DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 5/20/2026 with an RCE.
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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 15-16 are pending.
Claims 4-5 and 9-14 are cancelled.
Claims 15-16 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Takemori (US Pub. 2022/0028719) in view of Shiraiwa (US Pub. 2013/0308244), Takasaki (US Pub. 2013/0286533), and Araki (US Pub. 2022/0026151).
Examiner notes Takemori was cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 9/30/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Takemori teaches a ceramic susceptor (Fig. 3, entirety) comprising: a base substrate (Fig. 3, outermost sidewalls) having a gas flow path ([0021] and Fig. 3, hole part #7) configured to supply cooling gas ([0021]: helium gas); an insulating plate fixed on the base substrate ([0014] and Fig. 3, top insulating/ceramic base #1 and joining material #3; [0020]: #3 can be silicone resin) and having a gas hole ([0021] and Fig. 3, hole #9); and a pore structure ([0014] and Fig. 3, sleeve #10 and porous member #5) configured to allow the gas flow path and the gas hole to communicate with each other between the base substrate and the insulating plate (see Fig. 3 and [0023]), the pore structure including a support ([0023] and Fig. 3, sleeve #10) fixed to a groove of the base substrate (see Fig. 3) and having a communication hole configured to communicate with the gas flow path (see Fig. 3), a porous filter ([0014] and Fig. 3, porous member #5) embedded between the communication hole and the gas hole on the support (see Fig. 3), and a fluid stopper disposed on an outer side surface of the support ([0014] and Fig. 3, annular member #4), wherein a bonding agent ([0033] and Fig. 3, resin member #12; [0037]: may comprise the same silicone resin material as #3) bonding the base substrate and the insulating plate is confined in a space between the base substrate and the support by the fluid stopper (see Fig. 3, bounded by base, #10, and #4), and wherein the porous filter is disposed between a seating groove of the support and a groove of the insulating plate (Fig. 2, #5 occupies a volume in between #10 and #1).
Takemori does not appear to teach wherein the porous filter extends beyond a top surface of the support and protrudes toward the insulating plate.
However, Shiraiwa teaches wherein a porous filter extends beyond a top surface of a support and protrudes toward an insulating plate (Fig. 8, porous sleeve #320 protrudes upward into a recess within #315; see [0111]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the porous filter of Takemori to extend upward into the adjacent plate in order to effectively insulate the adjacent structures (in Takemori, base #1, joining material #3, support #2) to prevent abnormal electric discharge (Shiraiwa – [0074]).
Modified Takemori does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid stopper is made of silicone ([0029]: broadly acknowledges a variety of materials can be used, for example fluorine resin).
However, Takasaki teaches wherein a fluid stopper is made of silicone (Takasaki – [0026] and Fig. 1, o-rings #44).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the fluorine resin fluid stopper of modified Takemori to comprise the silicone rubber materials according to Takasaki as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Both Takemori and Takasaki teach elastomeric fluid stoppers for CVD apparatuses containing substrate supports, thus a PHOSITA would reasonably consider the two materials to be interchangeable. Additionally, the courts have held that the selection of a known material for its recognized suitability for an intended purpose is supportive of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Takemori does not teach wherein the seating groove has a diameter larger than the communication hole, wherein the support includes a first portion disposed at a location corresponding to the seating groove, and a second portion disposed at a location corresponding to the communication hole, and wherein the first portion has a larger outer diameter than the second portion.
However, Araki teaches this limitation (Araki - [0057] and any of Fig. 5; wider top of insert as compared to lower end with corresponding groove).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Takemori apparatus to comprise a flared top portion similar to Araki in order to suppress overvoltage from passing into the plate body which suppresses arcing (Araki – [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Takemori teaches wherein the fluid stopper includes a ring-shaped sealing member disposed in a groove formed along a perimeter of the support (see #4 around #10 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Takemori teaches wherein the ring-shaped sealing member includes a circular cross-sectional shape (see #4 in Fig. 3, circular cross-section).
Regarding claim 7, Takemori teaches wherein the fluid stopper is disposed at a position of 50 to 80% of a total height of the support (see Figs. 1 and 3, #4 appears positioned at approximately 50% of the height of #10).
Regarding claim 8, (Examiner’s note: this claim is interpreted according to the instant Spec such that the bonding agent comprise silicones – see pgs. 12-14 as filed). In accordance, Takemori teaches wherein the bonding agent comprises silicone ([0033] and Fig. 3, resin member #12; [0037]: may comprise the same silicone resin material as #3).
Regarding claim 15, Takemori teaches wherein the porous filter is an integral porous filter (Fig. 2, #5 depicted as a singular member).
Regarding claim 16, Takemori teaches wherein the porous filter has a vertical cross section having a substantially rectangular shape (Fig. 2, depicted with a rectangular cross section).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemori (US Pub. 2022/0028719), Shiraiwa (US Pub. 2013/0308244), Takasaki (US Pub. 2013/0286533), and Araki (US Pub. 2022/0026151), as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Noorbakhsh (US Pub. 2021/0134554).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 7-8, and 15-16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Takemori teaches a gap between the base substrate and the support within the groove of the base substrate ([0028] and Fig. 3, gap between #10 and #2).
Modified Takemori does not explicitly teach wherein the gap is 0.1 to 0.8 mm.
However, Noorbakhsh teaches wherein a substrate support gap is 0.1 to 0.8mm (Noorbakhsh – [0041] and Figs. 3-4, gaps #312/#326 set to 0.25-0.75 mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the gap of Takemori to between the claimed range since Noorbakhsh teaches such a dimension reduces/prevents arcing within the substrate support (Noorbakhsh – [0041]). The courts have also held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, prima facie obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered and are persuasive in part. The Examiner’s comments are below:
As an initial matter, the Applicant is thanked for providing the Furukawa reference (US 11,842,915) and an explanation of their interpretation- particularly the “unlabeled” structure in question. The Examiner agrees that the “unlabeled” structure of Takemori is most likely an adhesive layer.
However, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s subsequent conclusion that because the “unlabeled” structure is (most likely) an adhesive/bonding material, it cannot be a porous, gas-permeable filter element. The Examiner submits Cohen (US Pub. 2010/0297577, par. [0065]) as evidence of the existence of porous adhesives functioning as a filter. Cohen comments that such a material has the advantageous properties of tacky pores that better capture smaller particles (id.).
There is thus no reason the alleged adhesive/bonding material of Takemori cannot function as a porous, gas-permeable filter.
In accordance with the above, the Examiner submits that a reasonable prima facie case of obviousness can be established where claim 1 is rejected on the same grounds as in the most recent Office Action further in view of Cohen or with Cohen merely as an evidentiary/supporting reference.
However, as new claims 15 and 16 contain limitations that would most likely not be met by this combination of references, the Examiner has instead presented new grounds of rejection further in view of Shiraiwa.
The Examiner respectfully submits that these new grounds of rejection permit Takemori to meet the limitations of new claims 15 and 16 without further modification, and remedy any of the alleged deficiencies of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights