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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 and Species B, in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the particulars of Group I can be found in the claims of Group II; and that the particulars of any of species A-C would reveal references applicable to all the species if any such references suggest. Applicant also notes that the species may overlap. This is not found persuasive because whether or not references might not be revealed when searching the elected group and species does not address the reason for the requirements. The groups and the species require different search areas and different search terms. The requirements for election are not based on the areas that converge rather the areas that diverge. In the instant case, it is the divergent search areas that are a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
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 1-18 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 1 “each of the plurality of vent holes”. There is only one plurality of vent holes claimed. Therefore, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each vent hole of the plurality of vent holes and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 “each of the lift pin holes”. Previously recited, there are a plurality of lift pin holes. Therefore, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each lift pin hole of the plurality of lift pin holes and has examined accordingly.
Claim 2 recites a pattern formed in a top surface thereof. However, it is not clear to what top surface the claim is referring. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to a refer to a top surface of the inner region and had examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 3 recites “the substrate contact surfaces”. However, since the feature relates to the substrate contact surfaces of each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to the same and has examined accordingly. Additionally, claim 3 recites a percentage but fails to state clearly how it is to be calculated. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the percentage/ratio was meant to refer to a ratio of the sum of the substrate contact surfaces of the each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts to the inner region and has examined accordingly.
Claim 4 recites each substrate support post. Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts and has examined accordingly.
Claim 12 “the plurality of bumps each”. There is only one plurality of bumps claimed. Therefore, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each bump of the plurality of bumps and has examined accordingly.
Claim 12 “each of the plurality vent holes”. There is only one plurality of vent holes claimed. Therefore, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each vent hole of the plurality of vent holes and has examined accordingly.
Claim 12 “each of the lift pin holes”. Previously recited, there are a plurality of lift pin holes. Therefore, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each lift pin hole of the plurality of lift pin holes and has examined accordingly.
Claim 16 recites each substrate support post. Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts and has examined accordingly.
Note: Examiner’s assumptions are just that and are not an indication that original support exists. Applicant should revisit and clarify their originally disclosed invention to properly claimed the disclosed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0037761 to Ries et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0137398 to Goodman.
Regarding claim 1: in, e.g., Figs. 2 and 4., Ries et al. disclose a susceptor substantially as claimed and comprising: a ring shaped body (12) having a first side (i.e. top side) and a second side (i.e. bottom side), the body having a centerline (i.e. corresponding to central axis) extending normally through the first and second sides, the body comprising: a rim having an inner diameter wall, the inner diameter wall defined at a first radius relative to the to the centerline; an inner region circumscribed by the inner diameter wall of the rim, the inner region being recessed relative to the rim to form a recess pocket that is configured to receive a substrate; a plurality of lift pin holes (23-25) formed through the inner region; and a venting region defined within the inner region, the venting region defined by a plurality of vent holes (15-21) formed through the body, the venting region terminating at a second radius originating from the centerline, each of the plurality of vent holes having a diameter less than a diameter of the lift pin holes (see, e.g., paras. 65 and 79).
Examiner also notes that Ries et al. teaches that the wafer support device (i.e. susceptor) may be sized to accommodate any diameter silicon wafer (see, e.g. para. 61), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic, wherein the venting holes are provided to be located directly below a substrate to be processed (see, e.g, para. 63). Further still, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, Ries et al. fail to disclose a plurality of bumps extending radially into the inner region from the inner diameter wall of the rim.
Goodman discloses providing a susceptor with a plurality of bumps (see, e.g., 250, Fig. 7A-8) extending radially into an inner region from an inner diameter wall of a rim of a susceptor for the purpose of keeping a substrate away from an inner diameter wall to control temperature thereof (see, e.g., para. 62-66).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a plurality of bumps extending radially into the inner region from the inner diameter wall of the rim if Ries et al. in order to keep substrate away from an inner diameter wall to control temperature thereof as taught by Goodman.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Ries et al., Goodman discloses a pattern (including features 220, 222, 224 and 226) formed on a top surface of the inner region, the pattern comprising a plurality of substrate support posts (i.e. protrusions 220). In modified Ries et al. the provision of vent holes and corresponding vent channels across the inner region would inherently provide for the plurality of substrate posts separated by a plurality of venting channels at at least portions of the inner region. In Ries et al. the feature of the vent hole at the top surface thereof is considered the vent hole, whereas the extension from through the disk shaped body to the second side is considered the venting channel.
With respect to claim 3, although modified Ries et al. fail to disclose each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts comprises a substrate contact surface along the top surface of the inner region, and wherein a surface ratio of the substrate contact surfaces to an area of the inner region, Goodman discloses optimizing the configuration of the features in order to minimize wafer slide, stick and curl while maintaining good thermal exchange properties and minimize a risk of process gases reacting the backside of a substrate during processing (see, e.g., paras. 48-51). Additionally, again, it is noted that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 4, in modified Ries et al., Goodman discloses each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts comprises a substrate contact surface along the top surface of the inner region, and wherein the substrate contact surfaces are substantial flat with respect to a lateral plane of the disk-shaped body. See, e.g., Fig. 1A.
With respect to claims 6-8, in modified Ries et al., Ries et al. teaches that the wafer support device (i.e. susceptor) may be sized (including positioning of vent holes) to accommodate any diameter silicon wafer (see, e.g. para. 61), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic, wherein the venting holes are provided to be located directly below a substrate to be processed (see, e.g., para. 63). Further still, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 9, modified Ries et al. fail to disclose the first section of the first bump is at least 8 mm from the second radius, wherein the second radius corresponds to the area of the venting region. As detailed above, Ries et al. disclose that the venting region can be adapted to substrate size with respect to sizing and the exact relative arrangement of features of the susceptor, Examiner notes that Ries et al. teach that the wafer support device (i.e. susceptor) may be sized to accommodate any diameter silicon wafer (see, e.g. para. 61), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic, wherein the venting holes are provided to be located directly below a substrate to be processed (see, e.g., para. 63).
With respect to claim 11, in modified Ries et al., Ries et al. disclose a non-venting region defined within the interior region and circumscribing the venting region, the non-venting region being devoid of holes. See, e.g., Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12: in, e.g., Figs. 2 and 4., Ries et al. disclose a susceptor substantially as claimed and comprising: a ring shaped body (12) having a first side (i.e. top side) and a second side (i.e. bottom side), the body having a centerline (i.e. corresponding to central axis) extending normally through the first and second sides, the body comprising: a rim having an inner diameter wall, the inner diameter wall defined at a first radius relative to the to the centerline; an inner region circumscribed by the inner diameter wall of the rim, the inner region being recessed relative to the rim to form a recessed pocket that is configured to receive a substrate; a plurality of lift pin holes (23-25) formed through the inner region; and a venting region defined within the inner region, the venting region defined by a plurality of vent holes (15-21) formed through the body, the venting region terminating at a second radius originating from the centerline, each vent hole of the plurality of the plurality of vent holes having a diameter less than a diameter of each lift pin hole of the plurality of lift pin holes (see, e.g., paras. 65 and 79).
Examiner also notes that Ries et al. teaches that the wafer support device (i.e. susceptor) may be sized to accommodate any diameter silicon wafer (see, e.g. para. 61), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic, wherein the venting holes are provided to be located directly below a substrate to be processed (see, e.g, para. 63). Further still, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, Ries et al. fail to disclose a plurality of bumps extending radially into the inner region from the inner diameter wall of the rim, the plurality of bumps configured to contact (i.e. capable of contacting) an edge of the substrate when the substrate is disposed in the recessed pocket, the plurality of bumps extending into the inner region; the second radius at least 4.0 millimeter less than the first radius; the plurality of vent holes are at least 2mm from the plurality of bumps; or a pattern formed in a top surface of the recessed region, the pattern comprising a plurality of substrate supports separated by venting channels, the plurality of vent holes exiting the top surface into the plurality of venting channels.
Goodman discloses providing a susceptor with a plurality of bumps (see, e.g., 250, Fig. 7A-8) extending radially into an inner region from an inner diameter wall of a rim of a susceptor for the purpose of keeping a substrate away from an inner diameter wall to control temperature thereof (see, e.g., para. 62-66). Goodman further discloses a pattern (including features 220, 222, 224 and 226) formed on a top surface of the inner region, the pattern comprising a plurality of substrate support posts (i.e. protrusions 220) (see, e.g., paras. 48-51). In modified Ries et al. the provision of vent holes and corresponding vent channels across the inner region would inherently provide for the plurality of substrate posts separated by a plurality of venting channels at at least portions of the inner region. In Ries et al. the feature of the vent hole at the top surface thereof is considered the vent hole, whereas the extension from through the disk-shaped body to the second side is considered the venting channel.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a plurality of bumps extending radially into the inner region from the inner diameter wall of the rim and a pattern formed on a top surface of the inner region, the pattern comprising a plurality of substrate support posts the plurality of substrate posts separated by a plurality of venting channels at at least portions of the inner region in Ries et al. in order to keep the substrate away from an inner diameter wall to control temperature thereof and in order to minimize wafer slide, stick and curl while maintaining good thermal exchange properties and minimize a risk of process gases reacting the backside of a substrate during processing as taught by Goodman.
With respect to sizing and the exact relative arrangement of features of the susceptor, Examiner notes that Ries et al. teaches that the wafer support device (i.e. susceptor) may be sized to accommodate any diameter silicon wafer (see, e.g. para. 61), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic, wherein the venting holes are provided to be located directly below a substrate to be processed (see, e.g., para. 63). Further still, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, Goodman discloses optimizing the configuration of the features in order to minimize wafer slide, stick and curl while maintaining good thermal exchange properties and minimize a risk of process gases reacting the backside of a substrate during processing (see, e.g., paras. 48-51). Additionally, again, it is noted that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity common sense and logic would in possession of the disclosures of Ries et al. and Goodman would be able to optimize the sizing and the relative arrangement of features of the susceptor based on the teaching therein.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Ries et al., in Fig. 7A, Goodman disclose a first bump of the plurality of bumps further comprises a first section (e.g. surface 260) having a radius from the centerline greater than about 4mm; a second section (e.g. one lateral side) connecting the inner diameter of the rim to the first section; and a third section (e.g. other lateral side) connecting the inner diameter wall of the rim to the first section (see, e.g., paras. 38, 41 and 49).
With respect to claim 14, modified Ries et al. fail to disclose the first section of the first bump is at least 8 mm from the second radius, wherein the second radius corresponds to the area of the venting region. As detailed above, Ries et al. disclose that the venting region can be adapted to substrate size with respect to sizing and the exact relative arrangement of features of the susceptor, Examiner notes that Ries et al. teach that the wafer support device (i.e. susceptor) may be sized to accommodate any diameter silicon wafer (see, e.g. para. 61), as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic, wherein the venting holes are provided to be located directly below a substrate to be processed (see, e.g., para. 63).
With respect to claim 15, in modified Ries et al., Ries et al. disclose a non-venting region defined within the interior region and circumscribing the venting region, the non-venting region being devoid of holes. See, e.g., Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 16, in modified Ries et al., Goodman et al. disclose each substrate support post of the plurality of substrate support posts comprises a contact surface along the top inner surface of the inner region, and wherein the substrate contact surfaces appear to be substantially coplanar and substantially parallel with respect to a lateral plane of the of the disk-shaped body, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide them as such. As detailed above, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 18, in modified Ries et al., Goodman disclose the entirety of the susceptor may have a SiC (silicon carbide) coating disposed on the top surfaces thereof (see, e.g., paras. 37).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ries et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6-16 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0064268 to Lin et al.
Modified Ries et al. disclose the susceptor substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Ries et al. fail to disclose the plurality of substrate support posts have a curved substrate contact surface.
Lin et al. teach providing substrate support posts having a curved substrate contact surface for the purpose of creating a reduced contact area between a substrate and a susceptor and promoting better gas circulation around the substrate (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-8 and 10A-B; paras. 43, 47, 53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the substrate support posts in modified Ries et al. having a curved substrate contact surface for the purpose of creating a reduced contact area between a substrate and a susceptor and promoting better gas circulation around the substrate as taught by Lin et al.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Patent Pubs. 2004/0255843; 2005/0000449; 2016/0133504; 2018/0204747; 2022/0108912 and U.S. Patent 12,170,213 disclose susceptors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights