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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites, “ a second subbase that is separately arranged in the accommodating groove, without a substrate placed thereon.” This a negative limitation because it excludes placing a substrate on the second subbase. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. (MPEP 2173.05(i). There is no support in the original disclosure for the exclusion of a substrate on the second subbase. There is merely a figure which depicts the second subbase which does not include a substrate thereon, which is not sufficient support for the negative limitation. The same argument applies to claims 2-3 and 5-20 which depend from claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2011/0048325) in view of Takada et al (US 2015/0167169) and Boyd (DE 102014114947 A1), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Choi et al teaches a semiconductor growth device, comprising: a reaction chamber (processing chamber 112); a heating base (substrate seat unit 118) arranged in the reaction chamber, and a first spray unit 320 and a second spray unit 310 arranged at a top of the reaction chamber, wherein the second spray unit 310 is arranged around a periphery of the first spray unit, the first spray unit 320 is arranged above a central upper region heating area, and the second spray unit is arranged above the substrate heating area, wherein the first spray unit comprises at least a first pipe, the first pipe is adapted for introducing a first gas source, the second spray unit comprises at least a second pipe, the second pipe is adapted for introducing a second gas source, and a decomposition temperature of the first gas source is greater than a decomposition temperature of the second gas source ([0091]-[0095]).
Choi et al does not teach the heating base comprises a first heating area and a second heating area arranged around a periphery of the first heating area.
In a film forming apparatus, Takada et al teaches a furnace 12; a gas supply section 40 provided on a top surface of the furnace; a susceptor 16 supported by a support stand 14; the susceptor has a first portion 16a having a dent that holds a wafer on a top surface thereof; a second portion 16b connected to the first portion 16a, wherein the first portion 16a is a peripheral portion of the susceptor 16 and the second portion 16b is a central portion of the susceptor 16 ([0019]-[0025]; Fig 1). Takada et al also teaches a first heater 30 to heat the first portion 16a; a second heater 32 to heat the second portion 16b is provided right below the second portion 16b; and a temperature control apparatus 34 is connected to the first heater 30 and the second heater 32 to individually control temperatures of the first heater 30 and the second heater 32 (Fig 1; [0022]). Takada et al teaches controlling the temperature of the first and second heater to prevent changes over the times in the density of the decomposed gas and stabilize the quality of the growth film ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Choi et al by providing a heating base comprises a first heating area and a second heating area arranged around a periphery of the first heating area, as taught by Takada et al, to control the temperature of the first and second heater to prevent changes over the times in the density of the decomposed gas and stabilize the quality of the growth film (Takada [0026]).
Referring to “a heating temperature of the first heating area is greater than a heating temperature of the second heating area, and a second source gas with a decomposition temperature lower than a first gas source,” these are intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the apparatus taught by the combination of Choi et al and Takada et al teaches supplying gas having different decomposition temperatures and ejecting processing gas having a higher decomposition temperature from a central region (Choi [0092]-[0095]) and a susceptor with individually controllable heaters for decomposing gas (Takada Fig 1; [0020]-[0026]); therefore, is configured to heat to desired temperatures and supplying gas having different decomposition temperatures to the first and second spray units.
The combination of Choi et al and Takada et al teaches the heating base comprising a first subbase, wherein the first subbase comprises a central area and an edge area surrounding the central area. The combination of Choi et al and Takada et al does not teach an accommodating groove is provided in at least a top of the central area; and a second subbase that is separately arranged in the accommodating groove, without substrate placed thereon, wherein the second subbase forms the first heating area, and a portion of the first subbase arranged around a periphery of the second subbase forms the second heating area.
In a deposition apparatus, Boyd teaches a gas inlet element 1, a process chamber 4 arranged underneath and a susceptor 3 forming the bottom of the process chamber 4, wherein the susceptor 3 is heated from below by means of a heater 5, wherein the heater 5 can be a lamp heater, a resistance heater or an RF heater (CT [0028]; Fig 1). Boyd also teaches the susceptor, which can be driven to rotate about its axis of rotation, has a circular disk shape; a plurality of receiving structures/pockets 6 , 7 , 8; each receiving pocket 6, 7 has a support edge 6'', 7'' which surrounds a recess 6', 7', wherein a central receiving structure 8 is provided, around which a total of six smaller receiving structures 6 are arranged in a circular arrangement (CT [0029]-[0040]; Fig 1-6), which clearly suggests a first subbase (susceptor), wherein the first subbase comprises a central area and an edge area surrounding the central area, and an accommodating groove (central receiving pocket 8) is provided in at least a top of the central area; and a second subbase (wafer) arranged in the accommodating groove, wherein the second subbase forms the first heating area (central wafer), and the first subbase arranged around a periphery of the second subbase forms the second heating area. Boyd also teaches the susceptor are lined with sapphire or silicon, from which the substrates are also made; and dummy substrates are also held in shape-adapted holding structures on the susceptor surface (CT [0009], [0063]). Boyd also teaches the susceptor is formed by quartz, molybdenum or graphite (CT [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Choi et al and Takada et al by providing a heating base comprising: a first subbase, wherein the first subbase comprises a central area and an edge area surrounding the central area, and an accommodating groove is provided in at least a top of the central area; and a second subbase that is separately arranged in the accommodating groove, without substrate placed thereon, wherein the second subbase forms the first heating area, and the first subbase arranged around a periphery of the second subbase forms the second heating area, as taught by Boyd, because susceptor has improved coverage density (CT [0009]).
In regards to a second subbase that is separately arranged in the accommodating groove, without substrate placed thereon, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, and Boyd teaches an accommodating groove in the central region and the edge region (See Boyd Fig 1-6 as discussed above). Also, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, and Boyd teaches a wafer 22 is mounted in a dent (accommodating groove) via a satellite disk 20; and a first portion 16a supports the wafer 22 via the satellite disk 20 (second subbase) (Choi [0019]-[0021]; Fig 1). Therefore, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, and Boyd teaches a central accommodating groove with a satellite disk 20 and the satellite disk can be without a substrate thereon. The placement of the substrate in recess is not required and omission of an element and its function Is obvious if the function of the element Is not desired (MPEP 2144.04 II. A).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches mass flow controllers in a first and second gas inlets to vary a flow amount (Choi [0102]), which clearly suggests a first flow rate adjustment member disposed on a transport path of the first pipe; and a second flow rate adjustment member disposed on a transport path of the second pipe.
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches separate pipes and walls for the first and second inlets (Choi Fig 10), which clearly suggests an isolation member disposed at the top of the reaction chamber and arranged between the first spray unit and the second spray unit.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches a heat insulating member is disposed between the second subbase and the first subbase (CT [0009], [0063]) teaches the susceptor are lined with sapphire or silicon (insulator), from which the substrates are also made; and dummy substrates are also held in shape-adapted holding structures on the susceptor surface).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd does not explicitly teach a spacing between the first spray unit and the first heating area ranges from 8 mm to 20 mm; and a spacing between the second spray unit and the second heating area ranges from 8 mm to 20 mm. The position is interpreted as intended use. The combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches the support 132 ascends or descends and is rotated are connected between the support 132 and the driving unit 131 (Choi [0056]); therefore, would be capable of raising or lowering the position of the susceptor to obtain the claimed spacing.
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches the susceptor is formed by quartz, molybdenum or graphite (Boyd CT [0003]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Referring to claim 12 and 15, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches a first processing gas and a second processing gas; and the gas distribution device is configured to eject at least two source materials through different routes (Choi abstract; [0099]). The combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and KR101455736 does not explicitly teach the first spray unit further comprises a third pipe spaced apart from the first pipe, the third pipe is adapted for introducing a third gas source, a group source type of the third gas source is the same as a group source type of the second gas source, and a flow rate for introducing the third gas source into the third pipe is less than a flow rate for introducing the first gas source into the first pipe; and the second spray unit further comprises a fourth pipe spaced apart from the second pipe, the fourth pipe is adapted for introducing a fourth gas source, a group source type of the fourth gas source is the same as a group source type of the first gas source, and a flow rate for introducing the fourth gas source into the fourth pipe is less than a flow rate for introducing the second gas source into the second pipe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first spray unit further comprises a third pipe spaced apart from the first pipe, the third pipe is adapted for introducing a third gas source, a group source type of the third gas source is the same as a group source type of the second gas source, and a flow rate for introducing the third gas source into the third pipe is less than a flow rate for introducing the first gas source into the first pipe; and the second spray unit further comprises a fourth pipe spaced apart from the second pipe, the fourth pipe is adapted for introducing a fourth gas source, a group source type of the fourth gas source is the same as a group source type of the first gas source, and a flow rate for introducing the fourth gas source into the fourth pipe is less than a flow rate for introducing the second gas source into the second pipe, to introduce additional reactants because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). Also, additional mass flow controllers for each source pipe would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 13-14, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches deposition of GA, Ga/In/AlN (Choi [0120]), which clearly suggests group III and group V source gases. Furthermore, the gases used in the apparatus are intended use. The apparatus taught by combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and KR101455736 would be capable of supplying any desired gas sources.
Referring to claim 16, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches first and second heater between a first and second spray unit; therefore, a transition region would exist between the heating zone.
Referring to claim 17, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches the susceptor 3 is heated from below by means of a heater 5, wherein the heater 5 can be a lamp heater, a resistance heater or an RF heater (Boyd CT [0028]; Fig 1) and separate heating units 30, 32 in the first and second area (Takada Fig 1).
Referring to claim 18, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches apparatus, as discussed above, and the decomposition temperature of the gases to deposit GaN using processing gas (Choi [0091]-[0099], [0120]).
Referring to claim 19, see remarks above regarding claims 12 and 15. Also, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches mass flow controllers and one of ordinary skill the art knows that flow rate is a result effective variable; therefore, optimization of the flow rate of reactant gas through routine experimentation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches rotating the susceptor (Choi [0056]).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2011/0048325) in view of Takada et al (US 2015/0167169) and Boyd (DE 102014114947 A1), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, as applied to claims 1-3, and 5 above, and further in view of Bastke et al (US 2021/0032771).
The combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, except the rotating shaft is fastened to the first subbase below the second subbase. The combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd teaches rotating the susceptor comprising a first and second subbase (See Boyd) and support 132 (shaft), however does not explicitly teach a fastener.
In an apparatus for connecting a drive shaft to a susceptor, Bastke et al teaches a device includes one or more of a base plate, a support plate, adjusting levers, and a flange element, wherein the drive shaft carries the base plate, to which the support plate, which carries the susceptor, is fastened; and the support plate is connected to the flange element by means of a screw (pin); and substrate carriers 36 in the floor of a pocket arranged around the center of the susceptor 31 (abstract; Fig 1-7; [0032]-[0050]), which clearly suggests the rotating shaft is fastened to the first subbase below the second subbase. Bastke et al also teaches rubber seal is clamped between support plate, base plate or flange element or shaft, that is to say, drive shaft, such that gas impermeability is ensured ([0010]). Baskte et al also teaches the base plate 3 can be connected to the flange element 4 by means of the attachment screws (pins); base plate 3 has a central cavity, through which an upper section of the drive shaft 40 can project.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al and Boyd by fastening the rotating shaft to the first subbase below the second subbase, as taught by Baskte et al, to removable attach the rotating shaft to the susceptor.
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, Boyd and Baskte et al teaches accommodating groove penetrates the central area, the accommodating groove comprises a first subgroove area and a second subgroove area arranged above the first subgroove area, a cross- sectional size of the second subgroove area is greater than a cross-sectional size of the first subgroove area, the heat insulating member is disposed on a groove bottom of the second subgroove area, and the heat insulating member is arranged around the first subgroove area (Baskte Fig 7 shows different diameter central grooves for the different plates of the susceptor connected to the rotating shaft; Boyd Fig 4, 5 and 13 show the pockets having different diameter and depths).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, Boyd and Baskte et al teaches the accommodating groove further comprises a third subgroove area arranged below the second subgroove area; and the semiconductor growth device further comprises: a fastening pin arranged in the third subgroove area, wherein the fastening pin is fastened to the first subbase around a periphery of the third subgroove area; and a rotating shaft, wherein the rotating shaft is arranged below the fastening pin and connected to the fastening pin (Baskte Fig 1-7 shows the different plates with different grooves and attaching with screws (pins)).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, Boyd and Baskte et al does not explicitly teach the fastening pin is an insulation fastening pin. Boyd also teaches the susceptor is formed by quartz (insulator), molybdenum or graphite (CT [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, Boyd and Baskte et al by using quartz for the fastening pins for a quartz susceptor because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Boyd teaches a central pocket is not separate from the susceptor and does not form a separate heating base is noted but not found persuasive. The Examiner maintains the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, and Boyd teaches an accommodating groove in the central region and the edge region (See Boyd Fig 1-6 as discussed above). Also, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, and Boyd teaches a wafer 22 is mounted in a dent (accommodating groove) via a satellite disk 20; and a first portion 16a supports the wafer 22 via the satellite disk 20 (second subbase) (Choi [0019]-[0021]; Fig 1). Therefore, the combination of Choi et al, Takada et al, and Boyd teaches a central accommodating groove with a satellite disk 20 and the satellite disk can be used without a substrate thereon.
Applicant’s argument that there must be a substrate received in the central receiving pocket for it to realize its technical function is noted but not found persuasive. The placement of the substrate in recess is not required and omission of an element and its function Is obvious if the function of the element Is not desired (MPEP 2144.04 II. A). The examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a central recess, and it would have been obvious to include a satellite disk in the central recess. While it is beneficial to include a substrate in the central recess, applicant’s invention is directed to an apparatus and placement of the wafer in the apparatus is a process step, not a structural limitation of the apparatus of claim 1. It is also noted that JP 2015-012014 teaches a susceptor with a recess and a high heat conduction member having a plate-like shape located in the recess (Fig 1-3; computer translation [0007]-[0022]); therefore, including separate heat conducting members in a recess of a susceptor was known in the art at the time of filing. Furthermore, KR101455736 teaches a central recess in a susceptor for supporting a blocking element, which further supports the examiner’s position that a central recess can be used to accommodate other advantageous elements other than a substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong (US 2012/0221167) teaches a plurality of substrates 41 on a susceptor 40 with individually controlled heaters 50a,50b. (Fig 1).
Mailho et al (US 6,436,796) teaches a susceptor with pockets which support substrates, wherein the substrates themselves provide insulation at the susceptor pockets and shield remaining regions to improve temperature uniformity of the susceptor (col 3, ln 1-67).
KR101455736 teaches chamber (10) provides a space where a metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process is performed; a substrate (W) is mounted on the susceptor (120); the substrate (W) is seated in the seat groove (123), wherein the number of grooves may be one, two, three, four or more (123) ; a substrate support member (100) includes a susceptor (120), a rotation shaft (130), and a blocking member (160), wherein a fixed groove (122) is formed in the central portion of the susceptor (120); a protrusion (121) protruding upward is formed in the center of the fixed groove (122); and the blocking member (160) is inserted into the fixed groove (122) (Fig 1-7; CT [0020]-[0025]). The blocking member 160 arranged in the central groove 122 clearly suggests an accommodating groove (central groove 122) is provided in at least a top of the central area; and a second subbase that is separately arranged in the accommodating groove (blocking member 160), without substrate placed thereon, wherein the second subbase forms the first heating area, and a portion of the first subbase arranged around a periphery of the second subbase forms the second heating area.
US 2020/0127163 teaches a susceptor with pocket and a plate-like spacer located in the recess (Fig 3C; [0082]).
JP 2015-012014 teaches a susceptor with a recess and a high heat conduction member having a plate like shape located in the recess (Fig 1-3; computer translation [0007]-[0022]).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714