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 Objections
Claims 3-7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 3: The phrase “wherein said surface of each tray has locations” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --wherein said at least one substantially vertical surface of each tray has the locations--.
Re. claim 4: The phrase “wherein said surface of each tray has locations” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --wherein said at least one substantially vertical surface of each tray has the locations--.
Re. claim 5: The phrase “The support according to claim 1, comprising from 10 to 40 trays” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --The support according to claim 1, wherein the support comprises from 10 to 40 trays--.
Re. claim 6: The phrase “receiving a semiconductor substrate” as recited in line 5 appears to be --receiving the semiconductor substrate--.
Re. claim 7: The phrase “receiving a semiconductor substrate” as recited in lines 3-4 appears to be --receiving the semiconductor substrate--.
Re. claim 11: The phrase “pads protruding from said surface” as recited in lines 2-3 appears to be --pads protruding from said at least one substantially vertical surface of each tray has the locations--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-15 are 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.
Re. claim 6; The phrase “each having locations” as recited in lies 3-4 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the each is indicated.
Re. claim 8: The phrase “the inner tray” as recited in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 9: The phrase “said surface of the outer tray” as recited in lines 2-3 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 10: The phrase “the tabs” as recited in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 11: The phrase “said location” as recited in line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 12: The phrase “the treatment device” as recited in line 6 lacks antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The phrase “The support according to claim 5, wherein each inner tray comprises, at each location, a through recess intended to be covered on each of the two surfaces of the inner tray by one of the substrates” as recited in lines 1-3 does not further limit claim 5. There is no process of “inner tray” in claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk et al. (PGPub 2018/0337079 A1) in view of Ulrich (PGPub 2007/0261956 A1).
Volk et al. teach a support for semiconductor substrates comprising: an assembly of trays having the semiconductor substrates (7, Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]) resting thereon, wherein each tray is made of an electrically-conductive material (paragraph [0030]) and having at least one substantially vertical surface having locations arranged in at least two horizontally-oriented rows and one vertically-oriented column as shown in Fig. 1, wherein each location is configured to receive a semiconductor substrate oriented with an inclination relative to a vertical direction varying from 1° to 10° as shown in Fig. 1 (paragraph [0027]), wherein each tray comprises, at each location, a recess or a cavity (8) covered with the substrate as shown in Fig. 1 (paragraph [0032]), and wherein the trays of each pair of trays facing each other are separated by electrically-insulating spacers (22, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
However, Volk et al. silent two vertically-oriented columns to receive a semiconductor substrate for each tray. Ulrich teaches a substrate carrier (equivalent with a tray) having at least one substantially vertical surface having locations arranged in at least two horizontally-oriented rows and one vertically-oriented column as shown in Fig. 1 (paragraphs [0025]-[0027]) in order to operate more economically by increasing a number of semiconductor substrate on the tray. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a support for semiconductor substrates of Volk et al. by increasing a number of semiconductor substrate on the tray as taught by Ulrich in order to operate more economically by increasing a number of semiconductor substrate on the tray.
Re. claim 2: Ulrich also teaches that the surface of each tray has locations arranged in at least three horizontally-oriented rows and two vertically-oriented columns as shown in Fig. 1.
Re. claim 3: Ulrich also teaches that the surface of each tray has locations arranged in at least five horizontally-oriented rows and two vertically-oriented columns as shown in Fig. 1.
Re. claim 4: Ulrich also teaches that the surface of each tray has locations arranged in from five to ten horizontally-oriented rows and two vertically-oriented columns as shown in Fig. 1.
Re. claim 5: Volk et al. also teach that the support includes from 10 to 40 trays as shown in Fig. 2.
Re. claim 6: Volk et al., modified by Ulrich, also teach that the assembly of trays comprises inner trays sandwiched between two outer trays, each inner tray having two parallel substantially vertical surfaces, wherein each has locations arranged in at least two horizontally-oriented rows and two vertically-oriented columns, wherein each location of each surface receiving the semiconductor substrate is oriented with an inclination relative to a vertical direction varying from 1° to 10° as shown in Figs. 1-2.
Re. claim 7: Volk et al., modified by Ulrich, also teach that the two outer trays each comprise a single substantially vertical surface having locations arranged in at least two horizontally-oriented rows and two vertically-oriented columns, wherein each location receiving a semiconductor substrate is oriented with an inclination relative to a vertical direction varying from 1° to 10° as shown in Figs. 1-2.
Re. claim 8: Volk et al., modified by Ulrich, also teach that each inner tray comprises, at each location, a through recess intended to be covered on each of the two surfaces of the inner tray by one of the substrates as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 6.
Re. claim 9: Volk et al., modified by Ulrich, also teach that each outer tray comprises, at each location, a non-through cavity in the surface of the outer tray, intended to be covered with the substrate as shown in Figs. 1-2.
Re. claim 10: Volk et al. also teach that each tray comprises at least one tab (13, Fig. 1), the support includes at least one first electrically-conductive rod (15, Fig. 2) connected to the tabs of first trays of the assembly of trays and a second electrically-conductive rod connected (paragraph [0036]).
Re. claim 11: Volk et al. also teach that each tray comprises, for each location, pads (9, Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]) protruding from the surface and which are configured to be in contact with the semiconductor substrate present at the location.
Re. claim 12: Volk et al. also teach that a treatment device (30) has an enclosure having a substantially vertical axis and at least one circuit (60) for feeding a gaseous mixture into the enclosure as shown in Fig. 5 (paragraph [0053]), wherein at least one support of the semiconductor substrates is in the enclosure as shown in Fig. 5, and wherein the treatment device includes at least one radio frequency generator of an AC voltage electrically coupled to a plurality of said trays (see also paragraphs [0055]).
Re. claim 13: Volk et al. also teach that a vacuum pump (72, Fig. 5) is coupled to the enclosure (paragraph [0054]).
Re. claim 14: Volk et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent the enclosure made of stainless steel. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Therefore, such a modification of a material for the enclosure would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining desirable support for the semiconductor substrates. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the enclosure material of Volk et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Re. claim 15: Volk et al. also teach that the treatment of semiconductor substrates is intended for photovoltaic cell (such as a solar cell) manufacturing (paragraph [0005]).
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kornmeyer (US PAT. 11,873,559), Fuchset al. (PGPub 2020/0105516 A1), and Okita et al. (PGPub 2014/0154832 A1) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a support for semiconductor substrates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached at 571-272-9773. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729