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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “wafer introducing means” in claims 102-103.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Since the claim limitations relating to the “wafer introducing means” in claims 102 and 103 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 102 and 103 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the wafer introducing means (806) in Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0092]-[0096] of corresponding U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0135911.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 86, 88-90, 93-94, 97-99, 101-102, and 108 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0399782 to Najafi-Yazdi, et al. (“Najafi”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0137099 to Schonherr, et al. (“Schonherr”) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,464,342 to Won-Tien Tsang (“Tsang”).
Regarding claim 86, Najafi teaches a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) reactor (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and entire reference which teach a MBE reactor (200) or (300)), the reactor comprising:
a chamber (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach an enclosure (201) defining a vacuum chamber (222) or (322));
a wafer port through which a wafer is introduced into the chamber (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach a wafer port through which a substrate holder (206) is introduced into the chamber (222) or (322));
one or more pump ports (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach pump ports (203) and/or (204));
a cryoshroud positioned within the chamber, the cryoshroud formed from a plurality of cryopanels (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach an embodiment of a multi-stage cryocooler which includes a plurality of cooling shrouds (304), including a first (328) and second (330) cooling shroud) and
comprising an upper component and a lower component positioned to form a cylindrical gap therebetween by a fixed distance, wherein the cylindrical gap extends from a center region of the cryoshroud into a peripheral region of the cryoshroud, and wherein the one or more pump ports are centered on the cylindrical gap (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach that the first cooling shroud (328) is located below and is separated from the second (330) cooling shroud by a cylindrical gap which extends from a center to a peripheral region and produces a fixed distance; see specifically ¶[0040] which teaches that one shroud (328) may be above the substrate (332) while the other shroud (330) is below the substrate (332); moreover, Figs. 2-3 show that the pump port (204) is centered within the gap between the first (328) and second (330) cooling shrouds or, alternatively, the pump port (204) is necessarily located between the cooling shrouds in order to facilitate insertion and removal of the substrate (332) via the substrate holder (206)); and
wherein the cylindrical gap and the one or more pump ports enhance evacuation of ammonia from the reactor and reduces the formation of ammonia ice and for maintaining pressure in the chamber during operation (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach that the first cooling shroud (328) is separated from the second cooling shroud (330) by a cylindrical gap which is aligned with the pump port (204) and necessarily enhances the evacuation of ammonia from the reactor and reduces the formation of ammonia ice; since the pump port (204) is connected to a vacuum pump it necessarily functions to help maintain the pressure in the MBE chamber during operation; moreover, since the cooling shroud (304) possesses the claimed structure it must necessarily produce the same results, namely that of enhancing the evacuation of ammonia and reducing the formation of ammonia ice when used for GaN growth as detailed infra); and
a plurality of gas injectors configured to introduce reactants into the chamber, wherein the gas injectors are positioned within and enter through a bottom surface of the chamber, and each comprises a distal end positioned above a bottom level of the cryoshroud, and are angled towards the wafer such that the introduced reactants flow from the plurality of gas injectors towards a surface of the wafer (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach that a plurality of MBE sources (207) are positioned within and enter through a bottom of the chamber, each comprises a distal end positioned above a bottom level of the cryoshrouds (328) and (330), and the sources (207) are angled towards the substrate (205) such that introduced reactants flow towards a surface of the substrate (332)).
Najafi does not explicitly teach that the MBE reactor is for GaN regrowth using ammonia as a nitrogen source or that the evacuation of ammonia is enhanced by the cryoshroud during GaN regrowth for reduced formation of ammonia ice. However, in at least the Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and ¶¶[0022]-[0031] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Schonherr teaches an analogous embodiment of a MBE growth chamber (10) having a cryoshroud (51) located therein which is configured for the growth of GaN epitaxial layers onto a substrate (14) using one or more sources (11) and an injector (12) which supplies ammonia gas as a reactive gas. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Schonherr and would recognize that the MBE system of Najafi may be configured for the growth of GaN through the use of a suitable Ga source with ammonia as a reactive gas with the motivation for doing so being to take advantage of the ability to efficiently pump and subsequently outgas ammonia in-situ during and after completion of film growth.
Najafi and Schonherr do not explicitly teach a mechanical shutter configured to move above the plurality of gas injectors when the gas injectors are not operating to shield the injectors from particle contamination or damage. However, in at least Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 42-60 Tsang teaches an analogous embodiment of an MBE system for the growth of Group III-V semiconductors in which a mechanical shutter (9) covering a distal end of each effusion cell (7) is used to control the beam flux. In col. 4, ll. 48-54 Tsang specifically teaches that in order to initiate film growth the beam shutters (9) are mechanically moved such that the beam from each individual effusion cell (7) is allowed to impinge on the substrate (25) and thereby initiate film growth. Moreover, the presence of the shutters (9) physically blocks the opening to each effusion cell (7) and necessarily shields the effusion cell (7) from damage. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a mechanical shutter to control the beam flux during film growth by MBE in the apparatus of Najafi and Schonherr and, by extension, to shield the effusion cells from damage when not being used for film growth. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
With respect to the limitation relating to the cylindrical gap between the upper and lower components of the cryoshroud enhancing the evacuation of ammonia from the reactor during GaN regrowth for reduced formation of ammonia ice, it is noted that since the MBE reactor taught by the combination of Najafi and Schonherr includes a cooling shroud (304) having upper (330) and lower (328) components which are separated by a cylindrical gap with a fixed distance, it therefore meets all the structural limitations of the claim and must necessarily possess the same properties, namely that of enhancing the evacuation of ammonia and reducing the formation of ammonia ice during GaN regrowth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 88, Najafi teaches that the height of the upper component of the cryoshroud is greater than the height of the lower component of the cryoshroud (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach that the height of cooling shroud (330) is larger than that of cooling shroud (328)).
Regarding claim 89, Najafi and Schonherr do not teach that the height of the upper component of the cryoshroud is less than the height of the lower component of the cryoshroud. However, absent a showing of unexpected results, changing the height of the cooling shrouds (330) and (328) such that one is larger than the other may be considered as a matter of design choice and, hence, is prima facie obvious since changing the relative vertical height of each cooling shroud merely determines the area covered by each individual cooling shroud with no change in the total cryopanel surface area within the chamber itself. In this case the motivation for making the height of the upper cooling shroud (330) less than the height of the lower cooling shroud (328) would be, for example, to avoid the need to provide a hole in the cooling shrouds for insertion and removal of the substrate holder.
Regarding claim 90, Najafi teaches that the wafer port, the one or more pump ports, or any combination thereof are centered between the upper and lower components of the cryoshroud (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶[0040] which teach that the wafer-introducing port through which the substrate (332) is inserted may be located between an upper (330) and lower (328) cooling shroud).
Regarding claim 93, Najafi does not explicitly teach that the distance between the upper component and the lower component ranges from 2 inches to 8 inches. However, since Fig. 3 and ¶[0040] of Najafi teach that the cooling shrouds (330) and (328) may be provided with one above and one below the substrate, the distance therebetween necessarily is capable of being adjusted to a fixed value within the 2 to 8 inch range. Since the relative dimensions and locations of the cooling shrouds (330) and (328) determines the distance between these cryopanels, absent a showing of unexpected results, changing the relative location and size of each cooling shroud within the growth chamber may be considered as a mere change in size and/or a rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device which is prima facie obvious. A potential motivation for utilizing a separation of 2 to 8 inches would be to ensure that there is enough space for insertion and removal of the substrate (205) or (332) from the growth chamber.
Regarding claim 94, Najafi teaches that the distance from the bottom edge of the lower component to the top edge of the upper component is less than the height of the chamber (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach that the distance from a bottom of cooling shroud (328) to a top of cooling shroud (330) is less than the height of the vacuum chamber).
Regarding claim 97, Najafi teaches that at least one of the plurality of gas injectors comprises a distal end, and wherein the distal end is positioned above a bottom level of the lower component of the cryoshroud (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach that the MBE source (207) includes a distal end that is positioned above a bottom end of the cooling shrouds (328) and/or (330)).
Regarding claim 98, Najafi does not teach that at least one of the plurality of gas injectors comprises a hydride source and at least one of the plurality of gas injectors comprises a gallium source. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 86, in Figs. 1-3, and ¶¶[0022]-[0031] Schonherr teaches an analogous embodiment of a MBE growth chamber (10) which is configured for the growth of GaN epitaxial layers onto a substrate (14) using one or more sources (11) and an injector (12) which supplies ammonia gas as a hydride source. In ¶[0030] Schonherr specifically teaches the deposition of GaN using ammonia as the hydride source supplied via injector (12) which would necessarily also entail using a source (11) which is comprised of Ga. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Schonherr and would recognize that the MBE system of Najafi may be configured for the growth of GaN through the use of a suitable Ga source with ammonia as a reactive gas with the motivation for doing so being to take advantage of the ability to efficiently pump and subsequently outgas ammonia in-situ during and after completion of film growth.
Regarding claim 99, Najafi does not teach that the hydride source is configured to introduce at least one reactant selected from the group consisting of: NH3, SiH4, Si2H6, GeH4, and any combination thereof. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 86 and 98, in Figs. 1-3, and ¶¶[0022]-[0031] Schonherr teaches an analogous embodiment of a MBE growth chamber (10) which is configured for the growth of GaN epitaxial layers onto a substrate (14) using one or more sources (11) and an injector (12) which supplies ammonia gas as a hydride source. In ¶[0030] Schonherr specifically teaches the deposition of GaN using ammonia as the hydride source supplied via injector (12) which would necessarily also entail using a source (11) which is comprised of Ga. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Schonherr and would recognize that the MBE system of Najafi may be configured for the growth of GaN through the use of a suitable Ga source with ammonia as a reactive gas with the motivation for doing so being to take advantage of the ability to efficiently pump and subsequently outgas ammonia in-situ during and after completion of film growth.
Regarding claim 101, Najafi does not teach that the mechanical shutter is configured to cover the distal end of one or more of the gas injectors. However, in at least Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 42-60 Tsang teaches an analogous embodiment of an MBE system in which a mechanical shutter (9) covering a distal end of the effusion cell (7) is used to control the beam flux. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a mechanical shutter to precisely control the growth duration during film growth by MBE.
Regarding claim 102, Najafi teaches a system (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and entire reference which teach a MBE reactor (200) or (300)), the system comprising:
a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) reactor comprising: a chamber (see (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach embodiments of MBE systems (200) or (300) which include an enclosure (201) defining a vacuum chamber (222) or (322));
a wafer port through which a wafer is introduced into the chamber (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach a wafer port through which a substrate holder (206) is introduced into the chamber (222) or (322));
one or more pump ports (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach pump ports (203) and/or (204));
a cryoshroud positioned within the chamber; the cryoshroud comprising a cylindrical gap at a fixed distance between an upper component and a lower component, wherein the cylindrical gap extends from a central region of the cryoshroud into a peripheral region of the cryoshroud, and wherein the one or more pump ports are centered on the cylindrical gap (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach an embodiment of a cooing shroud (304) which includes a first cooling shroud (328) that is located below and is separated from a second (330) cooling shroud by a cylindrical gap which extends from a center to a peripheral region and produces a fixed distance; see specifically ¶[0040] which teaches that one shroud (328) may be above the substrate (332) while the other shroud (330) is below the substrate (332); moreover, Figs. 2-3 show that the pump port (204) is centered within the gap between the first (328) and second (330) cooling shrouds or, alternatively, the pump port (204) is necessarily located between the cooling shrouds in order to facilitate insertion and removal of the substrate (332) via the substrate holder (206)), and
wherein the cylindrical gap is configured to enhance evacuation of ammonia for reduced formation of ammonia ice (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach that the first cooling shroud (328) is separated from the second cooling shroud (330) by a cylindrical gap which necessarily enhances the evacuation of ammonia from the reactor and reduces the formation of ammonia ice; moreover, since the cooling shroud (304) possesses the claimed structure it must necessarily produce the same results, namely that of enhancing the evacuation of ammonia and reducing the formation of ammonia ice when used for GaN growth as detailed infra); and
wherein the one or more pump ports are connected to one or more pumps configured to pump ammonia gas out of the MBE reactor during GaN regrowth for maintaining pressure in the MBE reactor (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0029]-[0043] which teach that the pump ports (203) and/or (204) are connected to a suitable vacuum pump which necessarily pumps out ammonia gas and maintains the desired pressure within the MBE chamber during GaN thin film growth); and
a plurality of gas injectors configured to introduce reactants into the chamber, wherein the gas injectors are positioned within and enter through a bottom surface of the chamber, and each comprises a distal end positioned above a bottom level of the cryoshroud, and are angled towards the wafer such that the introduced reactants flow from the plurality of gas injectors towards a surface of the wafer (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach that a plurality of MBE sources (207) are positioned within and enter through a bottom of the chamber, each comprises a distal end positioned above a bottom level of the cryoshrouds (328) and (330), and the sources (207) are angled towards the substrate (205) such that introduced reactants flow towards a surface of the substrate (332)); and
a wafer introducing means configured to introduce the wafer into the chamber through the wafer port (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶[0030]-[0043] which teach that a wafer introducing means (206) is configured to introduce a substrate (205) or (332) into the chamber through the wafer port).
Najafi does not explicitly teach that the MBE reactor is for GaN regrowth using ammonia as a nitrogen source or that the evacuation of ammonia is enhanced by the cryoshroud during GaN regrowth for reduced formation of ammonia ice. However, in at least the Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and ¶¶[0022]-[0031] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Schonherr teaches an analogous embodiment of a MBE growth chamber (10) having a cryoshroud (51) located therein which is configured for the growth of GaN epitaxial layers onto a substrate (14) using one or more sources (11) and an injector (12) which supplies ammonia gas as a reactive gas. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Schonherr and would recognize that the MBE system of Najafi may be configured for the growth of GaN through the use of a suitable Ga source with ammonia as a reactive gas with the motivation for doing so being to take advantage of the ability to efficiently pump and subsequently outgas ammonia in-situ during and after completion of film growth.
Najafi and Schonherr do not explicitly teach a mechanical shutter configured to move above the plurality of gas injectors when the gas injectors are not operating to shield the injectors from particle contamination or damage. However, in at least Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 42-60 Tsang teaches an analogous embodiment of an MBE system for the growth of Group III-V semiconductors in which a mechanical shutter (9) covering a distal end of each effusion cell (7) is used to control the beam flux. In col. 4, ll. 48-54 Tsang specifically teaches that in order to initiate film growth the beam shutters (9) are mechanically moved such that the beam from each individual effusion cell (7) is allowed to impinge on the substrate (25) and thereby initiate film growth. Moreover, the presence of the shutters (9) physically blocks the opening to each effusion cell (7) and necessarily shields the effusion cell (7) from damage. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a mechanical shutter to control the beam flux during film growth by MBE in the apparatus of Najafi and Schonherr and, by extension, to shield the effusion cells from damage when not being used for film growth. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
With respect to the limitation relating to the cylindrical gap between the upper and lower components of the cryoshroud being configured to enhance the evacuation of ammonia from the reactor during GaN regrowth for reduced formation of ammonia ice, it is noted that since the MBE reactor taught by the combination of Najafi and Schonherr includes a cooling shroud (304) having upper (330) and lower (328) components which are separated by a cylindrical gap with a fixed distance, it therefore meets all the structural limitations of the claim and must necessarily possess the same properties, namely that of enhancing the evacuation of ammonia and reducing the formation of ammonia ice during GaN regrowth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 108, Najafi teaches that the cryoshroud includes an upper component and a lower component, wherein one or more openings are formed by the lower component being spaced from the upper component by a fixed distance such that the spacing of the upper and lower components enhances evacuation from the reactor (see Fig. 3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0043] which teach an embodiment of a cooing shroud (304) which includes a first cooling shroud (328) that is separated from a second (330) cooling shroud by a cylindrical gap which extends from a center to a peripheral region and produces a fixed distance; see specifically ¶[0040] which teaches that one shroud (328) may be above the substrate (332) while the other shroud (330) is below the substrate (332)).
With respect to the limitation relating to the spacing of the upper and lower components enhancing the evacuation of ammonia by the cryoshround during GaN regrowth, as explained supra with respect to the rejection of claim 102 it is noted that since the MBE reactor taught by the combination of Najafi and Schonherr includes a cooling shroud (304) having upper (330) and lower (328) components which are separated by a cylindrical gap with a fixed distance, it therefore meets all the structural limitations of the claim and must necessarily possess the same properties, namely that of enhancing the evacuation of ammonia and reducing the formation of ammonia ice during GaN regrowth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi in view of Schonherr and further in view of Tsang and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,408,860 to Chin, et al. (“Chin”).
Regarding claim 87, Najafi does not teach that the cryoshroud comprises one or more liquid nitrogen-filled cryopanels. However, in at least ¶[0016] and ¶[0027] of Schonherr teach that liquid nitrogen is used to cool the baffles used to adsorb ammonia. Then in Fig. 1 and col. 1, l. 66 to col. 2, l. 65 Chin teaches an analogous embodiment of a MBE reactor in which a cryopanel (22) is provided around a substrate (18) holder (16) in order to facilitate adsorption of excess material from the source (20). The cryopanel (22) is cooled directly by flowing liquid nitrogen through an input pipe (24), into the cryopanel (22), and then out through an output pipe (26). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Schonherr and Chin and would recognize that the cooling shrouds (330) and (328) of Najafi may be cooled by flowing liquid nitrogen directly through an interior of the cooling shrouds (330) and (328) with the motivation for doing so being to directly and more efficiently cool the entirety of the cooling shrouds with liquid nitrogen.
Claim 100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi in view of Schonherr and further in view of Tsang and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,358,822 to Yoshitaka Tomomura (“Tomomura”).
Regarding claim 100, Najafi, Schonherr, and Tsang do not teach that the gallium source is configured to introduce at least one reactant selected from the group consisting of: TEGa, TMGa, GaCl, and any combination thereof. However, in col. 14, l. 10 to col. 15, l. 31 Tomomura teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of Group III-nitride semiconductors by MBE using ammonia as a nitrogen source. In col. 15, ll. 4-17 Tomomura specifically teaches that the Group III element may be in the form of an organic metal such as trimethylgallium (TMGa). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Tomomura and would recognize that organometallic sources such as TMGa may be used in place of elemental Ga in the system and method of Najafi and Schonherr with the motivation for doing so being, for example, to facilitate the continuous flow of a gaseous precursor which does not require periodically opening the vacuum chamber in order to replenish a solid source material. In this case the use of TMGa would involve nothing more than the use of a known material suitable for its intended use which is prima facie obvious.
Claim 103 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi in view of Schonherr and further in view of Tsang and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,944,246 to Tanaka, et al. (“Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 103, Najafi, Schonherr, and Tsang do not teach a wafer platform coupled to a shaft positioned through a top surface of the chamber, wherein the wafer platform is configured to accept the wafer from a separate wafer introducing means. However, in at least Fig. 2 and col. 4, ll. 15-68 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Tanaka teaches an analogous embodiment of a MBE reactor in which the substrate holder (H) is supported by a support shaft (19) which extends through a ceiling (12) where it is movable up and down by an actuator (18) mounted on the ceiling (12) outside of the growth chamber. Then, in Figs. 1 & 3-5 and col. 5, l. 48 to col. 10, l. 5 Tanaka further teaches that substrates (B) are initially placed onto a first transfer tray (23) in a loading chamber (11) and are then transferred to a substrate holder (H) supported on a second transfer tray (24) within a preparation chamber (10). The set of substates (B) retained by the substrate holder (H) is then transferred into the growth chamber (2) by a sliding feed assembly (31). In this manner the substrates (B) may be introduced into the vacuum system and subject to the desired pre-treatment process(es) prior to being introduced into the MBE system for film growth without the need to vent the MBE chamber. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a support shaft which extends through the ceiling of the MBE system of Najafi in order to facilitate up and down movement of the substrate such that it may be precisely positioned at the desired distance from the underlying effusion cells and would also be motivated to utilize a wafer introducing means such as the substrate holder (H) and sliding feed assembly (31) of Tanaka to facilitate the in-situ transfer of substrates into and out of the MBE chamber of Najafi.
Claims 106-107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Najafi in view of Schonherr and further in view of Tsang and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0318017 to Alan T. Cheng (“Cheng”).
Regarding claim 106, Najafi, Schonherr, and Tsang do not teach that the one or more openings comprising a helical geometry. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0027]-[0038] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Cheng teaches an embodiment of a cryogenic condenser (1) which includes helically arranged first (13a) and second (13b) coil sets which are configured for the flow of a cryogenic material such as liquid nitrogen therethrough and have a predetermined spacing between individual coils. The number and spacing of the coils is adjusted to optimize the condensation of the desired material onto the cryogenically cooled first (13a) and second (13b) coils. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Cheng and would be motivated to incorporate helically arranged coils having a predetermined spacing between individual coils within the first (330) and second (328) cooling shrouds of Najafi in order to more precisely control the location and amount of cooling and thereby produce the desired condensation of excess gaseous species such as ammonia during crystal growth.
Regarding claim 107, Najafi, Schonherr, and Tsang do not teach that the one or more openings comprise a helical geometry. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0027]-[0038] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Cheng teaches an embodiment of a cryogenic condenser (1) which includes helically arranged first (13a) and second (13b) coil sets which are configured for the flow of a cryogenic material such as liquid nitrogen therethrough and have a predetermined spacing between individual coils. The number and spacing of the coils is adjusted to optimize the condensation of the desired material onto the cryogenically cooled first (13a) and second (13b) coils. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Cheng and would be motivated to incorporate helically arranged coils having a predetermined spacing between individual coils within the first (330) and second (328) cooling shrouds of Najafi in order to more precisely control the location and amount of cooling and thereby produce the desired condensation of excess gaseous species such as ammonia during crystal growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed March 6, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the rejection utilizing Tsang as a primary reference, but are unpersuasive with respect to the rejection utilizing Najafi as the primary reference and are otherwise moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action which were necessitated by applicants’ claim amendments.
Applicants initially repeat their arguments against the reliance on Schonherr to remedy deficiencies in Najafi. See applicants’ 3/6/2026 reply, pp. 17-18. This argument remains unpersuasive for reasons noted in the Response to Arguments section of the January 14, 2026, non-final Office Action.
Applicants argue against the reliance on Najafi by contending that the gas injectors are not positioned within the bottom surface of the chamber and that Najafi does not teach or suggest a mechanical shutter. Id. at p. 18. Applicnats’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In Figs. 2-3 of Najafi the MBE sources (207) are clearly positioned within and enter through a bottom surface of the MBE chamber (201). Moreover, Tsang has been introduced to teach that the use of mechanical shutters to control the beam flux are known in the art.
Applicants further argue that ¶[0040] of Najafi does not teach a cylindrical gap as claimed. Id. This argument is not found persuasive since, for one, there clearly is a cylindrical gap between cryoshrouds (328) and (330) in Fig. 3. Moreover, ¶[0040] specifically teaches an alternate arrangement in which one cryoshroud (328) is disposed above the substrate (332) while the other cryoshroud (330) is disposed below the substrate (332) which will necessarily leave a cylindrical gap therebetween. Moreover, such a gap is necessary in order to facilitate insertion and removal of the substrate (332) via the substrate holder (206).
Applicants generally refer to the rejections of claims 87, 100, 103, and 106-107 and allege that the cited prior art does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies in Najafi and Schonherr and do not teach the newly added claim limitations. Id. at pp. 19-21. This argument is not found persuasive since, as noted supra, each and every limitation recited in independent claims 86 and 102 are taught by the combination of Najafi and Schonherr.
Applicants argue against the rejection of claim 101 by contending that “element 9” is described as a “control mechanism” and is not used to protect the gas injector and that “element 9 is entirely excluded from the chamber, thereby teaching against any use of element 9 for protecting an element within the chamber from any contamination.” Id. at p. 20. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. As an initial matter it is noted that “element 9” in Tsang is specifically identified in Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 50-51, col. 4, ll. 14-18, and col. 4, ll. 48-53 as a beam shutter which covers a distal end of the effusion cells (7) and is mechanically moved (i.e., opened) in order to permit the beam of atomic species to impinge upon the substrate (25) and thereby deposit a thin film. Thus, Tsang clearly teaches a mechanical shutter as recited in claim 101. With respect to the language of amended independent claims 86 and 102 which relates to a mechanical shutter which is configured to move above the plurality of gas injectors and to shield the injectors from particle contamination or damage, this also is at least inherently taught by the apparatus of Tsang. When the shutters (9) in Fig. 1 of Tsang are in the closed position and are thereby covering the opening(s) of the effusion cells (7), the shutter itself necessarily functions to shield the effusion cell from particle contamination or damage because it physically covers and, hence, shields the opening(s) to the effusion cells (7). Moreover, the shutters (9) are clearly shown as being present within the MBE chamber and, in fact, the shutter (9) itself must necessarily be present within the MBE chamber in order for it to function according to its intended purpose of blocking and unblocking the beam flux.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0037]-[0045] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2007/0141814 to Leibiger, et al. teaches an analogous embodiment of a system for the growth of Group III-nitrides by MBE which includes a plurality of effusion cells (2), (3), and (4) as sources of Ga, Al, and nitrogen with the beam flux being controlled by means of shutters (13), (13’), and (13”), respectively.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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 on (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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights