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 Amendment
The amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-5, and 10-18 are pending.
Claims 1 and 10-17 are currently amended.
Claim 18 is newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner construes “a group-III compound semiconductor crystal” as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 16 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the claim limitation “a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening”. As currently written, it is unclear as to how such lines are to be interpreted since the spraying direction of a nozzle can widely vary due to various factors and can correspond to various directions simultaneously. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation to refer to any directional arrangement of the nozzles being capable of intersecting in such a manner of “a spraying direction”.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 5304247 A), further in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1), Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), and Kim (US 20100024727 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches a manufacturing apparatus for a group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Kondo, Abstract, apparatus for deposition of III-V semiconductor), the manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a reaction container, wherein the reaction container includes: a crystal growth section (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, crystal is deposited on substrate 3 which is located on susceptor 4 within reaction tube 2);
a gas flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 16, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas injector 1); and
wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, crystal is deposited on substrate 3 which is located on susceptor 4 within reaction tube 2),
wherein the gas flow channel includes: a first flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas injector 1);
a second flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, vertical wall portions of reaction tube 2); and
a connection portion (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2),
wherein: the first flow channel includes a first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, opening where bottom of injector 1 meets top of slant portion of reaction tube 2); the second flow channel includes a second opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, opening where top of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 meets bottom of slant portion of reaction tube 2);
an area of the second opening is configured to be larger than an area of the first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, diameter of opening of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 is larger than diameter of opening at bottom of injector 1); the connection portion connects the first opening and the second opening with each other (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
the connection portion has a tapered shape expanding from the first opening toward the second opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
the gas flow channel defines a gas flow path for gases to flow in the reaction container sequentially passing through the first flow channel, the connection portion, and the second flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas is introduced at top of injector 1, flows downward through to slanted portion of reaction tube 2, then flows downward through vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on a downstream side of the first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, susceptor 4 is located downstream of bottom of opening of injector 1); and
the connection portion expands at a constant angle with respect to a distance away from the first opening in a side view (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 and are continuous).
Kondo fails to teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas; and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal,
wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate, on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow,
the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on an upstream side of the second opening; and
a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Gurary teaches wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate (Gurary, [0028], [0018]-[0019], spindle 28 rotates wafers on wafer carrier 30), on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow, and
the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on an upstream side of the second opening (Gurary, Fig. 1, [0017], carrier top surface 34 is located above lower opening dCR and below upper opening dFR within downwardly-facing transition surface 22, where gas flows downwardly from upper opening dFR through towards lower opening dFR).
Gurary is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of carrier surface placement within the flow channels, and rotation of the carrier, as taught by Gurary as doing so can provide a stable and orderly flow of reactive gases over the surface of the carrier and over the surface of the wafer, so that all of the wafers on the carrier, and all regions of each wafer, are exposed to substantially uniform conditions, resulting in uniform deposition on the wafers (Gurary, [0005]-[0006]).
Modified Kondo fails to teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas; and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal, and
a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Fujikura teaches teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], a group III element-containing gas is supplied via gas supply pipe 13c into the processing chamber 12); and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0036], gas supply port 15d blows gas from gas supply source 15a into chamber 12).
Fujikura is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of substrate processing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the gas supply of Kondo to incorporate the raw material gas section, raw material reaction chamber, and raw material gas nozzles of Fujikura to produce and spray reactive group group-III element-containing gas to the substrate. Incorporation of said assemblies suppresses unintended substrate processing from being performed after processing is ended (Fujikura, [0015]).
Modified Kondo fails to teach a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Kim teaches a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening (Kim, Fig. 1, [0048] – [0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined from the center portion to the circumferential portion and inject gas towards the upper face of susceptor 120, intersecting above susceptor 120 exhibited by the arrows in Fig. 1, where the design of the showerhead 200’ allows for different gases to be injected at the same time through the injection nozzles 225 and 235, mixing after injection into the processing space, Fig. 3, [0072]).
Kim is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of modified Kondo to incorporate the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo fails to teach wherein: the reaction container further includes a raw material reaction chamber configured to produce the group-III element-containing gas in the raw material reaction chamber;
the raw material gas nozzle is configured to lead the group-III element-containing gas out of the raw material reaction chamber; and
a spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle and a spraying orifice of the at least one reactive gas nozzle is configured to be surrounded by the first flow channel.
However, Fujikura teaches wherein: the reaction container further includes a raw material reaction chamber (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0030], vessel 14b contains metal source 14a and gas flow space 14c) configured to produce the group-III element-containing gas in the raw material reaction chamber; and
the raw material gas nozzle is configured to lead the group-III element-containing gas out of the raw material reaction chamber (Fujikura, [0030], reaction gas passes through space 14c where it is in contact with metal source 14a to generate a process gas, [0032] where metal source 14a is a group III element).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the gas supply of Kondo to incorporate the raw material gas section, raw material reaction chamber, and raw material gas nozzles of Fujikura to produce and spray reactive group group-III element-containing gas to the substrate. Incorporation of said assemblies suppresses unintended substrate processing from being performed after processing is ended (Fujikura, [0015]). Thus, as a combination, Ohashi and Fujikura teach wherein the first flow channel (Kondo) is disposed surrounding a spraying orifice of the at least one reactive gas nozzles (Fujikura) due to the breadth of the word “surrounded”, which can be met by any adjacent structures within the combined apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, Kondo fails to teach wherein the raw material gas nozzle is disposed such that the spraying direction of the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle is directed toward the upper face of the substrate support member.
However, Fujikura teaches wherein the raw material gas nozzle (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], a group III element-containing gas is supplied via gas supply pipe 13c to gas supply port 13d) is disposed such that the spraying direction of the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle is directed toward the upper face of the substrate support member(Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], gas supply port 13d blows the gas to substrate 100, which is located on the upper face of susceptor 20).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas supply of Kondo to incorporate the nozzles of Fujikura and direct the gas nozzles to the upper face supporting member. Incorporation of said assembly suppresses unintended substrate processing from being performed after processing is ended (Fujikura, [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kondo fails to teach wherein the at least one reactive gas nozzle is disposed such that the spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle is inclined with respect to the upper face of the substrate support member.
However, Kim teaches wherein the at least one reactive gas nozzle (Kim, Fig. 1, [0043], showerhead 200 has head 210 and injection nozzles 215 which inject reaction gas G into reaction chamber 110) is disposed such that the spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle is inclined with respect to the upper face of the substrate support member (Kim, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, [0048] – [0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined from the center portion to the circumferential portion and inject gas towards the upper face of susceptor 120).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of modified Kondo to incorporate the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kondo fails to teach wherein in a top view of the substrate support member, the at least one reactive gas nozzle is disposed such that the spraying direction of the spraying orifices of the at least one reactive gas nozzle is deflected with respect to a radial direction from an axis of rotation of the substrate support member.
However, Kim teaches wherein in a top view of the substrate support member, the at least one reactive gas nozzle is disposed such that the spraying direction of the spraying orifices of the at least one reactive gas nozzle is deflected with respect to a radial direction from an axis of rotation of the substrate support member (Kim, Fig. 1, [0048]-[0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined at a predetermined angle which extends in the circumferential direction and produces a clockwise or counterclockwise flow along a circular spiral path, which forms a spiral gas vortex moving down to the susceptor 120, which holds wafer 2, and rotates [0038]–[0039]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of modified Kondo to incorporate the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, Kondo teaches a manufacturing apparatus for a group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Kondo, Abstract, apparatus for deposition of III-V semiconductor), the manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a reaction container, wherein the reaction container includes: a crystal growth section (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, crystal is deposited on substrate 3 which is located on susceptor 4 within reaction tube 2);
a gas flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 16, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas injector 1); and
wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, crystal is deposited on substrate 3 which is located on susceptor 4 within reaction tube 2),
wherein the gas flow channel includes: a first flow channel having a first diameter (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas injector 1);
a second flow channel having a second diameter (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, vertical wall portions of reaction tube 2); and
a connection portion (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2),
wherein: the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, diameter of opening of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 is larger than diameter of opening at bottom of injector 1);
the first flow channel includes a first opening disposed at a downstream end of the first flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, opening where bottom of injector 1 meets top of slant portion of reaction tube 2);
the second flow channel includes a second opening disposed at an upstream end of the second flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, opening where top of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 meets bottom of slant portion of reaction tube 2);
an area of the second opening is larger than an area of the first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, diameter of opening of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 is larger than diameter of opening at bottom of injector 1);
the connection portion connects the first opening and the second opening with each other (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
an entirety of the connection portion extends between the first diameter and the second diameter and has a conical shape (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2, where reaction space 2 is a tube);
the gas flow channel defines a gas flow path for gases to flow in the reaction container sequentially passing through the first flow channel, the connection portion, and the second flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas is introduced at top of injector 1, flows downward through to slanted portion of reaction tube 2, then flows downward through vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2); and
the connection portion expands at a constant angle with respect to a distance away from the first opening in a side view (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 and are continuous).
Kondo fails to teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas;
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal,
wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate, on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow,
the substrate support member is disposed inside the connection portion, and
a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Gurary teaches wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate (Gurary, [0028], [0018]-[0019], spindle 28 rotates wafers on wafer carrier 30), on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow, and
the substrate support member is disposed inside the connection portion (Gurary, Fig. 1, [0017], carrier top surface 34 is located above lower opening dCR and below upper opening dFR within downwardly-facing transition surface 22).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of carrier surface placement within the flow channels, and rotation of the carrier, as taught by Gurary as doing so can provide a stable and orderly flow of reactive gases over the surface of the carrier and over the surface of the wafer, so that all of the wafers on the carrier, and all regions of each wafer, are exposed to substantially uniform conditions, resulting in uniform deposition on the wafers (Gurary, [0005]-[0006]).
Modified Kondo fails to teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas; and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal, and
a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Fujikura teaches a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], a group III element-containing gas is supplied via gas supply pipe 13c into the processing chamber 12); and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0036], gas supply port 15d blows gas from gas supply source 15a into chamber 12).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the gas supply of Kondo to incorporate the raw material gas section, raw material reaction chamber, and raw material gas nozzles of Fujikura to produce and spray reactive group group-III element-containing gas to the substrate. Incorporation of said assemblies suppresses unintended substrate processing from being performed after processing is ended (Fujikura, [0015]).
Modified Kondo fails to teach a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Kim teaches a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening (Kim, Fig. 1, [0048] – [0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined from the center portion to the circumferential portion and inject gas towards the upper face of susceptor 120, intersecting above susceptor 120 exhibited by the arrows in Fig. 1, where the design of the showerhead 200’ allows for different gases to be injected at the same time through the injection nozzles 225 and 235, mixing after injection into the processing space, Fig. 3, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of modified Kondo to incorporate the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 5304247 A) in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1), Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), and Kim (US 20100024727 A1) as applied in claims 1, 10, 12-14, and 16, and further in view of Ohashi (US 6113705 A).
The limitations of claims 1, 10, 12-14 and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kondo fails to teach wherein a difference between the area of the first opening and an area of the upper face of the substrate support member is within 30% of the area of the upper face of the substrate support member.
However, Ohashi teaches wherein a difference between the area of the first opening (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-27], upper portion 1 has diameter D1 and D1area = π(D1/2)2 and an area of the upper face of the substrate support member (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 28-29], substrate holder 12 has diameter Ds and Dsarea = π(Ds/2)2) is within 30% of the area of the upper face of the substrate support member (Ohashi, Table 1, embodiment 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2, where D1 and Ds are equal, and therefore the difference (D1area-Dsarea)/D1area is within 30% of the area of the upper face Ds).
Ohashi is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have set the size of the first opening relative to the size of the susceptor as taught by Ohashi as doing so will prevent particles from falling on the wafer from the inner wall surface, while at the same time preventing the blow-up phenomenon of the gas flow along the inner wall of the reactor (Ohashi, Col 8 L26 – Col 9 L12).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kondo fails to teach wherein: the area of the first opening is S1; the area of the second opening is S2; an area of the upper face of the substrate support member is S3; and -50% < ((S2-S3)-S1)/S1< 50%.
However, Ohashi teaches wherein: the area of the first opening is S1 (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-27], upper portion 1 has diameter D1 and D1area = π(D1/2)2); the area of the second opening is S2 (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-28], lower portion 2 has diameter D2 and D2area = π(D2/2)2); an area of the upper face of the substrate support member is S3 (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 28-29], substrate holder 12 has diameter Ds and Dsarea = π(Ds/2)2); and -50% < ((S2-S3)-S1)/S1 < 50% (Ohashi, Table 1, embodiment 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2, where D1 = 260 mm, D2 = 337 mm and Ds = 260 mm, ((D2area -Dsarea)-D1area)/D1area = -32%).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have set the size of the openings relative to the size of the susceptor as taught by Ohashi as doing so will prevent particles from falling on the wafer from the inner wall surface, while at the same time preventing the blow-up phenomenon of the gas flow along the inner wall of the reactor (Ohashi, Col 8 L26 – Col 9 L12).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 5304247 A) in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1), Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), and Kim (US 20100024727 A1) as applied in claims 1, 10, 12-14, and 16, and further in view of Cowher (US 4211803 A).
The limitations of claims 1, 10, 12-14 and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kondo teaches wherein: each of the first flow channel and the second flow channel is configured to have a cylindrical shape (Kondo, Figs. 12 and 17, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, reaction space 2 is a tube, and sub-injectors 11 in injector 1 are arranged circularly).
Modified Kondo fails to teach wherein a difference between a first vertical distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of the substrate support member and a second vertical distance from the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle to the second opening is within 30% of a third vertical distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of the substrate support member.
While Cowher does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Cowher teaches wherein the distance(s) between a raw material gas nozzle and a substrate supporting member is a result effective variable. Particularly, Cowher teaches wherein the distances A, B, and C (Cowher, Fig. 1) are varied in order to achieve optimum thickness and composition control for a particular substrate geometry (Cowher – C4, L65- C5, L10).
Cowher teaches a substrate processing apparatus, and is thus considered to be analogous art to the instant application. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of the substrate supporting member, the vertical distance from the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle to the second opening, and a vertical distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of modified Kondo through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum thickness and composition control for a particular substrate geometry (Cowher – C4, L65- C5, L10). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Kondo fails to teach wherein the spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle and the spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the substrate support member.
However, Kim teaches wherein the spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle and the spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the substrate support member (Kim, Fig. 1, [0048] – [0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined from the center portion to the circumferential portion and inject gas towards the upper face of susceptor 120, intersecting above susceptor 120 exhibited by the arrows in Fig. 1, where the design of the showerhead 200’ allows for different gases to be injected at the same time through the injection nozzles 225 and 235, mixing after injection into the processing space, Fig. 3, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of modified Kondo to incorporate the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 5304247 A) in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1), Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), and Kim (US 20100024727 A1) as applied in claims 1, 10, 12-14, and 16, and further in view of Higashi (US 20090238971 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 10, 12-14 and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kondo fails to teach wherein an angle defined between an inner wall surface of the connection portion and a plane along the second opening is in a range from 30 degrees to less than 45 degrees.
However, Higashi teaches wherein an angle defined between an inner wall surface of the connection portion and a plane along the second opening is in a range from 30 degrees to less than 45 degrees (Higashi, Fig. 8, [0102]-[0111], angle that flow-regulating wall 200 makes with horizontal plane is 30 degrees, Fig. 10A). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Higashi is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have set the angle of the connection portion of Kondo to values less than 45 degrees, such as 30 degrees, because decreasing the angle decreases the backflow rate (Higashi, [0111]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 5304247 A) in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1) and Yamada (US 20090250004 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kondo teaches a manufacturing apparatus for a group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Kondo, Abstract, apparatus for deposition of III-V semiconductor), the manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a reaction container, wherein the reaction container includes: a crystal growth section (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, crystal is deposited on substrate 3 which is located on susceptor 4 within reaction tube 2);
a gas flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 16, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas injector 1);
wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, crystal is deposited on substrate 3 which is located on susceptor 4 within reaction tube 2),
wherein the gas flow channel includes: a first flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas injector 1);
a second flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, vertical wall portions of reaction tube 2); and
a connection portion (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2),
wherein: the first flow channel includes a first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, opening where bottom of injector 1 meets top of slant portion of reaction tube 2);
the second flow channel includes a second opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, opening where top of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 meets bottom of slant portion of reaction tube 2);
an area of the second opening is configured to be larger than an area of the first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, diameter of opening of vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 is larger than diameter of opening at bottom of injector 1);
the connection portion connects the first opening and the second opening with each other (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
the connection portion has a tapered shape expanding from the first opening toward the second opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
the gas flow channel defines a gas flow path for gases to flow in the reaction container sequentially passing through the first flow channel, the connection portion, and the second flow channel (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, gas is introduced at top of injector 1, flows downward through to slanted portion of reaction tube 2, then flows downward through vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2);
the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on a downstream side of the first opening (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, susceptor 4 is located downstream of bottom of opening of injector 1); and
the connection portion expands at a constant angle with respect to a distance away from the first opening in a side view (Kondo, Fig. 12, Col 9 L13 – Col 11 L21, slanted portions of reaction tube 2 connect bottom of injector 1 and vertical wall portion of reaction tube 2 and are continuous).
Kondo fails to teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas; and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal,
wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate, on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow, and
the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on an upstream side of the second opening; and
a central longitudinal axis of a gas discharge outlet of the raw material gas nozzle and a central longitudinal axis of a gas discharge tip portion of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Gurary teaches wherein the crystal growth section includes: a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate (Gurary, [0028], [0018]-[0019], spindle 28 rotates wafers on wafer carrier 30), on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow, and
the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on an upstream side of the second opening (Gurary, Fig. 1, [0017], carrier top surface 34 is located above lower opening dCR and below upper opening dFR within downwardly-facing transition surface 22, where gas flows downwardly from upper opening dFR through towards lower opening dFR).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of carrier surface placement within the flow channels, and rotation of the carrier, as taught by Gurary as doing so can provide a stable and orderly flow of reactive gases over the surface of the carrier and over the surface of the wafer, so that all of the wafers on the carrier, and all regions of each wafer, are exposed to substantially uniform conditions, resulting in uniform deposition on the wafers (Gurary, [0005]-[0006]).
Modified Kondo fails to teach a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas; and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal, and
a central longitudinal axis of a gas discharge outlet of the raw material gas nozzle and a central longitudinal axis of a gas discharge tip portion of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening.
However, Yamada teaches a raw material gas nozzle configured to spray group-III element-containing gas (Yamada, Fig. 6B, [0083]-[0084], nozzle 30A and nozzles 30B of gas head 13 are in communication with gas sources, Fig. 1); and
at least one reactive gas nozzle configured to spray at least one reactive gas for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Yamada, Fig. 6B, [0083]-[0084], nozzle 30A and nozzles 30B of gas head 13 are in communication with gas sources, Fig. 1), and
a central longitudinal axis of a gas discharge outlet of the raw material gas nozzle and a central longitudinal axis of a gas discharge tip portion of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening (Yamada, Fig. 6B, [0083]-[0084], central axis of nozzles 30B intersect with central axis of nozzle 30A at point directly where gas exits nozzle 30A).
Yamada is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the gas nozzles of Kondo in the manner taught by Yamada as doing so would help ensure in-plane uniformity in thickness, quality and composition of a thin-film to be formed on the substrate (Yamada, [0084]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 03/23/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Kondo in view of Gurary, teach the claim limitations “a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle and a virtual line extending in a spraying direction of the at least one reactive gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the first opening” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
The Applicant also asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Tokuda, teach the claim limitations “an angle defined between an inner wall surface of the connection portion and a plane along the second opening is in a range from 30 degrees to less than 45 degrees” of dependent claim 17 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at 571-272-5166. 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights