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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 24 June 2026. As directed by Applicant, only claim 1 is amended. No claims are cancelled or added. This is a Final Office Action.
Drawings
The replacement drawings are entered, and the Drawing Objections are withdrawn
Specification
The Amendment to the Specification is Entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments overcome all current §112b rejections, and those rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhejiang Jingsheng Mechanical and Electrical Co Ltd. (Chinese Patent Publication CN210341057U; in applicant’s IDS; herein “Zhejiang”) in view of Arai (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/ 0045104).
Regarding claim 1, Zhejiang discloses a heating body of an epitaxial growth device configured to heat a substrate, comprising a supporting base (7) and a tray (5),
tray (Zhejiang, 5) is mounted on the supporting base to support a substrate;
the supporting base comprises an air floating channel (22) (fig. 3, channel 22)
a mounting groove is disposed on the supporting base and configured to hold the tray (fig. 4, the hyphenated line indicates the groove for the tray) , and the air floating channel is in communication with the mounting groove and an external of the heating body respectively (Zhejiang, Figs. 4-5, can see the air blowing out), when a gas flows into the air floating channel, the gas is capable of driving the tray to levitate and rotate circumferentially (¶0040, gases “are introduced from the air flotation nozzle 9 to make the air flotation tray 5 rotate”).
Zhejiang does not disclose “wherein the supporting base comprises at least two temperature control channels which are hollow and penetrate through the supporting base along an axis of the epitaxial growth device”;
“the at least two temperature control channels are configured to accommodate a temperature control medium, and the temperature control medium is able to be input and output via two ends of the at least two temperature control channels respectively, so as to control an environment temperature around the tray,
two of the at least two temperature control channels are disposed corresponding to two sides of the tray respectively”;
the supporting base comprises an air floating channel “which is located between the two of the at least two temperature control channels, the two of the at least two temperature control channels are symmetrically arranged” with the air floating channel as an axis, “and the air floating channel and the two of the at least two temperature control channels are different channels”.
However, Arai teaches “wherein the supporting base comprises at least two temperature control channels which are hollow and penetrate through the supporting base along an axis of the epitaxial growth device” (Arai, fig. 5).
“the at least two temperature control channels are configured to accommodate a temperature control medium, and the temperature control medium is able to be input and output via two ends of the at least two temperature control channels respectively, so as to control an environment temperature around the tray (Fig. 5, coolant flow, ¶0004”control the temperature of a semiconductor wafer with high accuracy),
two of the at least two temperature control channels are disposed corresponding to two sides of the tray respectively” (Aria, the channels 24, at least one is on one side and at least one is on the other);
The advantage of having these channels would be to control the temperature of the wafer so that the semiconductor wafer may be worked on and heated and cooled appropriately. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhejiang with the teachings of Arai, to have cooling channels in the base too, would be in order to modify and control the temperature of the substrate in a conventional way, in order to make the wafer proper for processing in a conventional way (e.g. epitaxial growth)
And while Zhejiang in view of Arai teaches all the limitations above, it still does not explicitly teach the supporting base comprises an air floating channel “which is located between the two of the at least two temperature control channels, the two of the at least two temperature control channels are symmetrically arranged” with the air floating channel as an axis, “and the air floating channel and the two of the at least two temperature control channels are different channels”.
However, given that Zhejiang teaches the air floating channel in the middle (Zhejiang, element 22, seen in figs. 3 & 5,), and that Arai teaches the cooling channels symmetrically spaced around a center (Fig. 5, with the channels moving from left to right, with separate channels as seen in Fig. 5, section B-B’), it would have been obvious to have the air floating channel “located between the two of the at least two temperature control channels, the two of the at least two temperature control channels are symmetrically arranged” with the air floating channel as an axis, “and the air floating channel and the two of the at least two temperature control channels are different channels”, as this would be an obvious placement in a rearrangement of parts, combining the teachings of Zhejiang and Arai, in order that the airflow channel is placed in the middle and that the cooling channels are placed around it so that the device can be properly temperature controlled evenly.
Regarding claim 2, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the two of the at least two temperature control channels are close to an edge of the tray, and along a direction perpendicular to a surface of the supporting base, a part of a projection of the two of the at least two temperature control channels are on the tray (Zhejiang in view of Arai, Arai fig. 5. Section A-A’ and B-B’, projections of base 1 would be on the tray in the combination)
Regarding claim 3, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein part of the at least two the temperature control channels in a ring shape (Zhejiang in view of Arai, Arai, fig. 5, the partial ring shape is how the channels move on the outside edges of the base).
Regarding claim 4, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the two of the at least two temperature control channels successively comprise a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment, which are in communication with each other; the second segment is in a ring shape, and the second segment is close to an edge of the tray (Zhejiang in view of Arai, the segments and the ring are apparent in Arai, fig. 5, section A-A’).
Regarding claim 7, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the supporting base comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprises a first groove, the second portion comprises a second groove, the first groove and the second groove are matched with each other, and the at least two temperature control channels are defined by the first groove and the second groove (these portions may be designated in the different halves of the groove depicted by the dotted lines in fig. 4, and in the circular shape of the silicon wafer tray 4 in fig. 2) .
Regarding claim 8, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the heating body comprises a plurality of supporting bases, the plurality of the supporting bases are sequentially arranged along a direction perpendicular to the axis of the epitaxial growth device. However, having a plurality of based would simply be a duplication of parts of the base of Zhejiang (the top of base of 7 in fig. 4 where air floating channel 22 goes into), one on top of the other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhejiang in view of Arai, to have a plurality of bases, which would be a simple duplication of the parts of Zhejiang, in order to process more than one wafer at a time and this would increase the efficiency of this epitaxial growth processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 8, as above, but does not further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device comprises a supporting member disposed between adjacent two adjacent supporting base. However, in the combination above, the plurality of bases would indeed need a supporting member between them so that the bases do not collapse on each other, and thus this element, in light of the combination, would be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Zhejiang in view of Arai further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device comprising the heating body of claim 1 (Zhejiang, ¶0040, “heating coil” for heating, allowing for “epitaxial growth”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the two of he at least two temperature control channels are close to an edge of the tray, and along a direction perpendicular to a surface of the supporting base, a part of a projection of the temperature control channel is on the tray (Zhejiang in view of Arai, This is apparent in Arai, fig. 5, sections A-A', that this is how the temperature control channels are arranged, and do meet the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 12, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein part of the two of the at least two temperature control channels are in a ring shape (Zhejiang in view of Arai, Arai, fig. 5, the partial ring shape is how the channels move on the outside edges of the base).
Regarding claim 13, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 12, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the two of the at least two temperature control channels successively comprise a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment, which are in communication with each other; the second segment is in a ring shape, and the second segment is close to an edge of the tray (Zhejiang in view of Arai, the segments and the ring are apparent in Arai, fig. 5, section A-A’).
Regarding claim 16, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the supporting base comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprises a first groove, the second portion comprises a second groove, the first groove and the second groove are matched with each other, and the at least two temperature control channels are defined by the first groove and the second groove. (these portions may be designated in the different halves of the groove depicted by the dotted lines in fig. 4, and in the circular shape of the silicon wafer tray 4 in fig. 2) .
Regarding claim 17, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the heating body comprises a plurality of supporting bases, the plurality of the supporting bases are sequentially arranged along a direction perpendicular to the axis of the epitaxial growth device. However, having a plurality of based would simply be a duplication of parts of the base of Zhejiang (the top of base of 7 in fig. 4 where air floating channel 22 goes into), one on top of the other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhejiang in view of Arai, to have a plurality of bases, which would be a simple duplication of the parts of Zhejiang, in order to process more than one wafer at a time and this would increase the efficiency of this epitaxial growth processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, Zhejiang in view of Arai teach all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further teach a heating body of an epitaxial growth device wherein the heating body further comprises a supporting member disposed between adjacent two adjacent supporting bases. However, in the combination above, the plurality of bases would indeed need a supporting member between them so that the bases are supported and do not collapse on each other, and thus this element, in light of the combination, would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhejiang in view of Arai do not teach all the limitations of the claim because claim 1 recites, inter alia, that the “at least two temperature control channels are hollow and penetrate through the supporting base”, and this is different than that taught by Arai (Remarks, p. 10 of 12). Examiner Disagrees. In Arai (fig. 5), the channels are hollow (section B-B’) and penetrate though at least some of the supporting base (section A-A’) via the channels made by sidewalls 20. Now, of course, the teachings of Arai would have to be modified when being added to Zhejiang (against the argument in Remarks, p. 11 of 12 that a combination would not be proper), in order that the air floating channel remains in the middle, and the teaching of Arai, having channels of Arai cooling, would be added to provide cooling for the device as is well-known, avoiding and not interfering with the air flowing channel. Thus, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights