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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11 is/are amended; claim(s) 16, 17 are added.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by newly applied prior art reference Mailho in addition to previously relied on references 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 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) 1-4, 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140264388 to Schmitt in view of WO 2018073376 to Blandino (via translation by use of US 20190313695 to Kaufman), US 20040094402 to Gopalraja, US 6436796 to Mailho.
Claims 1, 2, 17: Schmitt discloses a Reactor for deposition of layers of semiconductor material on substrates comprising: a reaction chamber (HVPE reactor, Fig. 9), a susceptor assembly (913 [body plater]) located inside the reaction chamber (HVPE reactor), and a heating system (92 [growth zone]/919 [RF induction coil]) adapted to heat the susceptor assembly (913) by electromagnetic induction (para. [0053]); wherein the heating system comprises a first inductor (919).
However Schmitt does not disclose and a second inductor and a power supply adapted to electrically feed the first and second inductors with alternating currents that are distinct and independent from one another the reactor; further comprising a shielding assembly adapted to limit electromagnetic coupling between the first and second inductors; wherein the shielding assembly comprises a first shield at least partially
surrounding the first inductor; wherein the first shield comprises a plurality of parallel shielding bars, said shielding bars extending axially from a top of the first inductor to a bottom of the first inductor and positioned along a perimeter of the first shield; wherein the shielding assembly is arranged to confine magnetic field generated by the inductors by concentrating lines of the magnetic field in the shielding assembly.
Kaufman discloses a first and second inductor (204, 206, [first and second inductor coils]) for the purpose of causing substantially localized heating (para. [0026]); further comprising a shielding assembly (212 [magnetic conductor]) adapted to limit electromagnetic coupling between the first and second inductors (204, 206); wherein the shielding assembly (1st 212 “1st magnetic conductor”, para. [0030]) comprises a first shield (1st 212) at least partially surrounding the first inductor (204, para. [0030]); wherein the shielding assembly (212) is arranged to confine magnetic field generated by the inductors by concentrating lines of the magnetic field in the shielding assembly (para. [0030]); (Claim 2) wherein said shielding assembly (212, Fig. 2, Kaufman) comprises a first shield (212 portion by 204) associated with the first inductor (204) and a second shield (212 portion by 206) associated with the second inductor (206, para. [0030], Fig. 2); for the purpose of acting to substantially confine the magnetic field generated by the first and second inductor coils within the volume enclosed by the magnetic conductor (para. [0030]).
It is noted that Kaufman teaches a duplication of parts regarding the coils and the shielding assembly (para. [0025-0030]); the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shielding assembly including two shields to surround the two inductor coils respectively as taught by Kaufman with motivation to act to substantially confine the magnetic field generated by the first and second inductor coils within the volume enclosed by the magnetic conductor.
Gopalraja discloses and a power supply (206/204 [sources], Fig. 5) adapted to electrically feed the first and second inductors (174/172 [electromagnet coils]) with alternating currents that are distinct and independent from one another (para. [0056]) for the purpose of facilitating separate control of the magnitude and polarity of the current applied to the coils to achieve the desired magnetic field (para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power supply with configuration as taught by Gopalraja with motivation to facilitate separate control of the magnitude and polarity of the current applied to the coils to achieve the desired magnetic field.
However the apparatus of Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja does not disclose (claim 1) wherein the first shield comprises a plurality of parallel shielding bars, said shielding bars extending axially from a top of the first inductor to a bottom of the first inductor and positioned along a perimeter of the first shield; (claim 17) wherein the first shield further comprises a lower support ring below the first inductor and an upper support ring above the first inductor, and wherein the shielding bars extend from the lower support ring to the upper support ring.
Mailho discloses (claim 1) wherein a shield (420 [mounting plate]/cover], Fig. 4A/4B) comprises a plurality of parallel shielding bars (vertical bars connected to cover, Fig. 4A/4B), said shielding bars (“vertical bars”) extending axially from a top of the inductor top of uppermost (414/404/418 [coil segments]) to a bottom of the inductor (bottommost coil segment) and positioned along a perimeter of the shield (Fig. 4A/4B where coil segments are positioned along perimeters of the bars of the shield); (claim 17) wherein the shield (420/cover) further comprises a lower support ring (420) below the inductor (414/418/404) and an upper support ring (cover) above the inductor (414/418/404), and wherein the shielding bars (“vertical bars”) extend from the lower support ring to the upper support ring (Fig. 4A/4B), for the purpose of fine tuning the coil for optimum temperature uniformity (c. 6, 15-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Mailho with motivation to fine tuning the coil for optimum temperature uniformity.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja discloses wherein the first and second inductors (204, 206, Fig. 2, Kaufman) are solenoids (204, 206) coaxial and axially spaced (see Fig. 2 where each solenoid has coils that are coaxial and axially spaced), and of the same diameter (see Fig. 2 where each solenoid has coils that appear to be the same diameter).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho discloses wherein the shielding assembly (212, Fig. 2, Kaufman) is tubular shape (see Fig. 2) and is located around one or more solenoids (see Fig. 2, para. [0030]).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho does not disclose wherein said shielding assembly comprises a second shield comprising a plurality of parallel second shielding bars, said second shielding bars extending axially from a top of the second inductor to a bottom of the second inductor and positioned along a perimeter of the second shield.
However, Kaufman already discloses two sets of shielding assemblies can be present (para. [0030]) for the purpose of acting to substantially confine the magnetic field generated by the first and second inductor coils within the volume enclosed by the magnetic conductor (para. [0030]); additionally, the limitations are drawn to a duplication of parts, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate duplication of parts as taught by Kaufman with motivation to act to substantially confine the magnetic field generated by the first and second inductor coils within the volume enclosed by the magnetic conductor.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of US 6333269 to Naito.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho does not disclose wherein the solenoids are adapted to be translated axially one independently of the other.
Naito discloses wherein the solenoids (9A-9C [electromagnetic coils], Fig.10) are adapted to be translated axially one independently of the other (col. 14, lines 19-26), for the purpose of controlling the plasma treatment of the substrate by changing the profile of the magnetic field during the treatment (col. 14, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the translation requirements as taught by Naito with motivation to control the plasma treatment of the substrate by changing the profile of the magnetic field during the treatment.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho, Naito as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 20170088949 to Babayan.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho, Naito discloses wherein said shielding assembly (212, Fig. 2, Kaufman) comprises a first shield (212 portion by 204) associated with the first inductor (204) and a second shield (212 portion by 206) associated with the second inductor (206, para. [0030], Fig. 2).
The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho does not disclose and wherein said shields are adapted to translate together with the corresponding inductors.
Babayan teaches wherein said shield (210 [heat shield], Fig. 2) is adapted to translate together with the corresponding heating component (122 [heating element], para. [0022], [0026]) for the purpose of resulting in an efficient process material and energy utilization of process gases (para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of the shield with heater translation configuration as taught by Babayan with motivation to result in an efficient process material and energy utilization of process gases.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 17 above, and further in view of US 20050258766 to Kim.
Claims 7, 8: The apparatus of Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja does not explicitly disclose (claim 7) wherein said shielding assembly comprises shielding components of a material having high magnetic permeability, in particular of a ferromagnetic material; (claim 8) wherein said material has high electrical resistivity. Yet see para. [0030] where 212 are high permeability and low-loss material as a magnetic conductor.
Kim discloses (claim 7) wherein said shielding assembly (14/34, Fig. 1, Kim) comprises shielding components (14/34) of a material having high magnetic permeability (para. [0040] where they are permanent magnets), in particular of a ferromagnetic material (permanent magnets are necessarily ferromagnetic materials); (claim 8) wherein said material (14/34, Fig. 1, Kim) has high electrical resistivity (permanent magnets intrinsically have high electrical resistivity); for the purpose of preventing energy from being absorbed to the inner walls of the reactor (para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirements taught by Kim with motivation to prevent energy from being absorbed into the inner walls of the reactor.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho as applied to claim 1-4, 9, 17 above, and further in view of US 5277751 to Ogle.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho does not disclose wherein a layer of electrical insulating material is located on said shielding bars at least on the side of said shielding bars facing an inductor.
Ogle discloses wherein a layer of electrical insulating material (32 [insulator], Fig. 1) is located on said shielding component (34 [shield]) at least on the side of said shielding component (34) facing an inductor (18 [main coil]) for the purpose of preventing arc-over (col. 6, lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the insulating material as taught by Ogle with motivation to prevent arc-over.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 17 above, and further in view of US 20020014197 to Keck.
Claims 12-15: The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho does not explicitly disclose (claim 12) wherein said power supply is adapted to feed said first and second inductors with alternating currents so that the currents which flow in said first and second inductors are at frequencies included between 1 KHz and 10 KHz; (claim 13) wherein said power supply is adapted to feed said first and second inductors with alternating currents so that the currents which flow in said first and second inductors are at the same frequency but distinct and independent from one another; (claim 14) wherein said power supply is adapted to feed said first and second inductors with alternating currents so that the current that flows in said first inductor is at a different frequency from the current that flows in said second inductor; (claim 15) wherein the current that flows in one of the two inductors is at a higher frequency from the current that flows in the other of the two inductors by a factor greater than 1.8 and smaller than 4.4.
Keck teaches (claims 12-15) a power supply (140 [high frequency power supply], Fig. 6) is adapted to feed said first and second inductors (130, 130 [induction coils]) with alternating currents so that the currents which flow in said first and second inductors are at frequencies included between 1 KHz and 10 KHz (para. [0036], which overlaps the claimed range); so that the currents which flow in said first and second inductors (130, 130) are at the same frequency but distinct and independent from one another; so that the current that flows in said first inductor is at a different frequency from the current that flows in said second inductor; (see para. [0022] where the frequencies can vary through a range which is interpreted as same or different), and the current frequency ratio can be varied (see para. [0022]); for the purpose resulting in great improvements in components by deposition (para. [0036]).
It is noted that Keck teaches optimization of the frequencies configuration via power supply of the two inductors; additionally, the courts have held 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).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of the frequencies configuration via power supply as taught by Keck with motivation to result in great improvements in components by deposition.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 17 above, and further in view of US 20120297580 to Dughiero.
Claim 16: The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Gopalraja, Mailho does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the shielding bars comprising a cylinder with a rectangular cross-section.
However Dughiero discloses wherein each of the shielding bars (23 [vices], Fig. 5) comprising a cylinder (23) with a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 5) for the purpose of holding the coils (16) together as a single functional unit (para. [0032]).
It is noted that regarding the selection of shape, the courts have held that with respect to the shape of the openings, the courts have held that selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. MPEP 2144.04 III (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape as taught by Dughiero with motivation to hold the coils together as a single functional unit.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140264388 to Schmitt in view of WO 2018073376 to Blandino (via translation by use of US 20190313695 to Kaufman), and further in view of US 6436796 to Mailho, US 20170088949 to Babayan, US 20120297580 to Dughiero.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Schmitt discloses a reactor for deposition of layers of semiconductor material on substrates comprising: a reaction chamber having a cylindrical or prismatic shape (see Fig. 9, para. [0033] where reaction tube has a cylindrical shape, Schmitt).
Kaufmann discloses wherein the reactor (100/101, Fig. 1-3, Kaufman) is arranged to form a first reactor assembly (212/204) and a second reactor assembly (212/206), wherein each of said first reactor assembly (212/204) and second reactor assembly (212/206) comprises an inductor (204 or 206) comprising a solenoid (204 or 206), a portion of the shielding assembly (212), for the purpose of acting to substantially confine the magnetic field generated by the first and second inductor coils within the volume enclosed by the magnetic conductor (para. [0030]).
It is noted that Kaufman teaches a duplication of parts regarding the coils and the shielding assembly (para. [0025-0030]); the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shielding assembly including two shields to surround the two inductor coils respectively as taught by Kaufman with motivation to act to substantially confine the magnetic field generated by the first and second inductor coils within the volume enclosed by the magnetic conductor.
However the apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman does not disclose the portion of the shielding assembly in each of the first reactor assembly and the second reactor assembly comprising a plurality of parallel shielding bars, each of the shielding bars comprising a cylinder with a rectangular cross-section, and each of the shielding bars running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the portion of the shielding assembly, a lower support ring and an upper support ring, wherein in each of said first reactor assembly and second reactor assembly, said solenoid is mechanically fixed to said support rings, and wherein in each of said first reactor assembly and second reactor assembly, said shielding bars are mechanically fixed to said support rings.
Mailho discloses the portion of the shielding assembly (420/cover, Fig. 4A4/B) comprising a plurality of parallel shielding bars (“vertical bars” connected to cover and 420), and each of the shielding bars (“vertical bars”) running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the portion of the shielding assembly (Fig. 4A/4B), a lower support ring (420) and an upper support ring (cover), wherein said solenoid (414/418/404) is mechanically fixed to said support rings (c.6, l. 15-30), and wherein said shielding bars (“vertical bars”) are mechanically fixed to said support rings (Fig. 4A/4B) ), for the purpose of fine tuning the coil for optimum temperature uniformity (c. 6, 15-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Mailho with motivation to fine tuning the coil for optimum temperature uniformity.
The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Mailho does not disclose the assemblies being adapted to translate axially along the reaction chamber.
Babayan teaches wherein said shield (210 [heat shield], Fig. 2) is adapted to translate together with the corresponding heating component (122 [heating element], para. [0022], [0026]) for the purpose of resulting in an efficient process material and energy utilization of process gases (para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of the shield with heater translation configuration as taught by Babayan with motivation to result in an efficient process material and energy utilization of process gases.
The apparatus of Schmitt, Kaufman, Mailho, Babayan does not disclose each of the shielding bars comprising a cylinder with a rectangular cross-section
However Dughiero discloses wherein each of the shielding bars (23 [vices], Fig. 5) comprising a cylinder (23) with a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 5) for the purpose of holding the coils (16) together as a single functional unit (para. [0032]).
It is noted that regarding the selection of shape, the courts have held that with respect to the shape of the openings, the courts have held that selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. MPEP 2144.04 III (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape as taught by Dughiero with motivation to hold the coils together as a single functional unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20100243620 discloses a heating system (135, 136, Fig. 7) that does selective heating, having shields (135b, 136b [highly permeable member], Fig. 2) and two independent power supplies (210, 150 [power supply]). US 20210189594 (same assignee and a common inventor) discloses a susceptor (Fig. 1) with two sets of inductive heaters (4, 5) that are separated by a ferrite (7 [separation element], para. [0086]), and the inductors are power-supplied independently. US 12371779 discloses a reaction chamber (100, Fig. 2) having a susceptor (30) within a tube (110), two inductor assemblies (60, 70) surrounding the susceptor and tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights