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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 28-29 have been cancelled and claim 29 is also previously presented. Examiner believes the canceled claim 29 is a typo and has addressed the previously presented claim 29 below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 29 is dependent on cancelled claim 28. Also claims 28-29 state they are cancelled but an additional claim 29 exists. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 & 2 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.
With regards to claims 1 & 2, the limitations of “wherein the second radius is larger than the first radius by a distance in the range of 0 mm to 150 mm” is unclear. If the range includes 0, the first radius and second radius are equal. Is the second radius equal to the first radius or is the second radius larger than the first? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto et al discloses A method comprising: placing a wafer on support pins (16)protruding from a top surface of a susceptor(15), wherein a bottom surface of the wafer(W) is separated from the susceptor(15)[0084], wherein the wafer (W)has a first radius[0041], wherein the top surface of the susceptor (15)has a second radius that is greater than the first radius[0041], wherein the top surface of the susceptor (15)comprises a high-k material[0035];using microwave radiation to heat the wafer (W)and the susceptor(15)[0089][0086], wherein the bottom
surface of the wafer (W)is separated from the top surface of the susceptor (15)during the heating, wherein during the heating, an average electric field intensity at the second radius is larger than an average electric field intensity at the first radius)[0086]; and
removing the wafer(W) from the susceptor(15)[0087].
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto et al discloses wherein the second radius is larger than the first radius by a distance in the range of 0 mm to 150 mm[0104].
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto et al discloses wherein the susceptor (15)comprises aluminum nitride[0035].
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto et al discloses further comprising rotating the susceptor (15)while using microwave radiation to heat the wafer and the susceptor(15)[0089].
Regarding claim 32, Yamamoto et al discloses further comprising determining the second radius of the susceptor based on an expected electric field intensity generated by the microwave radiation[0066][0041].
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1) in view of Shimizu(US Pub no. 2011/0073589 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto et al discloses al the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein placing the wafer (W)on the susceptor(15) comprises: extending the support pins (16)from the top surface of the susceptor(15); placing the wafer(W) on the support pins(16)[0039-0040] but fails to teach retracting the support pins toward the top surface of the susceptor.
However, Shimizu et al teaches a thermal processing apparatus comprising retracting the support pins (42)toward the top surface of the susceptor(32)[0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamamoto et al with the teachings of Shimizu et al to provide a mechanism to control the height of the pins.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein, while using microwave radiation to heat the wafer(W) and the susceptor(15), the wafer(W) is held above the top surface of the susceptor wafer [0040] but fails to teach a distance in the range of 1 mm to 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a distance in the range of 1 mm to 5 mm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Claim(s) 7 & 9- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1) in view of Ashida (US Pub no. 2015/0305097 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto et al discloses A method comprising:
performing a microwave anneal (MWA) process on the semiconductor wafer(W)[0082][0086], comprising: transferring the semiconductor wafer(W) into a process chamber (2)[0084]; placing the semiconductor wafer (W)on a susceptor(15) within the process chamber(2)[0084], wherein the semiconductor wafer(W) fully overlaps a surface of the susceptor(15), wherein after placing the semiconductor wafer(W), sidewalls of the susceptor (15)protrude a first distance beyond edges of the semiconductor wafer(W)[0041], wherein the first distance is less than one-quarter of a first wavelength of microwave radiation[0104-0105](Examiner notes that SiC plate (15) diameter is 314 mm(radius =157 mm) and the wafer diameter is 300 mm(radius=150 mm); Examiner notes the difference in the 1st and 2nd radii is 7 mm, the preferred frequency is 5.8 GHz [0062] and one wavelength =51.7 mm for a frequency of 5.8 GHz, therefore, a difference between the second radius and the first radius is less than one-quarter wavelength of the microwave radiation has been satisfied); generating microwave radiation within the process chamber(2), wherein a portion of the microwave radiation is absorbed by the susceptor(15), wherein the microwave radiation comprises
the first wavelength[0086][0062]; removing the semiconductor wafer from the susceptor(15)[0087]; and transferring the semiconductor wafer(W) out of the process chamber(2) [0087].
Yamamoto et al discloses forming a plurality of devices on a semiconductor wafer.
However, Ashida et al discloses forming a plurality of devices on a semiconductor wafer[0069][0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamamoto et al with the teachings of Ashida et al to advance the wafer through further processing steps to achieve an end product.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto et al discloses wherein generating microwave radiation within the process chamber comprises: generating microwave radiation using a plurality of microwave sources(31)[0062]; and coupling the microwave radiation into the process chamber using a plurality of waveguides(32) [0063].
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto et al wherein the plurality of microwave sources(30) are arranged in a radially symmetrical configuration around the process chamber(2) fig. 5[0061].
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto et al discloses wherein the process chamber(2) and the susceptor (15) are cylindrical[0029][0041].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1) in view of Ashida (US Pub no. 2015/0305097 A1) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2012/0086107 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto et al (‘009) as modified by Ashida et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7 but fails to teach further comprising transferring the semiconductor wafer to a cooling chamber.
Yamamoto et al(‘107) discloses a microwave heating process comprising transferring the semiconductor wafer to a cooling chamber[0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Yamamoto et al (‘009) and Ashida et al with the teachings of Yamamoto et al(‘107) since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of performing processes in independent chambers to increase throughput to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Claim(s) 21, 22, 26, 29, 30,31,33, & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2012/0086107 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto et al (‘009)discloses A method comprising: placing a wafer(W) on a susceptor (15)in a process chamber(2)[0033], wherein the susceptor (15)comprises movable pins (detachably attached) attached to the susceptor and protruding from the susceptor[0033], wherein the wafer (W) is supported directly above a top surface of the susceptor (15)by the pins(16)[0033], wherein a microwave source(31) is coupled to the process chamber(2)[0060], wherein the susceptor(15) and the process chamber(2) are cylindrical[0029]; heating the wafer (W) in the process chamber(2) while the wafer (W) is supported by the pins (16)of the susceptor(15)[0084-0085], wherein the pins(16) support the wafer(W) at a height directly above the top surface of the susceptor(15)[0086], wherein the wafer(W) has a first radius, wherein the top surface of the susceptor has a second radius that is greater than the first radius[0041], and wherein heating the wafer (W)comprises generating microwave radiation using the microwave source(31), wherein a difference between the second radius and the first radius is less than a wavelength of the microwave radiation[0104][0105](Examiner notes that SiC plate (15) diameter is 314 mm(radius =157 mm) and the wafer diameter is 300 mm(radius=150 mm); Examiner notes the difference in the 1st and 2nd radii is 7 mm, the preferred frequency is 5.8 GHz [0062] and one wavelength =51.7 mm for a frequency of 5.8 GHz, therefore, a difference between the second radius and the first radius is less than one wavelength of the microwave radiation has been satisfied).
Yamamoto et al (‘009) wherein the susceptor (15)is a material having an assist function [0035] fails to teach the susceptor material having a dissipation factor of at least 0.05%; wafer height between 1 mm and 5 mm ; and after heating the wafer, transferring the wafer from the process chamber to a cooling chamber. However, since Yamamoto et al(‘009) teaches the same material[0035-0036] as applicant's invention (SiC-see applicant's specifications [0029]), a dissipation factor of 0.05% would necessarily be present. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a wafer height between 1 mm and 5 mm through routine experimentation to optimize heating. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Yamamoto et al(‘107) discloses a microwave heating process comprising transferring the semiconductor wafer to a cooling chamber[0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamamoto et al (‘009)with the teachings of Yamamoto et al(‘107) since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique by performing processes in independent chambers to increase throughput to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses wherein the second radius is larger than the first radius by a distance [0041] but fails to teach between 7% and 20% of the first radius. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve between a distance 7% and 20% of the first radius through routine experimentation to optimize assisting heating the wafer. "[W]here 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."In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 26, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses wherein the susceptor (15)comprises aluminum oxide[0035].
Regarding claim 29, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses wherein the pins (16)protrude from the top surface of the susceptor(15) a distance[0039] but fails to teach that is in the range of 1 mm to 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a wafer height between 1 mm and 5 mm through routine experimentation to optimize heating. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Regarding claim 30, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses wherein heating the wafer (W)comprises heating the susceptor(15) using the microwave radiation[0062][0085].
Regarding claim 31, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses wherein while heating the wafer, an electric field intensity within a distance of the first radius[0041[0057-0058][0062][0086]. Yamamoto et al (‘009) further teaches that the susceptor(15) material, height of the wafer, and the intensity of the microwaves attribute to the heating uniformity in the surface of the wafer but fails to teach electric field intensity within 5 mm and has a coefficient of variation of less than 50%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve electric field intensity within 5 mm of the first radius and having a coefficient of variation of less than 50% through routine experimentation to optimize managing the microwave field , and efficient uniform heating. "[W]here 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.' "In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 33, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses wherein the difference between the second radius and the first radius is less than a quarter of a wavelength of the microwave radiation[0104][0105](Examiner notes that SiC plate (15) diameter is 314 mm(radius =157 mm) and the wafer diameter is 300 mm(radius=150 mm); Examiner notes the difference in the 1st and 2nd radii is 7 mm, the preferred frequency is 5.8 GHz [0062] and one wavelength =51.7 mm for a frequency of 5.8 GHz, therefore, a difference between the second radius and the first radius is less than a quarter of a wavelength of the microwave radiation has been satisfied).
Regarding claim 34, Yamamoto et al (‘009) discloses a height[0040] but fails to teach wherein the height is less than a quarter of a wavelength of the microwave radiation. Yamamoto et al teaches that the preferred frequency is 5.8 GHz [0062](Examiner notes @ a frequency of 5.8GHz, one wavelength =51.7 mm), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a height less than a quarter of a wavelength of the microwave radiation through routine experimentation to optimize the heating capabilities of the susceptor. "[W]here 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."In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2014/0117009 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub no. 2012/0086107 A1) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Kowalski (US Pub no. 2009/0184399 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Yamamoto et al (‘009) as modified by Yamamoto et al (‘107) discloses all the claim limitations of claim 21 but fails to teach wherein the susceptor comprises an infrared sensor.
However, Kowalski et al discloses wherein the susceptor comprises an
infrared sensor[0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Yamamoto et al (‘009) as modified by Yamamoto et al (‘107) with the teachings of Kowalski et al since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to maintain a desired temperature to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Regarding claim 31, Kowalski et al discloses wherein while heating the wafer, an
electric field intensity within a distance of the first radius[0012][0048] but fails to teach
within 5 mm and has a coefficient of variation of less than 50%. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention
to achieve within 5 mm and has a coefficient of variation of less than 50% through
routine experimentation to optimize managing the microwave field and damage
recovery requirements. "[W]here 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.' "In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813