DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 10-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “the one or more baffles respectively extending between the cassette and the one or more sidewalls to divide a first space on a first side of the respective baffle from a second space on a second side of the respective baffle; and one or more gas inlets formed in the one or more sidewalls, the one or more gas inlets respectively open to the first space or the second space to flow a gas into the first space or the second space”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2014/0283750 to Okada et al is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2014/0283750 to Okada et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Okada teaches a chamber 1, 8 Fig. 1A-7C for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a base 8; a lid (top of 1); one or more sidewalls (vertical walls of 1) between the base and the lid, the base, the lid, and the one or more sidewalls at least partially defining an internal volume (interior of 1); a cassette 3 disposed in the internal volume, the cassette comprising: a first outer plate (top of 3/63 /fig, 3A, 3B), a second outer plate spaced from the first outer plate 65d, and a plurality of levels (64a-d) between the first outer plate and the second outer plate, the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports 62 spaced from each other; one or more baffles 2a-2d disposed outwardly of the cassette, the one or more baffles respectively extending between the cassette and the one or more sidewalls to divide a first space on a first side of the respective baffle from a second space on a second side of the respective baffle (as shown in the division of 2a-2d against 65a-65d, the express use of divide in [0011,0058, 0062, 0065]); and one or more gas inlets 25a-d formed in the one or more sidewalls, the one or more gas inlets respectively open to the first space or the second space to flow a gas into the first space or the second space (as shown through Fig. 1A [0056-0113]).
In regards to Claim 2, Okada teaches the one or more baffles 2A Fig. 1A are mounted to the one or more sidewalls 1 Fig. 1A, and the cassette further comprises: a plurality of support rods 61 extending between the first outer plate and the second outer plate, wherein the plurality of support rods are positioned between the one or more baffles and the plurality of substrate supports (as shown in Fig. 1A).
In regards to Claim 3, Okada teaches for each level of the plurality of levels 64a-d, a set of substrate supports 62 are coupled to the plurality of support rods and extending inwardly relative to the plurality of support rods (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A, 3B).
In regards to Claim 11, Okada teaches a chamber 1, 8 Fig. 1A-7C for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a base 8; a lid (top of 1); one or more sidewalls (vertical walls of 1) between the base and the lid, the base, the lid, and the one or more sidewalls at least partially defining an internal volume (interior of 1); a cassette 3 disposed in the internal volume, the cassette comprising: a first outer plate (65a), a second outer plate spaced from the first outer plate 65d, and a plurality of levels (64a-d) between the first outer plate and the second outer plate, the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports 62 spaced from each other; one or more baffles 2a-2d disposed outwardly of the cassette, the plurality of baffles comprising: a first baffle 2a positioned adjacent the first outer plate, the first baffle extending between the one or more sidewalls and the cassette to divide a first space on a first side of the first baffle from a second space on a second side of the first baffle (as shown in the division of 2a-2d against 65a-65d, the express use of divide in [0011,0058, 0062, 0065]), a second baffle 2d spaced from the first baffle and positioned adjacent the second outer plate 65b, and a third baffle 2b between the first baffle and the second baffle; and a plurality of gas inlets 25a-d formed in the one or more sidewalls, the plurality of gas inlets comprising: one or more first gas inlets 25a, 27 aligned between the first baffle and the first outer plate, the one or more first gas inlets open to the first space to flow a gas into the first space ,one or more second gas inlets aligned between the second baffle and the second outer plate 25d ,one or more third gas inlets 25b aligned between the first baffle and the third baffle, and one or more fourth gas inlets 25c aligned between the second baffle and the third baffle, as shown in Fig. 1B, [0056-0113].
In regards to Claim 12, Okada teaches a plurality of gas outlets 44a-d formed in the one or more sidewalls, the plurality of gas outlets comprising: one or more first gas outlets 44a aligned between the first baffle and the first outer plate, one or more second gas outlets 44d aligned between the second baffle and the second outer plate, one or more third gas outlets aligned between the first baffle and the third baffle 44b, and one or more fourth gas outlets 44caligned between the second baffle and the third baffle.
In regards to Claim 13, Okada teaches wherein each of the first baffle, the second baffle, and the third baffle has a solid ring (as shown in Fig. 1B, wherein 2A is a solid structure).
In regards to Claim 14, Okada teaches each of the plurality of gas inlets includes an inlet opening 27 formed in the one or more sidewalls, and a nozzle 25 mounted to the one or more sidewalls.
In regards to Claim 15, Okada teaches wherein each of the one or more first gas inlets, the one or more second gas inlets, the one or more third gas inlets, and the one or more fourth gas inlets includes a set of inlet openings 27 spaced from each other circumferentially along the one or more sidewalls by an angle (as shown in the circumferential spacing of 24a-24d in Fig. 1B), and the angle is within a range of 10 degrees to 90 degrees (spaced about 180°, with 4 nozzles shown in Fig. 1B, and space for at least two more, such that spacing is around 30-40 degree approximately shown in Fig. 1B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0283750 to Okada et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0287681 to Nitadori et al and United States Patent Application No. 2019/0013223 to Saito et al.
The teachings of Okada are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claim 10, Okada teaches the one or more baffles circumferentially surround the cassette, as shown in Fig. 1B, but does not expressly teach wherein each of the first outer plate, the second outer plate, and the one or more baffles is formed of aluminum.
Nitadori teaches a chamber 4 Fig. 1 for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a base 12; a lid 6; one or more sidewalls 8 between the base and the lid, the base, the lid, and the one or more sidewalls at least partially defining an internal volume (internal space of the inside of 6); a cassette (boat 60) disposed in the internal volume, the cassette comprising: a first outer plate (top partition plate 62), a second outer plate (bottom 62) spaced from the first outer plate, and a plurality of levels between the first outer plate and the second outer plate (as indicated by the space formed in between pairs of 62), the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports (recesses formed in the rods or pillars 61) spaced from each other; and one or more baffles 81 (circular protrusions [0023]) disposed outwardly of the cassette (as it forms 8, as shown in Fig. 2; [0016-0069]).
Nitadori teaches the baffles are formed of aluminum [0017] but does not teach each of the first outer plate, the second outer plate are made of aluminum.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a baffles analogous to that of Okada out of aluminum, as taught by Nitadori, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Okada in view of Nitadori do not expressly teach each of the first outer plate, the second outer plate are made of aluminum.
Saito teaches a wafer boat 66 is made out of aluminum [0031], which shows first and second outer plates (see 66 Fig. 2).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a boat and thus the first and second outer plates analogous to that of Okada in view of Nitadori out of aluminum, as taught by Saito, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 10.
Claim 16, 18, 19, 21-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0283750 to Okada et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0287681 to Nitadori et al.
In regards to Claim 16, Okada teaches a chamber 1, 8 Fig. 1A-7C for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a shell base 8; a shell lid (top of 1); one or more shell walls (vertical walls of 1) between the base and the lid, the base, the lid, and the one or more shell walls at least partially defining an internal volume (interior of 1); a plurality of gas inlets 25a-d formed in the one or more shell walls and spaced from each along the one or more shell walls (as shown in Fig. 1B), a plurality of gas outlets 44a-d formed in the shell walls and spaced from each along the one or more shell walls (as shown in Fig. 1B), and a cassette 3 disposed in the shell volume, the cassette comprising: a first outer plate (top of 3/63 /fig, 3A, 3B), a second outer plate spaced from the first outer plate 65d, and a plurality of levels (64a-d) between the first outer plate and the second outer plate, the plurality of levels comprising a plurality of substrate supports 62 spaced from each other (as shown through Fig. 1A [0056-0113]).
Okada does not expressly teach a base, a lid, one or more sidewalls between the base and the lid, the base, the lid, and the one or more sidewalls at least partially defining an internal volume.
Okada does teach a heater 30 [0063].
Nitadori teaches a chamber 48 Fig. 1 for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a base 12; a lid (top of 48, 50, 51, 52); one or more sidewalls (vertical walls of 48, 50, 51) between the base and the lid, the base, the lid, and the one or more sidewalls at least partially defining an internal volume (internal space of the inside of 48); a shell 6 disposed in the internal volume, [0016-0069]. Nitadori teaches this lid includes 52 which heats the processing chamber of 4 [0030] and forms an annular flow path around the shell between 6 and 48, 50, 51,52.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus the open heater of Okada would be obviously replaced by the lid+heater of Nitadori as an art equivalent component for heating the shell/interior chamber. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 18, Okada in view of Nitadori teaches an outer annular flow path about the shell, as there would be a flow path between 1 of Okada and 48, 50, 51, 52 of Nitadori, and as per the rejection of Claim 16 above.
In regards to Claim 19, Okada teaches each of the plurality of gas inlets and each of the plurality of gas outlets comprises a slot that extends circumferentially along the one or more shell walls by a slot angle, at an right angle as shown in the gas space in Fig. 1B.
In regards to Claim 21, Okada in view of Nitadori teaches one or more walls between the first outer plate and the lid (in the form of 63), the one or more walls fluidly separating regions of an annular gap around the cassette, as Okada separates the cassette from the heater via 1 and 63.
In regards to Claim 22, Okada in view of Nitadori teaches one or more walls between the second outer plate and the base 8, the one or more walls fluidly separating regions of an annular gap around the cassette, as 6 and 8 form a gas flow channel (see Fig. 1, 3) in Nitadori, and as Okada separates the cassette from the heater via 1 and 63, per the rejection of Claim 16 above.
In regards to Claim 23, Okada teaches one or more walls (walls of 63) between the first outer plate and the lid; and one or more second walls between the second outer plate and the base (walls of 65d and 8), the one or more walls and the one or more second walls fluidly separating the gas inlets from the gas outlets in areas outwardly of the cassette, as 25 and 44 are spaced in the annular gap and isolated from each other.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0283750 to Okada et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0287681 to Nitadori et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0013223 to Saito et al.
The teachings of Okada in view of Nitadori are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 16.
In regards to Claim 17, Okada teaches a common outlet 43c and that each of the plurality of gas inlets is in fluid communication with a common gas conduit 21, 20 but does not expressly teach the common outlet is formed in the base.
Saito teaches the common outlet 16c Fig. 2 is placed in the bottom of the chamber (as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to place the common outlet in the base as per the teachings of Saito, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04-VI (c). As this rearrangement would not change the effectiveness of the apparatus of Okada in view of Nitadori, the resulting apparatus of Okada in view of Nitadori in view of Saito would be obvious and fulfill the claimed limitations.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0283750 to Okada et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0287681 to Nitadori et al, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2004/0043617 to You et al.
The teachings of Okada in view of Nitadori are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection of Claim 19.
In regards to Claim 20, Okada in view of Nitadori teaches in Nitadori slot angle is within a range of 10 degrees to 120 degrees (as the clearance 70 is at a 90° angle from 92a), but does not expressly teach the slot has a height that is within a range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, however the slot is approximately the height of the partition 62.
You teaches a partition 44 Fig. 5 for a wafer boat 36 has a thickness B of 0.5-2 mm [0026; 0026-0031].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Okada in view of Nitadori with unknown dimensions for the partition plates 62, to have made the partition plate thickness and thus also the slot height which extends through the thickness of the partition plates, 0.5-2 mm, a range that overlaps the claimed range of height, as per the teachings of You. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the apparatus of Okada in view of Nitadori with the art analogous dimensions for a partition plate of a wafer boat as per the teachings of You. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716