DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (03/28/2024), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-18) were examined in a Non-Final on 9/8/2025 as a result of election. Claims 19-20 were withdrawn. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 2/3/2026.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments are in relation to the amendments to claims 1 and 12. These are addressed in the office action as below.
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 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 6 requires the blocks to be movable with respect to liner. This movement is unclear. It appears that the movement of the plate is needed to adjust the processing volume. There is no disclosure of such movement in drawings. In para 62 substrate support or lift pins may be used to cause such movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14 and 16-17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vatus et al (US 8512472).
Vatus et al disclose a processing chamber applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Fig 1),
a chamber body at least partially defining an internal volume (100);
one or more heat sources operable to heat the internal volume (136);
a substrate support disposed in the internal volume (124);
one or more inlet openings (127) configured to direct a gas across a gas flow path over the substrate support and to one or more exhaust outlets (118); and
a process kit disposed in the internal volume, the process kit comprising:
a first flow guide block (Fig 5 402 named as insert); and
a second flow guide block (also named as 402) disposed opposite the first flow guide block with respect to the gas flow path, the first flow guide block and the second flow guide block respectively comprising one or more opaque outer surfaces (Col 7 lines 48-50). As noted, graphite coated with silicon carbide as taught above, would provide that opaque surface.
Regarding amendment of a plate of transparent material, Vatus et al disclose a plate like cap (602) shown in Fig 6 could be used with insert (Col 4 lines 53-54 and Col 6 lines 46-52). Vatus teaches that the plate 602 may be fabricated of the same material as gas -preheat ring 122 (Col 5 line16-18) and teaches further that such material could be quartz a transparent material (Col 3 line 17-19).
Regarding claim 3 insert may rest on pre-heat ring 122 (Fig 4) which is disposed outside substrate support in (Fig 1 and Col 4 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, guide blocks 402 and 404 are coupled to the liner 122.
Regarding claims 5 and 13 inserts define a rectangular flow opening between the surfaces 404 (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 7 the inserts are made for absorbing heat (Col 4 lines 29-41).
Regarding claims 8-9 heating lamps 136, 138 152 and 154 are outside of quartz 106 and 132.
Regarding claim 12, as noted above, the plate 602 could be of quartz, a transparent material.
Regarding claims 14 and 16 first and second block (402) with opaque surface and a plate (602) are disclosed as above. As noted, graphite coated with silicon carbide as taught above, would provide that opaque surface.
Regarding claim 17 inserts are disclosed including graphite coated with silicon carbide (Col 7 lines 48-50).
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 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 6 as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus et al (US 8512472) in view of Cong et al (US 20220349088).
Regarding claim 6 claiming movability of blocks, it is noted that this movability appears to come from the stage lift. Stage lift is however disclosed very frequently for several process related requirement like load/unload, adjustment of distance to electrode as well as alignment to gas supply.
Cong et al discloses lift arrangement for susceptor assembly (Para 44). In any case this is also merely an arrangement of parts and is therefore obvious.
Having movable guide block for adjustment of gas flow with respect to source of gas would therefore be obvious for one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus et al (US 8512472) in view of Koichi Yamazaki (US 20040129224).
Regarding claims 10-11 Vatus et al teach heating of the insert using radiation from lamps but do not teach heating using heating element like resistive heating.
Koichi Yamazaki discloses resistive heating element disposed in showerhead in apart which guides gas going in to plasma chamber (Fig 3, 16). The heater is a resistance heater (Para 5) which is generally made from metal or carbon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have resistive heating element included in the inserts to control the temperature of gas being guided through them for process requirement.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus et al (US 8512472) in view of Saxler (US 20060278891).
Regarding claim 15 Vatus et al disclose a coating of silicon carbide on graphite (Col 7 lines 48-50) but do not disclose its thickness. Silicon carbide is known to be available in different colors including black which would make it opaque.
Saxler et al disclose a thickness of silicon carbide on a semiconductor structure of less than 1mm (Claim 74 and 75).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have a coating of silicon carbide on graphite of less than 1mm on the inserts for its compatibility with semiconductor parts, being semi-insulating itself.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatus et al (US 8512472) in view of Delong Li (US 20220412806).
Regarding claim 18 Vatus et al disclose a coating of silicon carbide on graphite (Col 7 lines 48-50) but do not disclose its roughness. Silicon carbide is known to be available in different colors including black which would make it opaque.
Delong Li disclose a roughness of silicon carbide on a semiconductor structure of 0.8-6.3 micron (Para 18 and claim 14) for good optical absorption which would be beneficial for absorption heating.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have a roughness of coating of silicon carbide in claimed range for good optical absorption property.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okabe et al (US 20140290573) discloses an apparatus to allow laminar guided flow over a substrate and radiation heating for processing on a substrate.
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716