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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 3, 8, 11-14 was/were withdrawn; claim 4 was cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 18 is/are amended.
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 Ramamurthy 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Boss structures (any type of protruding features on the first section, para. [0130] or second section, para. [0136]) in claims 1-10, 15-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1-2, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040250772 to Ramamurthy in view of US 20060075972 to Nakashima and further in view of US 5304248 to Cheng.
Claims 1, 5: Ramamurthy discloses substrate carrier that supports a semiconductor substrate in a chemical vapor deposition system, the substrate carrier (104/106, Fig. 1) comprising: a) a circularly-shaped first section (104) configured to be centrally located in the substrate carrier (104/106), the circularly-shaped first section (104) comprising a top surface (top of 104) having a recessed area (see Fig. 1) for receiving at least one substrate (102 [wafer]) for chemical vapor deposition processing (para. [0006], [0009]); and
configured to interface with an edge drive rotating drum (106 [cylinder], Fig. 1, para. [0012]) and having an inner surface (inner surface of 106) configured to receive the circularly-shaped first section (104, Fig. 1).
Ramamurthy does not disclose (claim 1) a self-centering split substrate carrier, the substrate carrier comprising b) a second section shaped like an outer edge ring and positioned around the circularly-shaped first section to form an outer edge ring that is configured to interface with a rotating drum and having an inner surface configured to receive the circularly-shaped first section; (claim 5) wherein the recessed area of the first section of the split substrate carrier supports an entire bottom surface of the at least one substrate;
Nakashima discloses a self-centering split substrate carrier that supports a semiconductor substrate in a chemical vapor deposition system, the substrate carrier (40 [susceptor], Fig. 1, 2) comprising: a) a circularly-shaped first section (41/42) configured to be centrally located in the self-centering split substrate carrier (40), and
b) a second section (43 [second peripheral member]) shaped like an outer edge ring (Fig. 2) and positioned around the circularly-shaped first section (41/42) to form an outer edge ring (Fig. 2-3, para. [0059]) that is configured to interface with a rotating drum (35 [rotation drum], Fig. 1) and having an inner surface (inner surface of 43) configured to receive the circularly-shaped first section (41/42, Fig. 2-3, para. [0059]); (claim 5) discloses wherein the recessed area of the first section (recessed area of 41/42, Fig. 1, Nakashima) of the split substrate carrier (40) supports an entire bottom surface of the at least one substrate (Fig. 1, 3); for the purpose of being possible to prevent the heat of the wafer from escaping outside, thus being possible to control the temperature distribution uniformly over the entire wafer (para. [0091]).
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 section with configuration as taught by Nakashima with motivation to be possible to prevent the heat of the wafer from escaping outside, thus be possible to control the temperature distribution uniformly over the entire wafer.
However Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima does not disclose (claim 1) the first section comprising a plurality of apertures positioned in an outer surface, the inner surface of the second section comprising a plurality of boss structures, wherein a respective one of the plurality of boss structures on the inner surface of the second section is configured to fit into a respective one of the plurality of apertures positioned in the outer surface of the first section, so as to improve alignment of the first and the second section of the self-centering split substrate carrier.
Cheng discloses the first section (50 [shield ring], Fig. 5-7) comprising a plurality of apertures (52 [openings]) positioned in an outer surface (outer surface of 50), the inner surface of the second section (inner surface of 70 [support means]) comprising a plurality of boss structures (72 [tapered pins]), wherein a respective one of the plurality of boss structures (72) on the inner surface of the second section (70) is configured to fit into a respective one of the plurality of apertures (52) positioned in the outer surface of the first section (see fig. 5-7), so as to improve alignment of the first and the second section of the alignment component, for the purpose of moving the shield ring back into rotational alignment with support means (c. 6, lines 37-56).
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 openings and boos structures with configuration as taught by Cheng with motivation to move the shield ring back into rotational alignment with support means.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng discloses wherein the first section (104, Fig. 1, Ramamurthy) is formed in a circular shape (Fig. 1).
Claim 3: (Withdrawn).
Claim 4: (Cancelled).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng does not disclose wherein the first and the second sections are formed of materials having a same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Nakashima discloses wherein the first and the second sections (41/42, 43, Fig. 1) are formed of materials having a same coefficient of thermal expansion (para. [0060] where quartz and SiC have essentially same coefficient of thermal expansion, see Applicant’s own specification where para. [0072] discloses that quartz and SiC have essentially the same CoTE at high temperature), for the purpose of possibly preventing the heat of the wafer from escaping outside (para. [0075]).
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 requirements above as taught by Nakashima with motivation to possibly prevent the heat of the wafer from escaping outside.
Claim 8: (Withdrawn).
Claims 11-14: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 6 above, and further in view of US 20160372321 to Krishnan.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng does not disclose wherein the first and the second sections are formed of the same material.
However Krishnan teaches that wafer carriers and rotation tubes can be formed from a variety of materials such as ones listed in para. [0072]) for the purpose of adjusting for different coefficients of thermal expansion thus avoiding non-uniform asymmetric temperature profiles (para. [0072] where both can be made of most of the same materials listed).
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 materials for each component as taught by Krishnan with motivation to adjust for different coefficients of thermal expansion thus avoiding non-uniform asymmetric temperature profiles.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 6 above, and further in view of US 20130129577 to Halpin.
Claim 9: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng does not disclose wherein a radial clearance between the first and second sections is in the range of 100 — 500 microns.
Halpin teaches that the widths and lengths of tortuous paths between a first (42 [first member], Fig. 5) and second section (44 [second member]) may be optimized for the purpose of permitting a variable amount of communication between the upper and lower regions or no communication between the upper and lower regions depending on the processing requirements (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 optimization of clearance values between the first and second sections as taught by Halpin with motivation to permit a variable amount of communication between the upper and lower regions or no communication between the upper and lower regions depending on the processing requirements.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6 above, and further in view of US 20130256962 to Ranish.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng does not disclose wherein the first and second sections are configured to form a gap between the first section and the second section, wherein the gap is dimensioned to create a labyrinthine gas flow path between the first section and the second section that reduces gas diffusion from a reaction space proximate to top surfaces of the split substrate carrier and a heater volume proximate to a bottom surface of the split substrate carrier.
Ranish discloses the first and second sections (126, 127, Fig. 2A, Nakashima) are configured to form a gap (141 [second path]) between the first section (126) and the second section (127), wherein the gap (141) is dimensioned to create a labyrinthine gas flow path between the first section and the second section (para. [0024]), for the purpose of limiting gas from flowing between he first and second volumes (para. [0028]).
Regarding the limitations: “that reduces gas diffusion from a reaction space proximate to top surfaces of the split substrate carrier and a heater volume proximate to bottom surfaces of the split substrate carrier,” they are drawn to intended use of the system and the apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng, Ranish disclose the structure 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 limitations above as taught by Ranish with motivation to limit gas from flowing between the first and second volumes.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040250772 to Ramamurthy in view of US 20060075972 to Nakashima and further in view of US 5304248 to Cheng.
Claim 15: Ramamurthy discloses a method of manufacturing a substrate carrier that supports at least one semiconductor substrate on a top surface of the substrate carrier in a chemical vapor deposition system, the method comprising: a) a circularly-shaped first section (104) configured to be centrally located in the substrate carrier (104/106), the circularly-shaped first section (104) comprising a top surface (top of 104) having a recessed area (see Fig. 1) for receiving at least one substrate (102 [wafer]) for chemical vapor deposition processing (para. [0006], [0009]); and
configured to interface with an edge drive rotating drum (106 [cylinder], Fig. 1, para. [0012]) and having an inner surface (inner surface of 106) configured to receive the circularly-shaped first section (104, Fig. 1).
Ramamurthy does not disclose (claim 1) a self-centering split substrate carrier, the substrate carrier comprising b) providing a second section shaped like an outer edge ring and positioned around the circularly-shaped first section to form an outer edge ring that is configured to interface with a rotating drum and having an inner surface configured to receive the circularly-shaped first section; c) positioning the first section into the second section.
Nakashima discloses a method of manufacturing a split substrate carrier, the method comprising:
a) providing a circularly-shaped first section (41/42, Fig. 1), b) providing a second section (43 [second peripheral member], Fig. 1) shaped like an outer edge ring (Fig. 2) and positioned around the circularly-shaped first section (41/42) to form an outer edge ring (Fig. 2-3, para. [0059]) that is configured to interface with an edge drive rotating drum (35 [rotation drum], Fig. 1) having an inner surface configured to receive the circularly-shaped first section (41/42), and
c) positioning the first section (41/42) into the second section (43, para. [0059-0060]), for the purpose of being possible to prevent the heat of the wafer from escaping outside, thus being possible to control the temperature distribution uniformly over the entire wafer (para. [0091]).
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 section with configuration as taught by Nakashima with motivation to be possible to prevent the heat of the wafer from escaping outside, thus be possible to control the temperature distribution uniformly over the entire wafer.
However Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima does not disclose a plurality of apertures positioned in an outer surface, wherein the inner surface of the second section comprises a plurality of boss structures; wherein a respective one of the plurality of boss structures on the inner surface of the second section fits into a respective one of the plurality of apertures positioned in the outer surface of the first section so as to improve alignment of the first and the second section of the split substrate carrier.
Cheng discloses the first section (50 [shield ring], Fig. 5-7) comprising a plurality of apertures (52 [openings]) positioned in an outer surface (outer surface of 50), the inner surface of the second section (inner surface of 70 [support means]) comprising a plurality of boss structures (72 [tapered pins]), wherein a respective one of the plurality of boss structures (72) on the inner surface of the second section (70) is configured to fit into a respective one of the plurality of apertures (52) positioned in the outer surface of the first section (see fig. 5-7), so as to improve alignment of the first and the second section of the alignment component, for the purpose of moving the shield ring back into rotational alignment with support means (c. 6, lines 37-56).
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 openings and boos structures with configuration as taught by Cheng with motivation to move the shield ring back into rotational alignment with support means.
Claim 16: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng does not disclose forming the first and second sections of the split substrate carrier with materials that a same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Nakashima discloses further comprising forming the first and second sections (41/42, 43, Fig. 1, Nakashima) of the split substrate carrier (40) with materials that have a same coefficient of thermal expansion (para. [0060] where quartz and SiC have essentially same coefficient of thermal expansion, see Applicant’s own specification where para. [0072] discloses that quartz and SiC have essentially the same CoTE at high temperature).
Claim 18: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng does not disclose forming the split substrate carrier of a material that has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is same to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the edge drive rotating drum.
Nakashima discloses further comprising forming the split substrate carrier (41/42, Fig. 1, Nakashima) of a material that has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is same to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the edge drive rotating drum (35, para. [0060] where quartz and SiC have essentially same coefficient of thermal expansion, see Applicant’s own specification where para. [0072] discloses that quartz and SiC have essentially the same CoTE at high temperature).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng as applied to claims 15-16, 18 above, and further in view of US 20160372321 to Krishnan.
Claim 17: The apparatus of Ramamurthy in view of Nakashima, Cheng discloses further comprising forming the first section (104, Fig. 1, Ramamurthy) of the substrate carrier (104/106) of a material selected from the group consisting of graphite, graphite coated with silicon carbide, graphite coated with tantalum carbide, graphite coated with tungsten carbide, graphite coated with niobium carbide, graphite coated with molybdenum carbide, boron carbide, boron nitride, silicon carbide, tantalum carbide, aluminum carbide, aluminum nitride, niobium carbide, niobium nitride, alumina, molybdenum, and combinations thereof (para. [0044]).
However the second section is not disclosed as having the materials above.
However Krishnan teaches that wafer carriers and rotation tubes can be formed from a variety of materials such as ones listed in para. [0072]) for the purpose of adjusting for different coefficients of thermal expansion thus avoiding non-uniform asymmetric temperature profiles (para. [0072] where both can be made of most of the same materials listed).
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 materials for each component as taught by Krishnan with motivation to adjust for different coefficients of thermal expansion thus avoiding non-uniform asymmetric temperature profiles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210095374 discloses a similar invention without the second section, by the same assignee.
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
Prosecution Insights