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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 2, 6, 10-13 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 14-15, 17-18 is/are amended; claim(s) 19-20 is/are newly 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 Franken, Komori, in addition to previously relied on references below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Trap part (any structure that collects the byproduct from the piping, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0031]) in at least claims 6-9, 14-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011020331 to Gomi in view of US 20130156950 to Yamada and further in view of US 10329668 to Franken.
Claim 1: Gomi discloses a growth apparatus comprising: a chamber (4 [main body], Fig. 1) in which a substrate (W [semiconductor]) is placed inside (para. [0041]), and a process gas (para. [0041]); piping (60 [exhaust passage]) that discharges a gas containing a byproduct generated through growth on the substrate (W) from the chamber (4); a valve (62 [pressure regulating valve]) provided in a middle of the piping (60, where the “middle” is interpreted as not at the edges of the piping), wherein the valve (62) adjusts an internal pressure of the chamber (4, para. [0052]) and a pressure in an upstream portion (portion of 60 above 62) of the piping placed upstream of the valve (62, para. [0052]);
wherein the piping (60) has the upstream portion (portion of 60 above 62) and a downstream portion (portion of 60 below 62) connecting with the upstream portion (portion of 60 above 62) via the valve (62, Fig. 1), and at one of the upstream portion and the downstream portion (Fig. 1) bends into a U shape (Fig. 1).
However Gomi does not disclose the growth apparatus is a SiC epitaxial growth apparatus; at least containing silicon, chlorine, and carbon is introduced onto the substrate to epitaxially grow a SiC film; wherein the byproduct contains at least silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine.
Yamada discloses a growth apparatus is a SiC epitaxial growth apparatus (“epitaxial growth system” for SiC, para. [0106]) in which a process gas at least containing silicon, chlorine, and carbon is introduced (para. [0004], [0024]), and wherein the byproduct contains at least silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine (para. [0024-0025]) for the purpose of forming a SiC epitaxial film on the surface of a wafer (para. [0106]).
It is noted that “in which a process gas at least containing silicon, chlorine, and carbon is introduced, and “wherein the byproduct contains at least silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine” are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, and the apparatus of Gomi in view of Yama already disclose the structure as necessary to perform. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
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 limitation above as taught by Yamada with motivation to form a SiC epitaxial film on the surface of a wafer.
The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein a trap part (66 [trap mechanism], Fig. 1, Gomi) capable of collecting the (necessarily) byproduct discharged (para. [0053], it is noted that collecting fluid by the trap part from the valve is intended use of the system).
However the apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose the trap part is arranged at a portion branching from the lowermost of a portion of the U shape.
Franken teaches multiple pipe arrangements that have the trap part (28, Fig. 1-5) also in different arrangements for the purpose of treating the different exhaust gases that are produced during execution of a CVD growth process (c. 5 l. 55-65).
Additionally, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
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 optional rearrangement of piping as taught by Franken with motivation to treat the different exhaust gases that are produced during execution of a CVD growth process.
Claim 2: (Cancelled).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein the valve (62, Fig. 1, Gomi) has a flow inlet (not shown but necessarily present as inlet of 62) into which the gas flows from an upstream portion (portion of 60 before 62 and after 4 [chamber]) that causes the chamber (4) and the valve (62) to connect with each other (Fig. 1), and a flow outlet (not shown but necessarily present as outlet of 62) that allows the gas to flow out to a downstream portion (portion of 60 after 62 and before 66 [trap]) that connects with the upstream portion (portion of 60 before 62) via the valve (62), and at least any of the flow inlet (not shown but necessarily present as inlet of 62) and the flow outlet (not shown but necessarily present as outlet of 62) connects with the piping (60) oriented downward (see Fig. 1).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein each of the upstream portion (portion of 60 before 62, Fig. 1, Gomi) and the downstream portion (portion of 60 after 62 and before 66) has a lowermost part arranged between both end parts of each, and the valve (62) is arranged between the lowermost part of the upstream portion and the lowermost part of the downstream portion (see Fig. 1).
Claim 6: (Cancelled).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein the trap part (66, Fig. 1, Gomi) has a larger sectional area (66) in a plane perpendicular to a direction in which exhaust gas flows than the piping (60, see Fig. 1 where 66 has larger sectional area perpendicular to 60).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein the piping (60, Fig. 1, Gomi) is arranged at least at a position higher than the trap part (66), and provided upstream of the trap part (66).
Claims 10-13: (Cancelled).
Claim 14: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses the trap part (66, Fig. 1, Gomi) is arranged downstream of the valve (62).
Claim 15: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein the piping (60, Fig. 1, Gomi) is located above the trap part (66) on both upstream and downstream sides of the trap (66, Fig. 1).
Claim 16: (Cancelled).
Claim 17: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada discloses wherein the valve (62, Fig. 1, Gomi) has a flow inlet (not shown but necessarily present as inlet of 62) into which the gas flows from the upstream portion (portion of 60 before 62 and after 4) that causes the chamber (4) and the valve (62) to connect with each other (Fig. 1), and a flow outlet (not shown but necessarily present as outlet of 62) that allows the gas to flow out to the downstream portion (portion of 60 after 62 and before 66),
the U shape (Fig. 1) of the downstream portion of the piping includes a first vertical part (vertical part of 60), a second vertical part (latter vertical part of 60 near 78) and a lower horizontal part (horizontal part of 60) connecting the first vertical part and the second vertical part (Fig. 1), the first vertical part (vertical part of 60) connected to the flow outlet of the valve (62), and the trap part (66) is arranged between the lower horizontal part (horizontal part of 60) and the second vertical part (latter vertical part of 60 near 78).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomi in view of Yamada as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 14-17 above, and further in view of US 20190064674 to Li, US 5980837 to Umin.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada does not disclose wherein the piping connecting with at least any of the flow inlet and the flow outlet has a horizontal portion.
Li discloses a piping (3 [exhaust pipe], Fig. 1) connecting with at least any of a flow inlet and flow outlet (inlet or outlet of 1 [component]) can have a horizontal portion (301 or 303 [horizontal sections]) for the purpose of facilitating the reflux of the gas glow and the condensed liquid chemical and entering into the reflux pipe (para. [0053]).
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 configuration as taught by Li with motivation to facilitate the reflux of the gas glow and the condensed liquid chemical and entering into the reflux pipe.
However the apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada, Li does not disclose and a length of the horizontal portion is not more than 16 times a diameter of the horizontal portion.
Umin discloses that by merely changing the diameter of the tubing and/or the length of the tubing the length and diameter of an exhaust treatment device may be adjusted for the purpose of producing a device having a different aspect ratio (ratio of length to diameter) (col. 5, lines 50-60).
Also regarding the limitations of the piping length, 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 aspect ratios as taught by Umin with motivation to produce a device having a different aspect ratio (ratio of length to diameter).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomi in view of Yamada as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 14-17 above, and further in view of US 20100012292 to Yamazaki.
Claim 8: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the trap part is detachable from the upstream portion or the downstream portion.
Yamazaki discloses wherein the trap part (26 [trap apparatus], Fig. 2-3) is detachable from the upstream portion or the downstream portion (22 [exhaust passage]) for the purpose of performing maintenance of the trap apparatus (para. [0041]).
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 detachability of the trap apparatus as taught by Yamazaki with motivation to perform maintenance of the trap apparatus.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomi in view of Yamada as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 14-17 above, and further in view of US 20150047565 to Komori.
Claim 19: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose further comprising a second valve for opening and closing is provided in the middle of the branched that connects the trap part.
Komori discloses further comprising a second valve (68 [on/off valves], Fig. 1) for opening and closing is provided in the middle of the branched piping (60 [exhaust path]) that connects the trap part (10 [trap mechanism]), for the purpose of closing the exhaust path when removing the trap mechanism from the exhaust path (para. [0033]).
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 second valve before the trap mechanism as taught by Komori with motivation to of closing the exhaust path when removing the trap mechanism from the exhaust path.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011020331 to Gomi in view of US 20130156950 to Yamada.
Claim 18: Gomi discloses a growth apparatus comprising: a chamber (4 [main body], Fig. 1) in which a substrate (W [semiconductor]) is placed inside (para. [0041]), and a process gas (para. [0041]); piping (60 [exhaust passage]) that discharges a gas containing a byproduct generated through growth on the substrate (W) from the chamber (4); a valve (62 [pressure regulating valve]) provided in a middle of the piping (60, where the middle is interpreted as not at the edges of the piping), wherein the valve (62) adjusts an internal pressure of the chamber (4, para. [0052]) and a pressure in an upstream portion (portion of 60 above 62) of the piping placed upstream of the valve (62, para. [0052]); and a trap part (66 [trapping mechanism]) capable of collecting the byproduct discharged from the valve (62, para. [0053]),
wherein the piping (60) has the upstream portion (portion of 60 above 62) and a downstream portion (portion of 60 below 62) connecting with the upstream portion (portion of 60 above 62) via the valve (62, Fig. 1), at least either one of the upstream portion or the downstream portion (Fig. 1) bends into a U shape (Fig. 1), the U shape (Fig. 1) includes a first vertical part (vertical part of 60), a lower horizontal part (horizontal part of 60) connecting the first vertical part, and a second vertical part (latter vertical part of 60 near 78) downstream than the first vertical part and the lower horizontal part (Fig. 1), and the trap part (66) is arranged at a portion branching from the lower horizontal part (see Fig. 1 where 66 branches from horizontal part of 60).
However Gomi does not disclose the growth apparatus is a SiC epitaxial growth apparatus; at least containing silicon, chlorine, and carbon is introduced onto the substrate to epitaxially grow a SiC film; wherein the byproduct contains at least silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine.
Yamada discloses a growth apparatus is a SiC epitaxial growth apparatus (“epitaxial growth system” for SiC, para. [0106]) in which a process gas at least containing silicon, chlorine, and carbon is introduced (para. [0004], [0024]), and wherein the byproduct contains at least silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine (para. [0024-0025]) for the purpose of forming a SiC epitaxial film on the surface of a wafer (para. [0106]).
It is noted that “in which a process gas at least containing silicon, chlorine, and carbon is introduced, and “wherein the byproduct contains at least silicon, hydrogen, and chlorine” are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, and the apparatus of Gomi in view of Yama already disclose the structure as necessary to perform. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
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 limitation above as taught by Yamada with motivation to form a SiC epitaxial film on the surface of a wafer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomi in view of Yamada as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 20150047565 to Komori.
Claim 20: The apparatus of Gomi in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose further comprising a second valve for opening and closing is provided in the middle of the branched that connects the trap part.
Komori discloses further comprising a second valve (68 [on/off valves], Fig. 1) for opening and closing is provided in the middle of the branched piping (60 [exhaust path]) that connects the trap part (10 [trap mechanism]), for the purpose of closing the exhaust path when removing the trap mechanism from the exhaust path (para. [0033]).
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 second valve before the trap mechanism as taught by Komori with motivation to of closing the exhaust path when removing the trap mechanism from the exhaust path.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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