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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 12, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification was received on February 12, 2026. The substitute specification is acceptable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al, JP H05291151 A, in view of Ohta et al, EP 0606737 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 11, Ito et al teaches a device for achieving homogeneous thickness growth and doping in a semiconductor wafer 1 during growth at elevated temperature in a reactor housing 4, wherein the device comprises: a growth chamber 23 arranged in the reactor housing 4 and having a port (inherent to allow loading/unloading of the wafer) to allow insertion of at least one wafer 1 on a rotating susceptor 2 in the growth chamber 23 and for removing the wafer 1 therefrom, where the growth chamber 23 further has an inlet channel 21, 31, 41 for supplying process gases and an outlet channel 24, 34, 44 (see Figure 2) for discharge of unused process gases to create a process gas flow over the semiconductor wafer 1 between said channels, wherein an injector 22 for creating a laminar flow of the process gases within the growth chamber, the injector being positioned within the reactor housing 4 and being arranged at the end of the inlet channel 21, 31, 41 where the inlet channel opens into the growth chamber 23; the injector comprising a single injector body 22 that is divided into at least three gas ducts (Figure 1) with a first gas duct (connected to inlet 31), and at each side thereof a second gas duct (connected to inlet 21), and a third gas duct (connected to inlet 41), wherein the each of the first gas duct, the second gas duct and third gas duct are spaced internally from a wall of the reactor housing (Figure 1); the magnitude of the gas flow in the first gas duct is arranged to be controlled by valve 36 independently of gas flows in the second and third gas ducts which are controlled by valves 26, 46 (Figure 3).
Ito et al differs from the present invention in that Ito et al does not teach: that the wafer has a diameter which is greater than 100 mm; and independently controlling the gas concentrations in the first, second, and third gas ducts.
Ohta et al teaches processing a wafer with a 200 mm diameter (Page 5 line 21), and independently adjusting the gas concentrations of the precursor (trichloro silane) and dopant (B2H6) flows to correct nonuniformities in the deposited layer (Table 2).
The motivation for sizing the susceptor of Ito et al to hold a 200 mm wafer is to enable the apparatus of Ito et al to process 200 mm wafers as taught by Ohta et al.
The motivation for independently controlling the gas concentration in the first, second and third gas ducts is to control the amount of reactants supplied to the substrate to improve the uniformity of the coating process as taught by Ohta et al and well known in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to size the susceptor of Ito et al to hold a 200 mm wafer and independently control the concentrations of gases in the first, second, and third gas ducts as taught by Ohta et al.
Regarding claim 2, Ito et al teaches that the second and third gas ducts have the same cross-sectional area (Figure 1) and when growing a wafer the same gas flow and gas concentrations provided by valves 26, 46.
Regarding claim 3, Ito et al teaches that the first, second and third gas ducts are located in the same plane and are integrally formed within the single injector body. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 4, Ito et al teaches that the first, second and third gas ducts are arranged to run parallel to each other. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 5, Ohta et al teaches that the first gas duct 18 has an opening angle in the range 5 - 30 degrees and the second and third gas ducts 17 and 19 have opening angles in the range 5 - 30 degrees. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 6, Ohta et al teaches that the first gas duct 18 has an opening angle in the range 10 - 30 degrees and the second and third gas ducts 17 and 19 have opening angles in the range 10 - 30 degrees. (Figure 1)
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Ohta et al teaches that the opening angles of the second and third gas ducts 17 and 19 are preferably smaller than the opening angle of the first gas channel 18. (Figure 1)
Alternately, regarding claims 5-7 and 11, the Examiner notes a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum or workable ranges of the angle of opening of the gas ducts by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable ranges, such person would have been motivated to modify Ito et al to include the opening angle of 5-30 or 10-30 degrees.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, it is well known in the art that the angle of opening of the gas duct determines the pressure drop and controls how the gases flow through the duct. To that end, the opening angle of the duct is a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ito et al to include opening angle of 5-30 or 10-30 degrees in the ducts. To that end, claims 5-7 are obvious in view of Ito et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Regarding claim 8, Ohta et al teaches increasing a concentration of active gases in the second and third gas ducts in relation to the concentration of active gases in the first gas duct to achieve increased thickness growth of the wafer in its peripheral areas. (Table 2, Figures 2-5)
Regarding claims 9 and 11,
Ito et al was discussed above.
Ito et al differs from the present invention in that Ito et al does not teach that the concentration of dopant gases is increased in the second and third gas ducts in relation to the concentration of doping gases in the first gas duct to achieve increased doping of the wafer in its peripheral areas.
Ohta et al teaches adjusting precursors flows to correct nonuniformities in the deposited layer.
The motivation for increasing the concentration of dopant gases in the second and third gas ducts in relation to the concentration of dopant gases in the first gas duct is to increase the doping of the peripheral areas of the wafer as suggested by Ohta et al and well known in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to increase the concentration of dopant gases in the second and third gas duct in relation to the concentration of dopant gases in the first gas duct in the apparatus of Ito et al.
Regarding claim 10, both Ito et al and Ohta et al teach a radially wider part of the outer areas of the wafer is affected by the gas flow via the second and third gas ducts by an increase of the gas flow in the second and third gas ducts relative to the gas flow in the first gas duct.
Regarding claim 11, Ito et al teaches that the single injector body 22 has a first angled inner partition that separates the first gas duct from the second gas duct and a second angled inner partition that separates the second gas duct from the third gas duct, each of the first angled inner partition and the second angled inner partition having a triangular shape, wherein the first, second and third gas ducts are arranged parallel to one another; wherein first gas duct has a first opening angle, the second gas duct has a second opening angle and the third gas duct has a third opening angle, wherein the first opening angle is greater than each of the second opening angle and the third opening angle, the first, second and third opening angles being selected so that they do not affect the laminar flow out of the injector (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 12, Ito et al teaches the single injector body 22 has a first angled inner partition that separates the first gas duct from the second gas duct and a second angled inner partition that separates the second gas duct from the third gas duct. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 13, Ito et al teaches the first angled inner partition has a first inner surface and the second angled inner partition has a second inner surface that faces the first inner surface, the second gas duct being located between the first inner surface and the second inner surface. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 14, Ito et al teaches the first inner surface and the second inner surface diverge from one another in a direction toward the growth chamber. (Figure 1)
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112 rejections in the Final Office Action mailed November 13, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 under Ohta et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ito et al, JP H05291151 A, and Ohta et al, EP 0606737 A1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g)) The following references could be used to reject the claims under § 102 or 103: CN 104822866 B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716