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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/05/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed radially measured width of regions having increased thermal conductivity on the second main surface of the wafer carrier is less than a radial distance between adjacent heating coils must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 depends on claim 7. Claim 11 recites “regions” however claim 7 recites “region”. It is not clear what are the multiple regions claimed in claim 11.
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, 12, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Boyd et al., US 20140287142 (hereafter Boyd).
Regarding claim 1,
A system for an epitaxial apparatus , (Fig. 2 teaches CVD apparatus)
PNG
media_image1.png
484
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Boyd teaches CVD apparatus
comprising a wafer carrier; (substrate holder 3 in Fig. 2)
wherein the wafer carrier comprises: a first main surface suitable for receiving wafers; (Fig. 2)
a second main surface located on a side opposite to the first main surface; (Fig. 2)
an annular depression or an annular elevation (pocket 8 in Fig. 2)
containing wafer carrier material (Paragraph [10] teaches “The substrate holder according to the invention can be manufactured from graphite.”)
in a region of the second main surface, concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier; (Fig. 1 and 2 in Boyd teaches a center pocket concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier 3. Fig. 2 further teaches that the pocket positioned at the center of carrier 3 has recess 8 wherein recess 8 is concentric with the center point of the wafer carrier.)
PNG
media_image2.png
447
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Boyd
PNG
media_image3.png
381
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Boyd)
and a resistive heater arranged on the side of the second main surface . ( Paragraph [10] teaches “The heat source is preferably a resistor through which current flows, in particular in the form of a heating wire.” )
Regarding claim 12,
A system for an epitaxial apparatus comprising a wafer carrier; wherein the wafer carrier comprises: a first main surface suitable for receiving wafers ; a second main surface located on a side opposite to the first main surface ; (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
an annular region concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier, (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
which is coated with coating material (Fig. 8 in Boyd)
PNG
media_image4.png
256
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Boyd
having an absorption coefficient higher than that of a wafer carrier material, in a region of the second main surface; (Paragraph [8] in Boyd teaches “The zones of different reflectivity or different degrees of absorption can be implemented by a coating of the substrate holder bottom side.” MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.)
and a resistive heater arranged on the side of the second main surface . (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 13,
The system of claim 12, further comprising an annular depression or an elevation containing the wafer carrier material in the region of the second main surface, concentric with the wafer carrier. (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 16,
The system according to claim 12, wherein the annular region coated with coating material is arranged to oppose positions of the heater having reduced heat generation. (Paragraph [8] in Boyd teaches “The zones of different reflectivity or different degrees of absorption can be implemented by a coating of the substrate holder bottom side.” MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomiley et al., US 20050223994 (hereafter Blomiley).
The system of claim 1, wherein a depth of the annular depression or a height of the annular elevation is less than 10 mm. (Boyd is silent about this.
Blomiley teaches depressions on the back surface of susceptor. Paragraph [68] teaches thickness of 58a is from 500 angstroms to 100 microns. It is implied that depth of the depression is less than 10mm.
PNG
media_image5.png
232
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Blomiley teaches depression on susceptor back surface 58a
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the depth of the pocket less than 10mm as taught in Blomiley to the system in Boyd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce radiation overlap in certain regions of the susceptor and thus improve temperature uniformity across a substrate as taught in paragraph [69] in Blomiley.)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindberg, US 20190244839 (hereafter Lindberg).
Regarding claim 3,
A system according to claim 1, wherein the heater comprises two horizontal heating coils each having concentric windings such that heat generated by the heater varies in a radial direction. (Boyd is silent about this limitation.
Lindberg teaches multiple concentric horizontal coils in Fig. 1B.
PNG
media_image6.png
549
422
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Lindberg
Even though Lindberg teaches inductive coils, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the heater with two heating coils as taught in Lindberg in the system in Boyd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “ the heating device has a heating plane that can be arranged parallel to a plane of the semiconductor chips in the wafer composite during the production of semiconductor chips. The heating device further comprises a first heating unit extending substantially in a radial direction with respect to a reference point in the heating plane” as taught in paragraph [11] in Lindberg.)
Regarding claim 4,
The system of claim 3, wherein the annular elevation on the second main surface of the wafer carrier are arranged to oppose positions of the heater having reduced heat generation. (Boyd teaches a stepped second main surface in Fig. 7.
PNG
media_image7.png
246
784
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 in Boyd
Paragraph [35] teaches “It forms a stepped depression 19. In this way, the gap 12 has the gap height s, which is the least, in the region of the surrounding region a. In the central region b, i.e., in the region over which the recess 8 extends, the gap 12 has various gap heights t, t', t'', which are each higher than the gap height s. An outward curve can also be provided instead of an inward curve here.” Thus, Boyd teaches optimizing the height of the second main surface to increase or decrease heating of wafer at desired locations. MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.)
Regarding claim 6,
The system according to claim 3, wherein the annular depression on the second main surface of the wafer carrier is arranged to oppose a position of the heater having increased heat generation. (Boyd teaches a stepped second main surface in Fig. 7. Paragraph [35] teaches “It forms a stepped depression 19. In this way, the gap 12 has the gap height s, which is the least, in the region of the surrounding region a. In the central region b, i.e., in the region over which the recess 8 extends, the gap 12 has various gap heights t, t', t'', which are each higher than the gap height s. An outward curve can also be provided instead of an inward curve here.” Thus, Boyd teaches optimizing the height of the second main surface to increase or decrease heating of wafer at desired locations. MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.)
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd, and further in view of Lindberg.
Regarding claim 7,
A system for an epitaxial apparatus , comprising a wafer carrier; wherein the wafer carrier comprises: a first main surface suitable for receiving wafers; a second main surface located on a side opposite to the first main surface; (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
an annular region concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier, (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
in which a wafer carrier material is replaced with a foreign material different from the wafer carrier material, in a region of the second main surface; (Fig. 8 in Boyd teaches coating 20 in central region of second main surface of susceptor 3.)
and a resistive heater arranged on the side of the second main surface ; (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
wherein the heater comprises two horizontal heating coils, each having concentric windings such that heat generated by the heater varies in a radial direction. (Similar scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 8,
The system according to claim 7, further comprising an annular depression , or an elevation containing wafer carrier material in the region of the second main surface, concentric with the wafer carrier. (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 10,
The system of claim 7, wherein the annular region comprising foreign material is positioned such that a region of increased thermal conductivity on the second main surface of the wafer carrier is arranged to oppose a position of the heater having reduced heat generation or a region having reduced thermal conductivity on the second main surface of the wafer carrier is arranged to oppose a position of the heater having increased heat generation. (Boyd teaches in paragraph [8] “the bottom side of the substrate holder has a different reflectivity in the central region than in the surrounding region. For example, if the central region has a high reflectivity, in the case of a heat transport dominated by heat radiation, more heat is absorbed in the surrounding region than in the central region, since the degree of absorption is greater in the surrounding region than in the central region. It is also conceivable that the central region has a higher degree of absorption than the surrounding region. It then preferably has a higher degree of reflection than the central region. The zones of different reflectivity or different degrees of absorption can be implemented by a coating of the substrate holder bottom side.” Thus, Boyd teaches optimizing the positions of coating to increase or decrease heating of wafer at desired locations. MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd and Lindberg as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zheng et al., US 20250179640 (hereafter Zheng).
The system of claim 7, wherein a radially measured width of regions having increased thermal conductivity on the second main surface of the wafer carrier is less than the radial distance between adjacent heating coils. (Boyd teaches a stepped second main surface in Fig. 7. The stepped portions have different widths in radial direction.
Paragraph [35] teaches “It forms a stepped depression 19. In this way, the gap 12 has the gap height s, which is the least, in the region of the surrounding region a. In the central region b, i.e., in the region over which the recess 8 extends, the gap 12 has various gap heights t, t', t'', which are each higher than the gap height s. An outward curve can also be provided instead of an inward curve here.” Thus, Boyd teaches optimizing the width of the elevation of the second main surface to increase or decrease heating of wafer at desired locations. MPEP 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.)
Boyd is silent about is smaller than the radial distance between adjacent heating coils.
Zheng teaches is smaller than the radial distance between adjacent heating coils. (Zheng teaches a heater for heating a susceptor. The heater comprises main heaters with a distance delta Sc between them in Fig. 5a, and auxiliary heaters with a width W in Fig. 5b. Paragraph [78] teaches “The radial width of the whole heating segment is denoted as W. In an embodiment, the radial width W is less than or equal to the radial width ΔS.sub.c of the interval between adjacent heating segments (as shown in FIGS. 5(a) and 5(b)).”)
PNG
media_image8.png
620
671
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Zheng
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the width of the steps in radial direction to be smaller than the radial distance between adjacent heating coils as taught in Zheng in the system in Boyd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Such arrangement enables the auxiliary heaters to provide a more accurate adjustment to the temperatures of the zones above the circumferential area where the intervals between arc-shaped heating segments are located” as taught in paragraph [78] in Zheng.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lindberg.
Regarding claim 14,
The system of claim 12, further comprising an annular region concentric with the wafer carrier in which material of the wafer carrier is replaced with a foreign material different from the wafer carrier material, in the region of the second main surface. (Similar scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 15,
The system according to claim 12, wherein the heater comprises two horizontal heating coils each having concentric windings such that heat generated by the heater varies in a radial direction. (Similar scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Preti et al., US 20050051099 (hereafter Preti).
The system according to claim 12, wherein a radially measured width of the annular concentric region is larger than 0.5 cm. (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
PNG
media_image9.png
213
725
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A in Preti
Preti teaches depression 4 on second main surface of susceptor. Paragraph [41] teaches “the indentations 4 formed in the susceptor 1 on the lower side 12 may have a depth and a width which are variable in relation to the desired local overheating effect; however, the depth is quite great and may be, for example, from 1 mm to 5 mm; the width may be, for example, from 5 mm to 25 mm.” Here the claimed range of larger than 0.5cm overlaps the range 5mm to 25mm taught in Preti. Mpep 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the width of the depression larger than 0.5cm as taught in Preti in the system in Boyd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “These indentations are preferably shaped and distributed in a manner such as to compensate for the temperature differences of the growth surface of the substrate during the reaction stage” as taught in paragraph [28] in Preti.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/30/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-17 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the independent claims to recite “concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier” and argued on pages 7-10 that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, as discussed before, Fig. 1 and 2 in Boyd teaches a center pocket concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier 3. Fig. 2 further teaches that the pocket positioned at the center of carrier 3 has recess 8 wherein recess 8 is concentric with the center point of the wafer carrier.
PNG
media_image2.png
447
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Boyd
PNG
media_image3.png
381
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Boyd
Thus, Boyd teaches an annular depression or annular elevation concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier.
The applicant is suggested to amend the claims to include at least two circular band of regions of either depression or elevation, wherein each of the circular band of regions is concentric with a center point of the wafer carrier, the circular band of regions having different widths and radii, wherein the region with bigger radius encircles the region of smaller radius.
The examiner would like to point out that the new amendments might overcome the previous rejections but would require further search and examination.
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights