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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-18 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 6/10/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103(a) are necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (JP 07-058040 A, as cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Shin discloses a film formation apparatus comprising:
A process chamber (abstract: gas phase deposition apparatus);
A substrate support with a circular recess in which a substrate is placed (figures 1-2: susceptor/support 20 with recess 21 for substrate 22);
The recess includes a projection and groove radially outside the projection, the projection along an outer periphery of the substrate (figure 2: projection 30 with outer recess groove 32);
The recess having a first surface inside the projection and a second surface defining a bottom of the groove, the second surface lower than the first surface in a vertical direction (figure 2: ‘first surface’ 33 of recess and groove 32 with lower second surface);
The second surface is positioned between a lateral wall of the substrate support and the projection (figure 1: showing location of groove 32 and its bottom second surface).
As to claim 3, Shin discloses a height of the projection is lower than an upper surface of the recess (figure 2: relative heights of top surface of projection 30 and top of recess [even with top of substrate 22]).
As to claim 4, Shin discloses the projection has a ring shape along a periphery of the substrate (figure 2: projection 30; English translation abstract paragraph 12: ring shaped projection/protrusion 30).
As to claim 6, Shin discloses an inner diameter of the recess is larger than an outer diameter of the substrate (figure 2: showing relative diameters of substrate 22 and recess, with substrate fully within the recess).
As to claim 9, Shin discloses a heater to heat the substrate in the recess (English translation paragraphs 3, 15: induction heating of substrate by support susceptor).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, 12-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, as applied to claim 1, 3-4, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Egami (US 20110049779).
As to claim 5, Shin discloses a substrate support with recess containing a projection at an outer periphery of a substrate and outer groove surrounding the projection, but is silent as to the projection being a series of projections along the substrate periphery.
Egami discloses a substrate support comprising a recess with a projection at an outer periphery of a substrate and a groove surrounding the projection (figures 3a/b: substrate 202 on projection 303 with outer groove 302). Egami also discloses knowledge in the art of the projection either being a solid ring or a series of projections to support the substrate (figure 3a/b: solid ring projection 303 vs figure 6a/b: ‘island’ projections 333), the projections chosen as desired to control the contact surface between substrate and support and prevent instability during holding (paragraph 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a series of protrusions as an alternative to a ring, as disclosed by Egami, in the system of Shin, because this allows for control over the substrate and support contact area and reduce substrate instability.
As to claim 7, Egami discloses an inner diameter of the recess is increased in at least part of a circumferential direction of the recess (figure 3a/b: showing recess/pocket 302 with ‘stops’ 305 reducing the inner diameter of recess 302 at various circumferential positions – thus the recess has a greater inner diameter at circumferential locations without stop 305 [increased at these locations with respect to the inner diameter at stop 305 locations]).
As to claim 10, 12-16, 18, Shin discloses a plurality of recesses about a central axis of a circular support structure (figure 1), but is silent as to rotation.
Egami discloses a plurality of substrate support recesses about a central axis of a circular support (figure 3a) and knowledge in the art of rotation of the support about the central axis (figure 2; paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide rotation, as disclosed by Egami, in the system of Shin, because this increases uniformity during deposition or other processing steps.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ngo (US 20150340266).
As to claim 8, Egami a chamber with a substrate holding comprising a recess with peripheral projection for containing a substrate with a lower surface and extension up to an upper surface (figure 3b: bottom surface of recess 302 to top surface 307), but is silent as to tilting the recess with an angled extension.
Ngo discloses a processing chamber in which a substrate is held within a recess on peripheral projections (abstract; figure 4: substrate 50 with annular ridge 422). Ngo also discloses knowledge in the art of using an angled edge from the bottom of the recess to the upper surface (figure 5: sloped surface 522 from bottom 526 to upper surface 510), the slope allowing for control over contact areas, distances and thermal transfers between the substrate and susceptor during the substrate processing (paragraphs 46-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sloped/tilted rise from lower to upper recess surface, as disclosed by Ngo, the system of Egami, because this allows for control over substrate contacts, distances, and thermal profiles.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Ngo, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Egami.
As to claim 17, Shin discloses a plurality of recesses about a central axis of a circular support structure (figure 1), but is silent as to rotation.
Egami discloses a plurality of substrate support recesses about a central axis of a circular support (figure 3a) and knowledge in the art of rotation of the support about the central axis (figure 2; paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide rotation, as disclosed by Egami, in the system of Shin, because this increases uniformity during deposition or other processing steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as provided and discussed above.
Conclusion
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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights