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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “seating groove” in line 6 should be corrected as --seating grooves--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “seating groove” in line 6 should be corrected as --seating grooves--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4 and 10-13 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.
Claim 2 recites “the installation grooves” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 2 recites a plurality of installation holes and seating grooves. It is not clear whether “the installation grooves” refers to either one of a plurality of installation holes and seating grooves, or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, upon reviewing of the originally filed specification and drawings, “the installation grooves” is interpreted as --the installation [[grooves]]holes--.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the protection plugs” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the protection plugs” is interpreted as --[[the]] protection plugs--.
Claim 10 recites “the installation grooves” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 2 recites a plurality of installation holes and seating grooves. It is not clear whether “the installation grooves” refers to either one of a plurality of installation holes and seating grooves, or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, upon reviewing of the originally filed specification and drawings, “the installation grooves” is interpreted as --the installation [[grooves]]holes--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the protection plugs” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “wherein each of the protection plugs comprises:” is interpreted as --further comprising protection plugs, wherein each of the protection plugs comprises--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the protection plugs” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “wherein each of the protection plugs comprises:” is interpreted as --further comprising protection plugs, wherein each of the protection plugs comprises--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the protection plugs” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 13 is interpreted as below:
--The lift pin protection assembly of claim 9, further comprising protection plugs protruding, wherein a distance from the bottom surface of the susceptor to a lower end of each of the protection plugs is about 6 mm to about 10 mm.--
Claim 3-4 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asakura (US 2006/0219178 A1).
Regarding claim 1¸ Asakura (‘178) discloses a substrate processing apparatus (fig1) comprising: a chamber 22 (para[0039]) in which a process with respect to a substrate W (para[0043], fig1) is performed; a susceptor 38 (para[0043]) which is installed in the chamber 22 (fig1) and on which the substrate W (fig1) is placed; a plurality of lift pins 52 (para[0061], fig3) passing through the susceptor 38 to support the substrate W; and a plurality of protection plugs 68 (fig3, para[0065]) protruding from a bottom surface 38b (fig3) of the susceptor 38 (fig3) to surround a portion of each of the lift pins 52 (fig3) protruding from the bottom surface of the susceptor 38 (fig3).
Regarding claim 5¸ Asakura discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the protection plugs 68 comprises: a tube-shaped body (fig3, below an element 68u) in which the lift pin 52 is installed; and a support ring 68u (para[0065], fig3) installed on an upper portion of the body (fig3) so as to be accommodated in a seating groove 50Xa (para[0065], fig3) defined in a top surface of the susceptor 38 (fig3), wherein an outer diameter of the support ring 68u is greater than an outer diameter of the body (fig3).
Regarding claim 9¸ Asakura discloses a lift pin protection assembly (fig3) installed on a susceptor 38 (para[0043]) to protrude from a bottom surface of the susceptor 38 (fig3) and surround a portion of a lift pin 52 (para[0061], fig3) protruding from the bottom surface of the susceptor 38 (fig3).
Regarding claim 11, Asakura discloses the lift pin protection assembly of claim 9, wherein each of protection plugs 68 (para[0065], fig3) comprises: a tube-shaped body (fig3, below an element 68u); and a support ring 68u (para[0065], fig3) installed on an upper portion of the body (fig3) so as to be accommodated in a seating groove 50Xa (para[0065], fig3) defined in a top surface of the susceptor 38 (fig3), wherein an outer diameter of the support ring 68u is greater than an outer diameter of the body (fig3).
Regarding claim 12¸ Asakura discloses the lift pin protection assembly of claim 9, wherein each of protection plugs 68 (para[0065], fig3) comprises: a tube-shaped body (fig3, below an element 68u) in which the lift pin 52 is installed (fig3); and a support head 68u (fig3, para[0065]) installed on an upper portion of the body (fig3) and coupled to a coupling hole 50X (para[0064], fig3) which is defined in the susceptor 38 and is opened toward a lower portion of the susceptor 38 (fig3).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 2006/0219178 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Asakura discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a distance from the bottom surface of the susceptor to a lower end of each of the protection plus. It is noted 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between about 6mm to about 10mm.
Regarding claim 13¸ Asakura discloses the lift pin protection assembly of claim 9, comprising protection plugs 68 (fig3, para[0065]). However, Asakura does explicitly disclose a distance from the bottom surface of the susceptor to a lower end of each of the protection plus. It is noted 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between about 6mm to about 10mm.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 2006/0219178 A1) in view of Dornfest et al (5,680,013).
Regarding claim 2¸ Asakura discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of installation holes 50X (para[0064], fig3), in which the protection plugs 68 are installed (fig3), respectively, and seating groove 50Xa (para[0065], fig3), which are respectively defined in upper portions of the installation holes 50X (fig3). However, Asakura does not explicitly disclose a use of a protection cover wherein the plurality of installation holes and the seating grooves are parts of the protection cover. Dornfest et al (‘013) teaches a use of a protection cover 30 (col.6 lines44-45) having a flat plate (fig5), which is capable of being fixed to a bottom surface of a susceptor 10 (fig5, col.6 lines38-39, via coupling tools 40,42) to protect the bottom surface of the susceptor 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asakura to use a protection cover, as taught by Dornfest et al, to protect the bottom surface of the susceptor. It is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Asakura and Dornfest et al to have the installation holes and the seating groove on the protection cover instead of the susceptor as it would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP2144.04 VI.C.).
Regarding claim 3¸ the combination of Asakura and Dornfest et al teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2. Asakura further discloses wherein each of the protection plugs 68 comprises: a tube-shaped body (fig3, below an element 68u) in which the lift pin 52 is installed; and a support ring 68u (para[0065], fig3) installed on an upper portion of the body (fig3) so as to be accommodated in a seating groove 50Xa (para[0065], fig3) defined in a top surface of the susceptor 38 (fig3), wherein an outer diameter of the support ring 68u is greater than an outer diameter of the body (fig3).
Regarding claim 4¸ the combination of Asakura and Dornfest et al teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the protection cover (Dornfest et al) is fixed to the bottom surface of the susceptor through a plurality of coupling tools 40,42 (fig5, col.6 lines40, Dornfest et al) and has an outer diameter less than a diameter of the substrate (It is noted that a substrate is an intended use and it is only required for the prior art to be capable of performing the intended use. Depending a size of the substrate, the outer diameter of the protection cover can be less than a diameter of the substrate).
Regarding claim 10¸ Asakura discloses the lift pin protection assembly of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of installation holes 50X (para[0064], fig3), in which protection plugs 68 (fig3, para[0065]) are installed (fig3), respectively, and seating groove 50Xa (para[0065], fig3), which are respectively defined in upper portions of the installation holes 50X (fig3). However, Asakura does not explicitly disclose a use of a protection cover wherein the plurality of installation holes and the seating grooves are parts of the protection cover. Dornfest et al (‘013) teaches a use of a protection cover 30 (col.6 lines44-45) having a flat plate (fig5), which is capable of being fixed to a bottom surface of a susceptor 10 (fig5, col.6 lines38-39, via coupling tools 40,42) to protect the bottom surface of the susceptor 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asakura to use a protection cover, as taught by Dornfest et al, to protect the bottom surface of the susceptor. It is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Asakura and Dornfest et al to have the installation holes and the seating groove on the protection cover instead of the susceptor as it would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP2144.04 VI.C.).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (US 2006/0219178 A1) in view of Aida (US 2010/0101491 A1).
Regarding claim 6¸ Asakura discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the susceptor 38 comprises: a plurality of lift pin holes 49 (para[0048]) vertically disposed so that the lift pins 52 are installed (fig3), respectively; and coupling holes 50X (para[0064]) opened toward a lower portion of the susceptor 38 (fig3), wherein each of the coupling holes 50X has a diameter greater than that of each of the lift pin holes 49 (fig3), wherein the protection plug 68 comprises: a tube-shaped body (fig3, below an element 68u) in which the lift pin 52 is installed; and a support head 68u installed on an upper portion of the body so as to be coupled to each of the coupling holes 50X (fig3). However, Asakura does not explicitly disclose that the coupling holes are disposed below the lift pin holes. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use coupling holes disposed below the lift pin holes because Applicant has not disposed that having the coupling holes below the lift pin holes provide an advantage, is used for particular purpose, solves a stated problem, or a new and unexpected result is produced. One of ordinary sill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Asakura’s coupling holes and applicant’s coupling holes, to perform equally well because both Asakura’s coupling holes and applicant’s coupling holes would perform the same function of receiving the protection plugs. As seen in figs 4A and 4B, Aida (‘491) teaches a use of coupling holes 54 (para[0040]) disposed below lift pin holes 55 (para[0040]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Asakura to have the coupling holes below the lift pin holes, also as taught by Aida, because such modification would have been considered a mere matter of a choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant, thus, fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Asakura.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Asakura and Aida teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 6. Asakura further discloses wherein an outer diameter of an upper end (right below the support head 68u, fig3) of the body is greater than an outer diameter of a lower end (fig3, the body tapers down toward the bottom end) of the body and is less than a diameter of the coupling hole 50X (to be inserted within the coupling hole).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights