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 Status
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 21-24 are pending.
Claims 6 and 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 13-14 are currently amended.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/21/25 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/22/2025.
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, 3-5, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir (US 20180033652 A1) in view of Liu (CN 112382596 A).
Regarding claim 1, Samir teaches a reflective surface on an inner face of each of the one or more sidewalls (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0031], reflector 122 may be placed on sidewall outside of dome 128).
Samir fails to teach a cassette configured for disposition in a substrate processing chamber, comprising:
a first wall;
a second wall spaced from the first wall;
one or more sidewalls extending between and coupled to the first wall and the second wall;
one or more inlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls;
one or more outlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls opposite the one or more inlet openings; and
a plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports mounted to the one or more sidewalls and spaced from each other along the one or more sidewalls.
However, Liu teaches a cassette configured for disposition in a substrate processing chamber (Liu, Fig. 5, L190, bearing device 2 disposed in a vertical diffusion furnace), comprising:
a first wall (Liu, Figs. 1 and 3, L144-145, top fixed connecting piece 14);
a second wall spaced from the first wall (Liu, Figs. 1 and 3, L144-145, bottom fixed connecting piece 15 spaced apart by bearing columns 21);
one or more sidewalls extending between and coupled to the first wall and the second wall (Liu, Figs. 3 and 4, L189-206, three bearing columns 21, which can be cylinders, are coupled between the top fixed connecting piece 14 and bottom connecting piece 15)
one or more inlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls (Liu, Fig. 3, L166-188, through holes 24 are provided in column 21 on left side of Fig. 3);
one or more outlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls opposite the one or more inlet openings (Liu, Figs. 3 and 4, L166-188, through holes 24 are provided in column 21 on right side of Figs. 3 and 4, where through holes 24 can be used for process gas flow outlet, L259-262); and
a plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports mounted to the one or more sidewalls and spaced from each other along the one or more sidewalls (Liu, Fig. 3 and 7, L257-262, plural bearing grooves 22 are vertically spaced within sidewall 21, where bottom walls 231 bear workpieces to be processed).
Liu 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 replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Samir fails to teach wherein each substrate support of each level of the plurality of levels comprises one or more arcuate ring segments.
However, Liu teaches wherein each substrate support of each level of the plurality of levels comprises one or more arcuate ring segments (Figs. 3 and 4, L189-206, three bearing columns 21, which can be cylinders, contain bearing grooves 22 which bear workpieces).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Samir fails to teach wherein the one or more arcuate ring segments comprises a plurality of arcuate ring segments spaced circumferentially from each other along the one or more sidewalls.
However, Liu teaches wherein the one or more arcuate ring segments comprises a plurality of arcuate ring segments spaced circumferentially from each other along the one or more sidewalls (Figs. 3 and 4, L189-206, three bearing columns 21, which can be cylinders, contain bearing grooves 22 which bear workpieces, and are spaced apart from each other circumferentially, as seen from the A-A section view in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Samir fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of arcuate ring segments comprises an outer ledge that extends into the one or more sidewalls.
However, Liu teaches wherein each of the plurality of arcuate ring segments comprises an outer ledge that extends into the one or more sidewalls (Fig. 7, L257-262, bottom walls 231 of bearing grooves 22 are an extension protrusion of bearing columns 21).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Samir fails to teach wherein each of the one or more inlet openings is aligned between two of the plurality of substrate supports.
However, Liu teaches wherein each of the one or more inlet openings is aligned between two of the plurality of substrate supports (Fig. 7, L257-262, through hole 24 is provided between bottom walls 21 which bear the workpieces).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Samir fails to teach wherein the one or more inlet openings are positioned as a plurality of flow levels.
However, Liu teaches wherein the one or more inlet openings are positioned as a plurality of flow levels (Fig. 7, L257-272, plurality of through holes 24 are used for process gas inlets across each workpiece process surface).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Samir fails to teach wherein for each flow level the one or more inlet openings include a plurality of inlet openings spaced from each other circumferentially along the one or more sidewalls by an angle, and the angle is within a range of 20 degrees to 120 degrees.
However, Liu teaches wherein for each flow level the one or more inlet openings include a plurality of inlet openings spaced from each other circumferentially along the one or more sidewalls by an angle, and the angle is within a range of 20 degrees to 120 degrees (Fig. 4, inlet openings 24 at the left and bottom are spaced 90 degrees apart as measured circumferentially). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Samir fails to teach wherein for each flow level the one or more inlet openings include a plurality of inlet openings having a cross-sectional shape that is circular or ovular.
However, Liu teaches wherein for each flow level the one or more inlet openings include a plurality of inlet openings having a cross-sectional shape that is circular or ovular (Fig. 9, through holes 24 are ovular in shape).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Samir fails to teach wherein for each flow level the one or more inlet openings include one or more slots that extend circumferentially along the one or more sidewalls by a slot angle
However, Liu teaches wherein for each flow level the one or more inlet openings include one or more slots that extend circumferentially along the one or more sidewalls by a slot angle (Figs. 3 and 4, L287-291, bearing column 21 can be a cylinder, and through hole 24 is formed in sidewall of bearing column 21, Fig. 9, extending circumferentially across the cylindrically curved bearing column surface 21).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Samir teaches an apparatus for substrate processing (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0024], process chamber 100), comprising:
a chamber body (Fig. 1A, [0024], base ring 136 comprising:
a processing volume (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0024],upper dome 128, the lower dome 114 and the base ring 136 define an internal region of the process chamber 100),
a plurality of gas inject passages formed in the chamber body and positioned as a plurality of inject levels (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0032], process gas inlets 174/gas passages 190 are formed in base ring 136 at a first flow level, and [0034] gas inlet 164/gas passages 192 formed in base ring 136 at a second flow level vertically spaced from the first), and
one or more gas exhaust passages formed in the chamber body opposite the plurality of gas inject passages (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0033], exhaust opening 194/gas outlet 178 is formed in base ring 136 opposite gas inlets 174/164); and
one or more heat sources configured to generate heat (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0023], heat lamps 102 provide heat);
a pedestal assembly positioned in the processing volume (Samir, Fig. 1A, [0025], substrate support 106 is provided in chamber 100); and
each flow level of the plurality of flow levels aligning with and in fluid communication with a respective inject level of the plurality of inject levels (Samir, Fig. 1A, process gas inlet 174 is aligned with gas passage 190 to provide a gas at a first flow level, and [0034] gas inlet 164 is aligned with gas passage 192 to provide a gas at a second flow level).
Samir fails to teach a cassette positioned in the processing volume and at least partially supported by the pedestal assembly, the cassette comprising:
a first wall,
a second wall spaced from the first wall,
one or more sidewalls extending between the first wall and the second wall,
a plurality of inlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls and positioned as a plurality of flow levels,
one or more outlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls opposite the plurality of inlet openings, and
a plurality of substrate supports mounted to the one or more sidewalls.
However, Liu teaches a cassette positioned in the processing volume and at least partially supported by the pedestal assembly (Liu, Fig. 5, L190, bearing device 2 disposed in a vertical diffusion furnace), the cassette comprising:
a first wall (Liu, Figs. 1 and 3, L144-145, top fixed connecting piece 14),
a second wall spaced from the first wall (Liu, Figs. 1 and 3, L144-145, bottom fixed connecting piece 15 spaced apart by bearing columns 21),
one or more sidewalls extending between the first wall and the second wall (Liu, Figs. 3 and 4, L189-206, three bearing columns 21, which can be cylinders, are coupled between the top fixed connecting piece 14 and bottom connecting piece 15),
a plurality of inlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls and positioned as a plurality of flow levels (Liu, Fig. 3, L166-188, through holes 24 are provided in column 21 on left side of Fig. 3),
one or more outlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls opposite the plurality of inlet openings (Liu, Figs. 3 and 4, L166-188, through holes 24 are provided in column 21 on right side of Figs. 3 and 4), and
a plurality of substrate supports mounted to the one or more sidewalls (Liu, Fig. 3 and 7, L257-262, plural bearing grooves 22 are vertically spaced within sidewall 21, where bottom walls 231 bear workpieces to be processed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Samir fails to teach wherein the one or more sidewalls are coupled to the first wall and the second wall, and the plurality of substrate supports are positioned as a plurality of levels and spaced from each other along the one or more sidewalls.
However, Liu teaches wherein the one or more sidewalls are coupled to the first wall and the second wall (Liu, Figs. 3 and 4, L189-206, three bearing columns 21, which can be cylinders, are coupled between the top fixed connecting piece 14 and bottom connecting piece 15), and the plurality of substrate supports are positioned as a plurality of levels and spaced from each other along the one or more sidewalls (Liu, Fig. 3 and 7, L257-262, plural bearing grooves 22 are vertically spaced within sidewall 21, where bottom walls 231 bear workpieces to be processed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate, while simultaneously maintaining process uniformity (Liu, Abstract).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir (US 20180033652 A1) in view of Liu (CN 112382596 A), as applied in claims 1, 3-5, and 10-16, and further in view of Ogawa (US 20020036066 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-5, and 10-16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Samir fails to teach wherein each of the one or more sidewalls is formed of one or more of silicon carbide (SiC), quartz, or graphite coated with SiC.
However, Ogawa teaches wherein each of the one or more sidewalls is formed of one or more of silicon carbide (SiC), quartz, or graphite coated with SiC (Ogawa, [0075], boat 47 is made of quartz).
Ogawa 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 made the sidewalls of the cassette out of quartz in the manner of Ogawa as choosing to use a material such as a ceramic would help prevent contamination from the cassettes onto the processed substrates (Ogawa, [0075]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir (US 20180033652 A1) in view of Liu (CN 112382596 A), as applied in claims 1, 3-5, and 10-16, and further in view of Aderhold (US 20200032386 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-5, and 10-16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Samir fails to teach wherein the reflective surface is a roughened surface of the one or more sidewalls.
However, Aderhold teaches wherein the reflective surface is a roughened surface of the one or more sidewalls (Aderhold, Fig. 1, [0033], outer surface of cooling block 180, which faces substrate 140, may be roughened).
Aderhold 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 roughened the reflective surface of Samir in the manner taught by Aderhold as doing so would allow one to change the level of reflectivity of the surface to either promote reflectivity or absorption of radiant energy as required by the process parameters towards the wafers (Aderhold, [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Samir teaches wherein the reflective surface is part of a liner formed of gold (Au) or quartz (Samir, Fig. 1A, reflector 122 may be coated with gold).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samir (US 20180033652 A1) in view of Liu (CN 112382596 A), as applied in claims 1, 3-5, and 10-16, and further in view of Ikeuchi (JP H09199437 A).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-5, and 10-16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Samir fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of substrate supports comprises an inner ledge having an inward end that extends past the reflective surface by a distance that is 10.0 mm or less.
However, Ikeuchi teaches wherein each of the plurality of substrate supports comprises an inner ledge having an inward end that extends past the reflective surface by a distance that is 10.0 mm or less (Ikeuchi, Fig. 6A and 6B, L192-194, width of mounting portion 14 that extends from sidewall of wafer support plate 10 is preferably 3mm to 10mm). A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Ikeuchi 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 chosen the length of the wafer supporting ledge of Ikeuchi for the bottom walls of modified Samir as doing so would suppress the occurrence of slip from the peripheral portion of the wafer while also allowing for the back portion of the wafer to be irradiated by the heat sources (Ikeuchi, L178-189).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation “the one or more sidewalls defining a sleeve that surrounds by more than 180 degrees the plurality of substrate supports disposed in an internal volume” in the context of the other limitations of the claim.
Liu (CN 112382596 A) teaches a cassette configured for disposition in a substrate processing chamber (Fig. 5, L190, bearing device 2 disposed in a vertical diffusion furnace), comprising:
a first wall (Figs. 1 and 3, L144-145, top fixed connecting piece 14);
a second wall spaced from the first wall (Figs. 1 and 3, L144-145, bottom fixed connecting piece 15 spaced apart by bearing columns 21);
one or more sidewalls extending between and coupled to the first wall and the second wall (Figs. 3 and 4, L189-206, three bearing columns 21, which can be cylinders, are coupled between the top fixed connecting piece 14 and bottom connecting piece 15);
one or more inlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls (Fig. 3, L166-188, through holes 24 are provided in column 21 on left side of Fig. 3);
one or more outlet openings formed in the one or more sidewalls opposite the one or more inlet openings (Figs. 3 and 4, L166-188, through holes 24 are provided in column 21 on right side of Figs. 3 and 4); and
a plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports mounted to the one or more sidewalls and spaced from each other along the one or more sidewalls (Fig. 3 and 7, L257-262, plural bearing grooves 22 are vertically spaced within sidewall 21, where bottom walls 231 bear workpieces to be processed). However, Liu fails to teach wherein the sidewalls, which are defined as having the substrate supports mounted directly thereon, define a sleeve that surrounds the internal volume. Rather, the sidewalls of Liu are individual struts having a majority of open space therebetween.
Results of the search of relevant prior art lacked sufficient specificity to meet the limitations in question. References Nakajima (JP 2008172205 A), Horie (JP 2002222806 A), Ulloa (US 20180272390 A1), and Burrow (US 20160348240 A1) teach a similar apparatus to the instant invention wherein dedicated enclosed flow paths flow process gas across segmented levels on a cassette, but in each case, the cassette itself has the majority of the space between the sidewalls open (similarly to Liu) and depends on a surrounding structure outside of the cassette (such as a liner or process tube) to direct flow. The instant invention has a cassette, separate from external flow guide structures, wherein the cassette itself has “one or more sidewalls defining a sleeve that surrounds by more than 180 degrees the plurality of substrate supports disposed in an internal volume” (see Figs. 4-5 and 6-7 of the instant specification).
Claims 22-24 would be allowable because of their dependence upon claim 21.
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/21/25, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Samir in view of Liu, teach the claim limitations “a reflective surface on an inner face of each of the one or more sidewalls” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. The Applicant asserts that there would not be a rational underpinning of obviousness to incorporate the bearing device of Liu into the apparatus of Samir. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. Samir teaches wherein a plurality of gas injectors (horizontal and vertical) and outlet are configured at distinct flow levels, which can correspond to the flow level of a substrate support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the single substrate support of Samir with the bearing device of Liu as doing so would allow plural substrates to be processed at the same time instead of just a single substrate. The Examiner regards the level of ordinary skill in the art as a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning at least chemistry, physics, electronics, and therefore capable of such a combination in a manner which would replicate the benefit of uniform deposition of Samir for one wafer (Samir, [0036]-[0037]), but adapted for plural wafers.
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/21/25, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Samir in view of Liu, teach the claim limitations “each flow level of the plurality of flow levels aligning with and in fluid communication with a respective inject level of the plurality of inject levels” of independent claim 15. The Applicant asserts that if the bearing device of Liu were incorporated into the apparatus of Samir, there would be substrate support levels of Liu that would not have alignment with flow levels. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. Liu details that the bearing device has a plurality of slots 16 at intervals (L143-150), each of which bears a wafer. Therefore, the bearing device could contain two slots, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation in view of combination with Samir.
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