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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make impurities less than 5ppm, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2015/0368829 to Ngo in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0168174 to Foree, WO2019/133558 to Guercio et al and United States Patent No. 5551983 to Shepard Jr. et al or United States Patent Application No. 2015/0368829 to Ngo in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0168174 to Foree and WO2019/133558 to Guercio et al is presented below.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0368829 to Ngo in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0168174 to Foree, WO2019/133558 to Guercio et al and United States Patent No. 5551983 to Shepard Jr. et al. United States Patent Application No. 2021/0017029 to Guercio et al is relied upon for paragraph citation purposes for WO2019/133558.
In regards to Claim 1, Ngo teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3A, 3B for use in a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1 for supporting a wafer 108, the susceptor comprising: a susceptor substrate formed of graphite (106 formed of [0026, 0035]) and having a front side 312 Fig. 3A and a back side 314 Fig. 3B opposite the front side; and a coating layer formed of silicon-carbide (SiC) (as the susceptor is made out of SiC coated graphite [0026, 0035]) and deposited on the susceptor substrate, wherein the front side of the susceptor substrate has a pocket (recessed area 308) configured to hold a wafer 108 to be processed in a processing chamber 100, the pocket being textured with a first pattern (ridges 310 Fig. 3A), and the back side of the susceptor substrate is textured with a second pattern (ridges 315 Fig. 3B) comprising an array of portions having a cut therebetween (as shown in the arcuate and concentric raised fins, [0022-0046)).
Ngo does not expressly teach the thickness of the susceptor substrate is from 1-15 mm.
Foree teaches a susceptor 42 Fig. 2, 6, 7a, 7b (and more specifically, the top plate of 78 and the embodiment without gas holes in Fig. 7A, 7B) for use in a processing chamber 20 Fig. 2 for supporting a wafer, the susceptor comprising: a susceptor substrate (body of 42/78) having a front side (top side of 42/78 on which 44 is supported thereon) and a back side opposite the front side (bottom of 78), and a coating layer (thin coating of silicon carbide on a graphite susceptor body, [0050]) deposited on the susceptor substrate [0050], wherein the front side has a pocket 92 configured to hold a wafer to be processed in a processing chamber [0051], the pocket being textured with a first pattern (formed by the 222, 220 grid protrusions), and the back side is textured with a second pattern (coating of silicon carbide that has a lip as shown in Fig. 7A [0039-0084)).
Foree teaches that the susceptor 42 has a thickness of 0.30 inches or 7.62 mm.
Foree teaches the first pattern is a grid pattern (formed by grid protrusions and grid grooves) having a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm (0.20X0.20 mm [0066)), a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm (1.0-1.5 mm [0067]), and a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm (0.35-0.55 mm [0067]).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus Ngo and its generic susceptor thickness, with the specific thickness of a susceptor of 7.62 mm, as per the teachings of Foree, for a known analogous susceptor thickness. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Ngo in view of Foree does not expressly teach the coating layer has a thickness of 40-300µm or that the porous graphite has an impurity level below 5ppm and having pores into which SiC tendrils are formed.
Guercio teaches a purified graphite member for susceptors [0002] that is coated with SiC (50µm-75µm [0466]), the graphite member [0098] being porous and having impurities of 5 ppm [0208, 0272], with tendrils therein that are formed from the SiC coating into the pores of the porous graphite [0282], [0058-0571]. Guercio teaches expressly that the purification of the graphite susceptor substrate allows for surface cleaning, thereby removing dust and loose particles [0210] but also allows for chlorination treatment of the porous graphite to give a desired porosity to form a desired SiC coating to improve the strength of the substrate support/susceptor [0122-280].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have made the susceptor substrate of Ngo in view of Foree out of porous graphite with a impurity level of less than 5 ppm and coated with SiC to form SiC tendrils in the pores, as per the teachings of Guercio. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of remove dust and loose particles to provide for the chlorination of the substrate to create a desired porosity such that the SiC tendrils are formed for mechanical strengthening of the susceptor can be performed.
It has also been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a susceptor porous graphite substrate of Ngo in view of Foree out of porous graphite that has an impurity level of less than 5 ppm as taught by Guercio with SiC coating of 50-75µm, a range that fulfills the claimed coating thickness range, in order to form SiC tendrils in the porous carbon substrate for a desired material for a susceptor, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so, especially with the added motivation of strengthening the susceptor substrate from this material formation.
Ngo in view of Foree and Guercio does not expressly teach the pocket and bottom pattern are both first patterns.
Shepard, Jr. teaches that a substrate support 120 that has a substrate 170 mounted thereon (Col. 5 lines 10-57) can have patterns 122,124 Fig. 9 that are the same on the top for 124 and the bottom of 122, (Col. 4 line 55-Col. 7 line 67); the patterns being arranged to obtain a generally uniform temperature for deposition (Col. 6 lines 49-60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ngo in view of Foree and Guercio, by making the top and bottom patterns the same, i.e., a first pattern, as per the teachings of Shepard, Jr. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of obtaining general uniform temperature for deposition. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 2-3, Ngo in view of Foree, Guercio and Shepard, Jr. do not expressly teach the thickness of the susceptor substrate 6.35 mm or the thickness of the susceptor substrate is about 3.7 mm.
Foree does expressly teach that the thickness is dependent on the overall size of the susceptor [0050], which is also implicitly dependent on the overall size of the wafer.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Ngo in view of Foree, Guercio and Shepard, Jr. expressly teach a thickness within 1-15 mm, as per limitations of the independent claim, and as Foree teaches that changing the susceptor thickness is obvious dependent on the overall size of the susceptor which is dependent on the size of the substrate, the thickness of the susceptor is thus a result effective variables for creating a thickness for a susceptor dependent on the size of the substrate, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the susceptor thickness is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 4, Ngo does not expressly teach wherein the first pattern is a grid pattern having a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm, a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm, and a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm.
Foree teaches the first pattern is a grid pattern (formed by grid protrusions and grid grooves) having a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm (0.20X0.20 mm [0066)), a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm (1.0-1.5 mm [0067]), and a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm (0.35-0.55 mm [0067]).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 Il. Thus It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the support surface of Ngo in view of Foree and Guercio and Shepard, Jr., with the support surface of Foree, as an art analogous component of a substrate support surface for a susceptor.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of substrate support surface that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the grid as per the teachings of Foree. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 5, Ngo does not expressly teach the susceptor substrate is a disc-shaped plate having a diameter of between 150 mm and 400 mm, but does expressly teach that the diameter of the susceptor can be sized slightly larger than the diameter [0039-0040].
Foree teaches the diameter of the susceptor can be sized to wafers having a diameter of 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm with a thickness of 0.725-0.775 mm [0005].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ngo to make the susceptor have a diameter that can accommodate the substrate/wafer diameters of 150-300 mm, as per the teachings of Foree. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would have a diameter that is slightly larger than the diameter of the substrate/wafer, and thus would overlap the range of 150-400mm, would fulfill the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 6, Ngo teaches the substrate pocket/recess is sized to be slightly larger than the diameter of the substrate and about half the thickness of the substrate/wafer, but does not expressly the recess/pocket has a diameter 150 mm and 300 mm, and a depth of between 0.30 mm and 1.00 mm.
Foree teaches the diameter of the susceptor can be sized to wafers having a diameter of 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm with a thickness of 0.725-0.775 mm [0005].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ngo to make the susceptor have a diameter that can accommodate the substrate/wafer diameters of 150-300 mm and 0.725-0.775 mm thick, as per the teachings of Foree. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would have a recess/pocket diameter that is slightly larger than the diameter of the substrate/wafer and pocket/recess depth of about half the thickness the substrate, and thus would overlap the range of 150-300mm and about 0.35mm, would fulfill the claimed limitations.
Furthermore, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of substrate/wafer and its size would be accounted for in the apparatus of Ngo in view of Foree, Guercio and Shepard, Jr. would be capable of processing a size of substrate/wafer and adjust the pocket/recess therein, based on user selection of the type of substrate, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Claim(s) 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0368829 to Ngo in view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0168174 to Foree and WO2019/133558 to Guercio et al. United States Patent Application No. 2021/0017029 to Guercio et al is relied upon for paragraph citation purposes.
In regards to Claim 8, Ngo teaches a susceptor 300 Fig. 3A, 3B for use in a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1 for supporting a wafer 108, the susceptor comprising: a susceptor substrate formed of graphite (106 formed of [0026, 0035]) and having a front side 312 Fig. 3A and a back side 314 Fig. 3B opposite the front side; and a coating layer formed of silicon-carbide (SiC) (as the susceptor is made out of SiC coated graphite [0026, 0035]) and deposited on the susceptor substrate, wherein the front side of the susceptor substrate has a pocket (recessed area 308) configured to hold a wafer 108 to be processed in a processing chamber 100, the pocket being textured with a first pattern (ridges 310 Fig. 3A), and the back side of the susceptor substrate is textured with a second pattern (ridges 315 Fig. 3B) comprising an array of portions having a cut therebetween (as shown in the arcuate and concentric raised fins, [0022-0046)).
Ngo does not expressly teach the thickness of the susceptor substrate is from 1-15 mm.
Foree teaches a susceptor 42 Fig. 2, 6, 7a, 7b (and more specifically, the top plate of 78 and the embodiment without gas holes in Fig. 7A, 7B) for use in a processing chamber 20 Fig. 2 for supporting a wafer, the susceptor comprising: a susceptor substrate (body of 42/78) having a front side (top side of 42/78 on which 44 is supported thereon) and a back side opposite the front side (bottom of 78), and a coating layer (thin coating of silicon carbide on a graphite susceptor body, [0050]) deposited on the susceptor substrate [0050], wherein the front side has a pocket 92 configured to hold a wafer to be processed in a processing chamber [0051], the pocket being textured with a first pattern (formed by the 222, 220 grid protrusions), and the back side is textured with a second pattern (coating of silicon carbide that has a lip as shown in Fig. 7A [0039-0084)).
Foree teaches that the susceptor 42 has a thickness of 0.30 inches or 7.62 mm.
Foree teaches the first pattern is a grid pattern (formed by grid protrusions and grid grooves) having a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm (0.20X0.20 mm [0066)), a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm (1.0-1.5 mm [0067]), and a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm (0.35-0.55 mm [0067]).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus Ngo and its generic susceptor thickness, with the specific thickness of a susceptor of 7.62 mm, as per the teachings of Foree, for a known analogous susceptor thickness. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Ngo in view of Foree does not expressly teach the coating layer has a thickness of 40-300µm or that the porous graphite has an impurity level below 5ppm and having pores into which SiC tendrils are formed.
Guercio teaches a purified graphite member for susceptors [0002] that is coated with SiC (50µm-75µm [0466]), the graphite member [0098] being porous and having impurities of 5 ppm [0208, 0272], with tendrils therein that are formed from the SiC coating into the pores of the porous graphite [0282], [0058-0571]. Guercio teaches expressly that the purification of the graphite susceptor substrate allows for surface cleaning, thereby removing dust and loose particles [0210] but also allows for chlorination treatment of the porous graphite to give a desired porosity to form a desired SiC coating to improve the strength of the substrate support/susceptor [0122-280].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have made the susceptor substrate of Ngo in view of Foree out of porous graphite with a impurity level of less than 5 ppm and coated with SiC to form SiC tendrils in the pores, as per the teachings of Guercio. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of remove dust and loose particles to provide for the chlorination of the substrate to create a desired porosity such that the SiC tendrils are formed for mechanical strengthening of the susceptor can be performed.
It has also been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a susceptor porous graphite substrate of Ngo in view of Foree out of porous graphite that has an impurity level of less than 5 ppm as taught by Guercio with SiC coating of 50-75µm, a range that fulfills the claimed coating thickness range, in order to form SiC tendrils in the porous carbon substrate for a desired material for a susceptor, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so, especially with the added motivation of strengthening the susceptor substrate from this material formation.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 9, Ngo in view of Foree and Guercio does not expressly teach the thickness of the susceptor substrate 6.35 mm.
Foree does expressly teach that the thickness is dependent on the overall size of the susceptor [0050], which is also implicitly dependent on the overall size of the wafer.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Ngo in view of Foree and Guercio expressly teach a thickness within 1-15 mm, as per limitations of the independent claim, and as Foree teaches that changing the susceptor thickness is obvious dependent on the overall size of the susceptor which is dependent on the size of the substrate, the thickness of the susceptor is thus a result effective variables for creating a thickness for a susceptor dependent on the size of the substrate, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the susceptor thickness is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 10, Ngo does not expressly teach wherein the first pattern is a grid pattern having a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm, a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm, and a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm.
Foree teaches the first pattern is a grid pattern (formed by grid protrusions and grid grooves) having a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm (0.20X0.20 mm [0066)), a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm (1.0-1.5 mm [0067]), and a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm (0.35-0.55 mm [0067]).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 Il. Thus It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the support surface of Ngo, with the support surface of Foree, as an art analogous component of a substrate support surface for a susceptor.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of substrate support surface that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the grid as per the teachings of Foree. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 10, Ngo does not expressly teach wherein the first pattern is a grid pattern having a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm, a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm, and a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm.
Foree teaches the first pattern is a grid pattern (formed by grid protrusions and grid grooves with intersecting stripes) having a width of between 0.20 mm and 3.00 mm (0.20X0.20 mm [0066)), a pitch of between 0.80 mm and 3.00 mm (1.0-1.5 mm [0067]), and a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm (0.35-0.55 mm [0067]).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 Il. Thus It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second surface of Ngo, with the support surface dimensions (width, depth and pitch) of Foree, as an art analogous component of a substrate support surface for a susceptor.
It has been held that change of shape, and thus implicitly the size, is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of substrate support surface that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting the grid as per the teachings of Foree. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claims 11-12, Ngo teaches the second pattern is concentric stripes, as shown in Fig. 3B, but does not expressly teach a depth of between 0.10 mm and 5.00 mm or a width of between 0.50 mm and 30.00 mm, and a pitch of between 0.50 mm and 3.00 mm.
In regards to Claim 13, Ngo does not expressly teach the susceptor substrate is a disc-shaped plate having a diameter of between 150 mm and 400 mm, but does expressly teach that the diameter of the susceptor can be sized slightly larger than the diameter [0039-0040].
Foree teaches the diameter of the susceptor can be sized to wafers having a diameter of 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm with a thickness of 0.725-0.775 mm [0005].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ngo to make the susceptor have a diameter that can accommodate the substrate/wafer diameters of 150-300 mm, as per the teachings of Foree. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would have a diameter that is slightly larger than the diameter of the substrate/wafer, and thus would overlap the range of 150-400mm, would fulfill the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 14, Ngo teaches the substrate pocket/recess is sized to be slightly larger than the diameter of the substrate and about half the thickness of the substrate/wafer, but does not expressly the recess/pocket has a diameter 150 mm and 300 mm, and a depth of between 0.30 mm and 1.00 mm.
Foree teaches the diameter of the susceptor can be sized to wafers having a diameter of 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm with a thickness of 0.725-0.775 mm [0005].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ngo to make the susceptor have a diameter that can accommodate the substrate/wafer diameters of 150-300 mm and 0.725-0.775 mm thick, as per the teachings of Foree. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would have a recess/pocket diameter that is slightly larger than the diameter of the substrate/wafer and pocket/recess depth of about half the thickness the substrate, and thus would overlap the range of 150-300mm and about 0.35mm, would fulfill the claimed limitations.
Furthermore, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of substrate/wafer and its size would be accounted for in the apparatus of Ngo in view of Foree and Guercio would be capable of processing a size of substrate/wafer and adjust the pocket/recess therein, based on user selection of the type of substrate, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716