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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
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 1, 3, 10-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US 2013/0309848) in view of Tamamizu et al (US 4,710,428), Schunemann et al (US 2017/0204533) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2016/0340782).
Young et al teaches a reactor capable of the deposition of at least one layer of a semiconductor device by using hydride vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE) (Abstract). Young et al teaches a reactor 100 for inline production of III-V materials grown by HVPE comprising two or more reaction chambers 120, 140, and the substrate can travel within the reactor using a conveyor mechanism or the like ([0022]-[0030]). Young et al also teaches a gas inlet line 115 may provide arsine, and the gas inlet line 115 is separate from the gas inlet line 136 to supply Ga(GaCl) by heating a boat containing Group III metal is provided with an outlet to the body 112 of the reaction tube 110 disposed between the heat-up zone 119 and the deposition zone 130 of the first reaction chamber 120 and the gas inlet 115 is in a different temperature zone 1 from the supply gas mixing zone temperature zone 2/4 ([0026]-[0035], [0039]-[0049], [0072]-[0074]; Fig 1), which clearly suggests the group III precursor is generated from a source that is heated independently of a AsH3 source and delivered through separate ports to a deposition zone, and the is configured to deliver uncracked AsH3 directly to the substrate platen while passing only through a lower temperature region of the reactor because the arsine gas inlet 115 and substrate is in a separate temperature zone 1 which is in the lower temperature region relative to the higher temperature region 2. Young et al teaches supplying AsH3 gas to directly to the substrate (Fig 1; [0044]) and does not teach any cracking. It is also noted that the particular gas supplied is an intended use limitation for the apparatus and the HVPE apparatus would be capable of supplying uncracked AsH3 because the HVPE can be operated at any desired temperature, including temperature below the cracking temperature of AsH3. It is also noted that the claim does not require the uncracked AsH3 is delivered at any particular operating temperature. For example, uncracked AsH3 can be supplied during the heating up operation prior to reaching temperatures that would crack AsH3. Young et al also teaches an HVPE reactor arranged for inline growth of layers of a semiconductor device comprising additional reaction chambers such that the wafer would be moved in a single direction through the reactor, wherein the wafer moves through a plurality of heating and/or deposition zones, with each deposition zone associated with a different reaction chamber (at least three reaction chambers 830, 840, 850, 860, 870, 880) using the transfer mechanism/conveyor system (Fig 8; [0025], [0071]-[0075]), which clearly suggests at least three reaction chambers wherein the platen is capable of translation in between the at least three reaction chambers.
Young et al teaches a substrate conveyor mechanism for an inline HVPE reactor. However, Young et al does not explicitly teach a substrate platen capable of movement by translation means; and wherein the substrate platen is fixed to the translation means.
In an in-line vapor deposition apparatus, Tamamizu et al teaches a plurality of susceptors 3, which reads on a platen, having recesses 10, and mounting wafers 2 in the recesses of the susceptor, and each of susceptors 3 is fixedly mounted on a belt conveyor 5 (col 3, ln 1 to col 4, ln 68; col 5, ln 1-67; Figs 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Young et al by using the susceptor/platen fixed to a conveyor belt, as taught by Tamamizu et al, to transport substrate between chambers in an inline reactor while providing a uniformly heated substrate (col 5, ln 1-35).
The combination of Young et al and Tamamizu et al does not explicitly teach the reactor is configured to deliver uncracked AsH3 directly to the substrate platen via a perforated injector positioned just above the substrate platen to provide uniform velocity uncracked AsH3 to the substrate platen.
In a HVPE apparatus, Schunemann et al teaches a HVPE system 1 where an AsH3 source 3, 204 is delivered separately from a GaCl source 5, 206, wherein GaCl and AsH3 in a vapor form react to form GaAs at the surface of a material 7 onto which the GaAs crystal is to be grown (Fig 1, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6; [0024]-[0037]). Schunemann et al teaches AsH3 piping 24 is cylindrical in shape and has small openings to deliver AsH3 horizontally in the direction of arrows D just above the wafer 28; and it would be possible for the AsH3 to be injected through the close-couple showerhead apparatus Fig 1, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6; [0024]-[0037], [0047]-[0062]), which clearly suggests a perforated injector positioned just above the substrate platen to provide uniform uncracked AsH3 to the substrate platen. Schunemann et al also teaches those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciated other ways of delivering GaCl and AsH3 to the wafer 28 ([0039]). Schunemann et al teaches a close-coupled showerhead apparatus introduces the reactant gases directly at the wafer surface, greatly reduces parasitic GaAs growth and maintains a high constant GaAs growth rate on the wafer which minimizes process time and defect incorporation and thereby maximizes carrier lifetime ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al and Tamamizu et al by using a perforated injector (showerhead apparatus) positioned just above the substrate platen to provide uniform uncracked AsH3 to the substrate platen, as taught by Schunemann et al to uniformly introduce the reactant gases directly at the wafer surface, thereby reduces parasitic GaAs growth and maintains a high constant GaAs growth rate on the wafer which minimizes process time and defect incorporation and thereby maximizes carrier lifetime (Schunemann [0052]). It is noted that the flow rate through the showerhead can be increased; therefore would be capable of providing a “uniform” AsH3.
The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al and Schunemann et al does not explicitly teach holes of the perforated injector are angled to promote uniform gas distribution upon the platen.
In a method and apparatus for vapor deposition, Chandrasekharan et al teaches a showerhead includes one or more gas inlets in fluid communication with the plenum volume, a faceplate including a plurality of faceplate through-holes; and edge through-holes are sloped at an angle less than about 90 degrees from the first side to the second side of the faceplate to improve the flow uniformity (Abstract; [0009]-[0011], [0110]-[0120]; Fig 14C). Chandrasekharan et al teaches the angle can increase flow uniformity at the edge of the substrate by influencing the velocity of the gas coming out of the faceplate ([0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al and Schunemann et al by having angled holes to promote flow uniformity, as taught by Chandrasekharan et al.
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches vapor phase deposition on substrate supported on the susceptor, which clearly suggests susceptor/platen allows gases to flow to the substrate 2 fixed on the platen (Tamamizu Fig 1, abstract).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches the platen 3 slides in and out of the reactor through slots in the wall of the reactor. (Tamamizu Fig 1).
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches rollers 6/7 which reads on bearings (Tamamizu col 4, ln 1-67; Fig 1).
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al does not explicitly teach the bearings are made from quartz or alumina. Young et al teaches the reactor composed of quartz or alumina (Young abstract; claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al by making the rollers from quartz or alumina, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and quartz and alumina are suitable for components of the reactor.
Referring to claim 21, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches the heating means are capable of generating a plurality of group III precursors 126/146 and each of the plurality of group III precursors are heated independently of each other (See Young Fig 1 shows boat 126 in temperature zone 2 and boat 146 in temperature zone 146).
Claim 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US 2013/0309848) in view of Tamamizu et al (US 4,710,428), Schunemann et al (US 2017/0204533) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2016/0340782), as applied to claim 1, 3, 10-12, and 21 and further in view of Mokhlesi et al (US 2010/0024732).
The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the platen comprises a mesh structure.
In an apparatus for vapor deposition, Mokhlesi et al teaches a platen 209 made of mesh so that contaminants can readily pass through and be evacuated ([0115]-[0130], Fig 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al by making the platen out of mesh, as taught by Mokhlesi et al, so that contaminants can readily pass through and be evacuated.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Mokhlesi et al teaches a mesh platen; therefore would be expected to have a thermal mass that is less than a comparable solid platen because air gaps in the mesh would reduce the thermal mass.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US 2013/0309848) in view of Tamamizu et al (US 4,710,428), Schunemann et al (US 2017/0204533) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2016/0340782), as applied to claim 1, 3, 10-12, and 21, and further in view of Dmitriev et al (US 2005/0142391).
The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, except the platen comprises quartz.
In a HVPE apparatus, Dmitriev et al teaches a substrate crystal pedestal 127 is preferably fabricated from quartz, although other materials such as silicon carbide or graphite can also be used ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al by making the susceptor/platen from quartz, as taught by Dmitriev et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US 2013/0309848) in view of Tamamizu et al (US 4,710,428), Schunemann et al (US 2017/0204533) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2016/0340782), as applied to claim 1, 3, 10-12, and 21, and further in view of Rey Garcia et al (US 2012/0132638).
The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, except the substrate platen is fixed to the translation means through wires. The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches a susceptor is fixedly attached to a belt conveyor, however does not explicitly teach the use of wires.
In a wafer conveyer apparatus, Rey Garcia et al teaches a wire belt wafer transport system comprising single or double wire fingers which extend laterally and provide edge support and provide minimal contact with one or both face surfaces ([0010]-[0027], [0036]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al by providing wires, as taught by Rey Garcia et al, to provide support at the edge of the susceptor on the belt conveyor.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Rey Garcia et al does not teach the wires are made of ceramic or glass. Young et al teaches the reactor composed of quartz or alumina (Young abstract; claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Rey Garcia et al by making the wire from quartz (glass) or alumina (ceramic), because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and quartz and alumina are suitable for components of the reactor.
Claim 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US 2013/0309848) in view of Tamamizu et al (US 4,710,428), Schunemann et al (US 2017/0204533), Chandrasekharan et al (US 2016/0340782), and Rey Garcia et al (US 2012/0132638), as applied to claim 1, 3, 8-12, and 21, and further in view of Trucco (US 2004/0178251).
The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Rey Garcia et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, except the translation means comprise spools wherein the unspooling or spooling of the wires causes the position of the platen to change. The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Rey Garcia et al teaches a wire belt wafer transport system comprising single or double wire fingers, and a susceptor on the belt conveyor.
In a conveyor apparatus for wire mesh, Trucco teaches a twin-conveyor system 66 itself comprising a conveyor belt 68, a driver drum 70, a driven drum 72, a set of idle rollers 74, a conveyor wire mesh 76, a driver spool 78, a driven spool 80 and, a controllable inlet/outlet means 88 for supplying a process gas to an enclosure chamber 86, which clearly suggests spools for wires to cause the position of a platen to change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Rey Garcia et al by providing spools for wires to cause the position of platen to change, as taught by Trucco, to provide a means for moving the conveyer at a desired speed and direction.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al, Rey Garcia et al and Trucco teaches a plurality of spools and drums for wires for conveying a conveyor belt. It is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and that first, second and third directions are not defined; therefore, can be broadly interpreted to all be in the same direction.
Claim 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US 2013/0309848) in view of Tamamizu et al (US 4,710,428), Schunemann et al (US 2017/0204533) and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2016/0340782), as applied above to claims 1, 3, 10-12, and 21, and further in view of Kappeler et al (US 2010/0273320).
The combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above, except the heating means are independent radio-frequency coils (RF coils).
In a HVPE apparatus, Kappeler et al teaches upper RF heating coils 12 for heating a process chamber wall and lower RF heating coils 11 for heating a process susceptor, which clearly suggests in dependent RF coils (Fig 1-7; [0024]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al and Chandrasekharan et al by using independent RF heating coils, as taught by Kappeler et al, to independently control the temperature of the susceptor and wall of the processing chamber.
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Kappeler et al teaches heating the wall and susceptor to different temperatures (Kappeler [0015]).
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Young et al, Tamamizu et al, Schunemann et al, Chandrasekharan et al and Kappeler et al teaches multiple reaction chambers 120/140 (Young Fig 1; [0030]) and multiple platens 3 capable of translation between chambers (Tamamizu Fig 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bera et al (US 2018/0330927) teaches a rotating susceptor is also called a platen ([0006]).
Parks et al (US 2012/0269226) teaches an ultra-low mass active transport system where wafers are supported on wires ([0023]-[0027]). Parks et al also teaches using mesh belts for transferring wafers ([0117]).
Hofmeister et al (US 2006/0285945) teaches a cable pulley moving system with platens for transporting substrates between chambers (Fig 12A; [0063]-[0070]; abstract).
Liu et al (US 2018/0354803) teaches a plate of quartz mesh for supporting a substrate ([0062]).
Schunemann et al (US 2015/0235848) teaches separate GaCl and AsH3 gas inlets (Fig 5a, 5b)
Katamine et al (US 2002/0170484) teaches a reactant gas supply system comprising a coolant wherein the temperature of the feed gas can be cooled/controlled so that it does not prematurely decompose while traveling from the inlet to the orifices (Fig 1-3; [0090]-[0095]).
Schulte et al (US 2019/0221705) teaches an HVPE apparatus comprising an in-line continuous deposition chamber 400 comprising a substrate transport mechanism 401 to move a substrate through one or more deposition regions 406, 407 and 408; and multiple deposition chambers may be isolated and placed in series which enables more efficient deposition by moving the substrate sequentially through individual chambers ([0044]-[0050]).
US 2008/0286982 teaches position (e.g., axial height) of the gas distribution ring 200 and the angle A of the orifices 202 of the gas distribution ring 200 can be adjusted to achieve a desired uniformity of a coating ([0018]; Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
