a bottom surface of the inner isolator“ (the limitations of 1B).
In case the support bowl is made of conductor.
‘881 is analogous art in the field of Processing Apparatus (title), wafer is stabilized to a predetermined temperature by increasing a thermal conductivity of a junction layer for bonding an electrostatic chuck layer and a support together, and the deterioration of the junction layer that is caused by active species generated by plasma is suppressed (abstract). ’881 teaches that As shown in FIG. 6B that is a partially enlarged view of FIG. 6A, a thermally sprayed coating 72 is formed along the circumferential portion of the central portion of the upper surface of the support 21, that is, a protrusion bonded to the electrostatic chuck layer 3. The thermally sprayed coating 72 is formed as an insulating portion to prevent an abnormal discharge of a plasma ([0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an insulating portion (either by thermal spray or an extension of the outer insulator downward), as taught by ‘881, along the outer surface of the outer insulator 665b and the outer surfaces of the conductive support bowl 680 of ‘723 (the limitation of 1B), for the purpose of preventing an abnormal discharge of a plasma ([0058]).
‘723 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 2: A chamber lid 204 may be coupled with a top portion of the chamber body 202 (Fig. 2, [0031], applicable to the chamber in Figs. 3-8, includes the claimed “further comprising: a lower lid plate seated atop the chamber body”).
Claim 10: support stem 505 and electrostatic chuck body 525 may be formed as a single body that may be formed of a conductive material, such as aluminum ([0048], 4th sentence, includes the claimed “wherein: there is no exposed stainless steel within an interior of the chamber body”, obvious to have adopted aluminum as other chamber components).
Alternatively claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘908, and ‘881, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Applicants admitted prior art (hereafter AAPA).
In case Applicants argue that ‘723 does not expressly teach the limitation of claim 10.
AAPA teaches that conventional chamber designs may utilize a number of stainless steel components, which may oxidize in chamber environments. To prevent such oxidization, these components may be coated with chamber-compatible materials, such as aluminum and/or dielectric materials ([0060], 4th sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have applied coating on stainless steel components of the chamber to prevent oxidation, as taught by AAPA.
Claims 3-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘908, and ‘881, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Chandrasekar et al. (US 20210320018, hereafter ‘018).
The combination of ‘723, ‘908, and ‘881 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 3: further comprising: a thermal choke plate seated atop the lower lid plate.
Claim 4: further comprising: a pumping liner seated atop the thermal choke plate.
Claim 5: further comprising: a faceplate seated atop the pumping liner, the faceplate defining a processing region from above.
‘018 is analogous art in the field of THERMALLY CONTROLLED LID STACK COMPONENTS (title), substrate processing systems may include chamber body defining a transfer region. The systems may include a lid plate seated on the chamber body. The lid plate may define a first plurality of apertures through the lid plate and a second plurality of apertures through the lid plate (abstract), cluster tools ([0002]). ’018 teaches that The pumping liners 145 may be seated on a thermal choke plate 147 (Fig. 1B, [0036], 3rd last sentence), a first lid plate 158 may be seated over transfer region housing 125 ([0037], 3rd sentence, Fig. 1B shows the thermal choke plate 147 atop the first lid plate 158), The processing regions may be defined from above by a faceplate 140 ([0035], 5th sentence, Fig. 1B also shows the faceplate 140 atop of the pumping liners 145).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a pumping liner and a thermal choke plate of ‘018, atop chamber lid 204 and below the showerhead 218 of ‘723, for the purpose of thermally control lid stack, as taught by ‘018 (title).
‘723 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 6: Fig. 2 shows the claimed “further comprising: a bellow that couples a bottom surface of the bottom plate with a bottom end of the cooling hub” at least indirectly.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6 rejection above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘826, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘018, as being applied to claim 6 rejection above, further in view of Young et al. (US 20130256127, hereafter ‘127).
The combination of ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘018 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 7: wherein: the faceplate, the pumping liner, the thermal choke plate, the lower lid plate, the chamber body, the bottom plate, the bellow, and the cooling hub form a portion of an RF return path.
‘127 is analogous art in the field of SUBSTRATE PROCESSING SYSTEM HAVING SYMMETRIC RF DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN PATHS (title). ’127 teaches that the inventive apparatus may advantageously improve plasma uniformity in a process chamber by providing substantially similar length radial RF distribution paths in a source distribution plate of a PVD chamber in opposing directions from a central axis along common diameters of the source distribution plate, and by providing substantially similar length radial RF return paths in a source distribution plate of a PVD chamber in opposing directions from a central axis along common diameters of the grounding plate ([0013], Fig. 1 shows the power source 134 and bellows 122).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have set an RF return path from the showerhead, the chamber body, and the stem of the combined apparatus of ‘723, ‘826, and ‘018, for the purpose of improve plasma uniformity, as taught by ‘127 ([0017]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, ‘018, and ‘127, as being applied to claim 7 rejection above, further in view of Schoepp et al. (US 6170429, hereafter ‘429).
‘018 further teaches that The second channel 730 may extend radially about the choke plate, and may be configured to seat a component, such as an RF gasket for an RF return path (Fig. 7, [0065], last sentence). ‘018 does not teach a plurality of RF gaskets. The combination of ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, ‘018, and ‘127 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 8: further comprising: a plurality of RF gaskets, each of the plurality of RF gaskets being disposed between two adjacent components that make up the RF return path.
‘429 is analogous art in the field of plasma etching (col. 1, line 9), an adequate RF ground return path (col. 1, line 52). ’429 teaches that A first RF gasket 134 is disposed outside the diameter of first vacuum seal 133 and between the top surface of outer flange 116a and gas distribution plate 132. A second RF gasket 134 is disposed outside the diameter of second vacuum seal 133 and between the bottom surface of outer flange 116a and the top surface of housing 102 (Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 5-11),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a plurality of RF gaskets of ‘429 to the ground return path of the combined apparatus of ‘723, ‘826, ‘018, and ‘127, for the purpose of an adequate RF ground return path, as taught by ‘429 (col. 1, line 52).
In case Applicants argue that claim 8 requires an RF gaskets in every pair of two adjacent components, it would have been obvious to duplicate gaskets to all interfaces between two adjacent components to ensure an adequate RF ground return path. Applicants please also point out support for this interpretation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘018, as being applied to claim 3 rejection above, further in view of Smargiassi et al. (US 20130160946, hereafter ‘946).
The combination of ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘018 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 9: wherein: the thermal choke plate defines a purge inlet, a purge channel, and a number of purge outlets that deliver a purge gas to an interior of the chamber body.
‘946 is analogous art in the field of An apparatus for purging a space in a processing chamber comprises a source of a purge gas (abstract). ’946 teaches that Purge ring 102 comprises an inlet portion 104 and an exhaust portion 106. Inlet portion 104 comprises inlet ring wall 108 having inlet inner sidewall surface 109. Exhaust portion 106 comprises exhaust ring wall 110 having exhaust inner sidewall surface 111 (Fig. 1, [0036], 2nd sentence, Fig. 7 shows the purge ring 102 is above the wafer 510), Purge ring 102 further includes inlet plenum 120 located within inlet ring wall 108 ([0037]), Inlet portion 104 further includes inlet baffle 322 comprising a plurality of baffle slots 323 (Fig. 3, [0041], 6th sentence, i.e. purge outlets), for the purpose of post-deposition processing ([0008]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an purge gas inlet, plenum, and outlets of ‘946, to the choke plate 147 of ‘018, and then combined with ‘723, ‘908, and ‘881, for the purpose of post-deposition processing, as taught by ‘946 ([0008]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, in view of Inagawa et al. (US 20070029642, hereafter ‘642), ‘908, and ‘881.
‘723 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 11: FIG. 3 shows a schematic partial cross-sectional view of an exemplary semiconductor processing chamber 300 ([0033], includes the claimed “A semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber body comprising a bottom plate” as shown in Fig. 3);
FIG. 3 may illustrate a portion of a processing chamber 300. The chamber 300 may include a showerhead 305, as well as a substrate support assembly 310 … The substrate support assembly may include an electrostatic chuck body 325, which may include one or more components embedded or disposed within the body ([0034], includes the claimed “a substrate support disposed within the chamber body, the substrate support comprising a support plate”), Electrostatic chuck body 325 may be coupled with a stem 330, which may support the chuck body and may include channels for delivering and receiving electrical and/or fluid lines that may couple with internal components of the chuck body 325 ([0035], includes the clamed “and a shaft”),
The support stem 505 and a lower portion of the electrostatic chuck body 525 may define one or more cooling channels 540. Each cooling channel 540 may be coupled with an inlet channel and an outlet channel that extend into the cooling hub 545 … O-rings 575 may be provided about the inlet and/or outlet channels to help seal the inlet and/or outlet channels at connections between different components. For example, O-rings 575 may be disposed about the inlet and/or outlet channels between the insulator 555 and support stem 505, and/or between the insulator 555 and the cooling hub 545 (Fig. 5, [0051], includes the claimed “wherein the shaft comprises: a cooling hub that extends through the bottom plate” as cooling channel 540 extends the entire length of the stem 505, the cooling hub 545 including the cooling channel 540 extends “through the bottom of the chamber”, not Fig. 6 also includes a component 645 which is clearly a cooling hub);
Some or all of the monolithic support stem 505 and electrostatic chuck body 525 may be coated with a dielectric material 530 ([Fig. 5, [0048], 7th sentence, includes the claimed “and a shaft isolator that is seated atop the plurality of dimples, the shaft isolator comprising a ceramic material”),
Disposed between the electrostatic chuck body 625 and the support stem 605 may be one or more insulators 655 … the insulators 655 include an inner insulator 655a and an outer insulator 655b ([0053], includes the claimed “an inner isolator coupled with a bottom of the support plate, the inner isolator defining an aperture therethrough that receives the shaft”; and “an outer isolator”, wherein each of the inner isolator and the outer isolator comprises a ceramic material”, obvious to combine with Fig. 5).
‘723 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 11: (11A) wherein a top surface of the cooling hub defines a plurality of dimples;
(11B) wherein an outer edge of the inner isolator defines a recessed ledge; and
(an outer isolator) comprising an inward-protruding flange, wherein:
the flange is seated atop the recessed ledge of the inner isolator;
(11C) a bottom end of the outer isolator extends downward beyond a bottom surface of the inner isolator.
‘642 is analogous art in the field of Heating And Cooling Of Substrate Support (title), including plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) for depositing thin film on a substrate ([0006]). ’642 teaches that the cooling plate 230 can be placed a small gap (distance) "D" below the susceptor 222 by configuring the front side surface 550 at different vertical positions. The distance "D" can range between about 1 mm to about 25 mm … As another example, the front side surface 550 of the cooling plate 230 may include surface finishing or may be roughened by surface roughening materials 570 on specific locations to further provide adjustable emissivity for heating and cooling temperature control. The surface roughening materials 570 may be the same or different material as the cooling plate 230, such as stainless steel, aluminum, anodized aluminum oxide, etc., and can be applied by any bonding techniques, such as welding, sand blasting, among others. A smoothly finished surface can provide higher heat transfer (higher heating and cooling efficiency) and a rough surface and lower heat transfer can avoid too much cooling to the susceptor 222 (Fig. 3, [0050]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a rough surface, as taught by ‘642, on top surface of the cooling hub 545 of ‘723 (the limitation of 11A), for the purpose of avoiding too much cooling to the susceptor, as taught by ‘642 (abstract).
‘908 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the junction between the insulator ring 218 and the insulator 220 including recesses and ledge, as shown in Fig. 2A of ‘908, as the interface between the inner insulator 655a and the outer insulator 655b of ‘723 (the limitation of 11B), for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. Note this replacement is still without any mechanical coupling as required by ‘723.
‘723 is silent on the material of the support bowl 680. Note that if it is an insulator/ceramics, then the insulator 655b and the ceramic support bowl, together, would have had “a bottom end of the outer isolator extends downward beyond a bottom surface of the inner isolator“ (the limitations of 11C).
In case the support bowl is made of conductor.
‘881 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an insulating portion (either by thermal spray or an extension of the outer insulator downward), as taught by ‘881, along the outer surface of the outer insulator 665b and the outer surfaces of the conductive support bowl 680 of ‘723 (the limitation of 11C), for the purpose of preventing an abnormal discharge of a plasma ([0058]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘642, ‘908, and ‘881, as being applied to claim 11 rejection above, further in view of Lau et al. (US 20190127851, hereafter ‘851).
‘723 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 12: A rod 230 may be included through a passage 224 formed in the bottom wall 216 of the processing region 220B and may be utilized to position substrate lift pins 261 disposed through the body of pedestal 228 (Fig. 2, [0030], includes the claimed “further comprising: a plurality of lift pin assemblies”).
The combination of ‘723, ‘642, ‘908, and ‘881 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 12: each lift pin assembly comprising:
a standoff that is seated atop the bottom plate, the standoff comprising a chamber-compatible material; and
a lift pin seated atop the standoff.
‘851 is analogous art in the field of a thermal treatment chamber, such as a vapor phase epitaxy chamber ([0024]), including a remote plasma generator ([0047], 8th sentence). ’851 teaches that The susceptor 206 is lowered to a transfer position (below the processing position) to allow lift pins 232 to contact standoffs 234 on or above the second energy transmissive member 210 ([0032], Fig. 2 shows the standoffs are atop of the transmissive member 210, which is the bottom of the chamber).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the rod 230 of ‘723 with standoffs to hold the lift pins with raising and lowering of susceptor, as taught by ‘851, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘642, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘851, as being applied to claim 12 rejection above, further in view of Fan et al. (US 20060182528, hereafter ‘528).
The combination of ‘723, ‘642, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘851 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 13: wherein: the chamber-compatible material comprises aluminum.
‘528 is analogous art in the field of Cooling Station Lifter Pins (title) for semiconductor fabrication ([0001]). ’528 teaches that attaching the lifter pins 32 to sockets 34 at an eccentricity 50 thereby providing enhanced performance (Fig. 8, [0018]), the lifter pins 32 and sockets 34 are preferably comprised of the same material ([0020], note the socket corresponds to the claimed standoff. Note the pedestal is raising and lowering in the above combination).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted aluminum as the material as the lift pin and the socket/standoff, as taught by ‘528, to the bottom of the chamber in ‘723, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘642, ‘’908, ‘881, and ‘851, as being applied to claim 12 rejection above, further in view of ‘528 and Powell (US 6192849, hereafter ‘849).
The combination of ‘723, ‘642, ‘’908, ‘881, and ‘851 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 14: wherein: a bottom end the standoff defines a central bore;
the bottom plate defines a recess;
a first insert is received within the central bore;
a second insert is received within the recess; and
a threaded stud is inserted within both the first insert and the second insert to secure the standoff to the bottom plate.
‘528 is an analogous art as discussed above.
‘849 is solving similar problem of a threaded fastener (col. 2, line 24). ’849 teaches that Referring to FIG. 6, fastener assembly 170 connects service flange 124 of service plenum 114 to a service flange 162 of manifold extension 160. To connect service flange 124 to service flange 162, an aperture (shown as a bore 198) having a slight inward taper is aligned with a protrusion or alignment pin (shown as a post 178) of service flange 162. An aperture (shown as an inner bore 196) having a slight outward flare is provided within the interior of post 178 and extends into the interior of service flange 162. A spacer (shown as a generally circular-shaped, hollow, threaded insert 176) is inserted into bore 198 of service flange 124 and extends into bore 196 of post 178 such that threaded insert 176 is generally flush with the surface of service flange 124. A fastener (shown as a threaded, hexagonal-headed, machine screw 172), the head of which is circumscribed by a spacer (shown as a washer 174), is inserted into threaded insert 176. A seal (shown as an O-ring 168) is provided in a groove 166 of service flange 162 (col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a lift pin with a socket/standoff, as taught by ‘528, to the bottom of the chamber in ‘723, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the screw 172, threaded insert 176 into upper and lower bores, as shown in Fig. 6 of ‘849, to connect the sockers 34 of ‘528 to the bottom of the chamber in ‘723, for the purpose of connecting socket to the bottom of the chamber. Note separating the threaded insert 176 into two for the upper and lower bores is merely separating of parts. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
For the limitation of claim 15 “the first insert, the second insert, and the threaded stud comprise stainless steel” is merely obvious choice of material, especially these components are not exposure to the plasma environment of ‘723.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘642, ‘908, and ‘881, as being applied to claim 11 rejection above, further in view of ‘018 and ‘946
The combination of ‘723, ‘642, ‘908, and ‘881 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 16: further comprising: a thermal choke plate seated atop the chamber body, the thermal choke plate defining a purge inlet, a purge channel, and a number of purge outlets that deliver a purge gas to an interior of the chamber body.
‘018 and ‘946 are analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a pumping liner and a thermal choke plate of ‘018, atop chamber lid 204 and below the showerhead 218 of ‘723, for the purpose of thermally control lid stack, as taught by ‘018 (title). Furthermore, to have added an purge gas inlet, plenum, and outlets of ‘946, to the choke plate 147 of ‘018, and then combined apparatus of ‘723 and ‘826, for the purpose of post-deposition processing, as taught by ‘946 ([0008]).
‘946 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 17: Fig. 2 shows inlet plenum has a horizontal linear segment, which intersect with the linear slit 210 at end points (includes the claimed “wherein: the purge channel comprises a number of linear segments that intersect one another”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘018, as being applied to claim 18 rejection above, further in view of Coomer et al. (US 20170092531, hereafter ‘531).
‘723 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 19: The power box 203 may include a drive system that controls the elevation and movement of the pedestal 228 within the processing region 220B (Fig. 2, [0029], 3rd sentence, includes the claimed “the bellow expands and contracts as the substrate support is translated within the chamber body”).
‘723 does not show how Fig. 2 and Figs. 3-8 fit together. The combination of ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, and ‘018 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 19: wherein: a bottom end of the cooling hub comprises a lower flange;
an upper end of the bellow is coupled with the bottom surface of the bottom plate;
a lower end of the bellow is coupled with an upper surface of the lower flange.
‘531 is analogous art in the field of VARIABLE ADJUSTMENT FOR PRECISE MATCHING OF MULTIPLE CHAMBER CAVITY HOUSINGS (title), with multiple reaction chambers ([0002]),including Plasma-enhanced CVD (PECVD) ([0005]). ’531 teaches that A set of cooling tubes 245 may be attached to the bellows mounting plate 170 and the bellows mounting plate 215 to prevent overheating of the vacuum-to-atmosphere seal ([0036], Fig. 2 shows the bellow mounting plate 215 includes a flange).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have arranged the bellows of Fig. 2 on a flange of cooling hub 545/645, as taught by ‘531, for the purpose of preventing overheating of the vacuum-to-atmosphere seal, as taught by ‘531 ([0036]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, ‘018, and ‘531, as being applied to claim 19 rejection above, further in view of Subramani et al. (US 20210305020, hereafter ‘020) and ‘429.
The combination of ‘723, ‘908, ‘881, ‘018, and ‘531 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 20: further comprising: a first RF gasket disposed between the bottom surface of the bottom plate and the upper end of the bellow; and
a second RF gasket disposed between the lower end of the bellow and the upper surface of the lower flange.
‘020 is analogous art in the field of RF RETURN PATH FOR REDUCTION OF PARASITIC PLASMA (title). ’020 teaches that fig. 1A is a cross-sectional illustration of a plasma chamber with a standard RF return path that passes along the bellows ([0008]).
‘429 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have includes bellows in the RF return path, as taught by ‘020, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, to have added RF gaskets to the interfaces of bellows, for the purpose of an adequate RF ground return path, as taught by ‘429 (col. 1, line 52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new grounds of rejections above.
In regarding to drawing objection and 112(b) rejections, see page 7, Applicants’ amendment of Specification and claims overcome the drawing objection and 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210265141 is cited for ceramic annular covers 65, 66 (Fig. 4). US 20190244795 is cited for insulator cover 2021 covers entire side surface of the substrate support (Fig. 2A).
US 20230162954 is cited for “the cooling plate 212 includes a plurality of minimum contact area (MCA) pads 506 to support the electrostatic chuck 150” (Fig. 5, [0044]). US 20050263070 is cited for lift pin atop a standoff which is atop the bottom of the chuck 20 which is also bottom of the chamber (Fig. 7). US 20080148857 is cited for lift pin atop bottom of the chamber (Fig. 1), and made of aluminum ([0042]).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights