DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 8-19 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 20-21 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by previously relied on references below.
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 annular portion 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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the flange comprises an annular portion extending radially between the support area and the thickened area” and “wherein an upper surface of the support area on which the wafer is supported and an upper surface of the flange are substantially coplanar,” in the claim. There doesn’t appear to be support in the specification or disclosure for “an annular portion” and its configuration. Additionally there doesn’t appear to be support for the upper surface of the flange being substantially coplanar with the upper surface of the support area, as the flange includes the thickened portion which projects above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060078839 to Adachi in view of US 20050000449 to Ishibashi and further in view of US 20100154711 to Ishibashi (Ishibashi’711).
Claims 1, 21: Adachi discloses a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a processing chamber ([vertical heat treatment furnace], not shown but disclose para. [0037]) configured for batch processing a plurality of wafers (10 [wafers]), wherein the batch processing includes depositing a layer on each wafer of the plurality of wafers (para. [0007]);
a wafer boat (1 [heat treatment boat], Fig. 1) configured to accommodate the plurality of wafers (10) and receivable in the processing chamber (para. [0007]), the wafer boat (1) comprising at least two wafer boat posts (3 [pillars]), wherein each wafer boat post (3) comprises a plurality of slots (4 [wafer support sections], para. [0008]); and a plurality of wafer supports (11 [heat treatment jig], Fig. 2a-2e), each wafer support (11) of the plurality of wafer (11) supports comprising quartz (para. [0035], [0082]) and being substantially flat (para. [0044, 0106]) and further comprising: a support area (center area under 10) configured to support at least a circumferential edge of a wafer of the plurality of wafers (Fig. 2A-2B);
and a flange (edge of 11) circumferentially surrounding the support area (center area under 10), wherein the flange (edge of 11) is receivable in and supported by the slots (4).
However Adachi does not disclose (claim 1) wherein the flange has a width to create a distance between the support area of the plurality of wafers and the wafer boat posts of the wafer; (claim 20) wherein the width of the flange is in a range between 10 and 25 mm.
Ishibashi discloses (claims 1, 20) wherein the size of the susceptor can be a size where there is a gap between the edge of the component and the outer edge of the wafer, for the purpose of being changed in an appropriate manner according to the diameter of the wafer (para. [0094]).
It is noted that the wafer is an article worked upon in the apparatus, thus the recitations tie the structure of the apparatus to a substrate that may be worked upon by the apparatus, but is notably not part of the apparatus; and therefore cannot be used to define over the prior art apparatus. The courts have held that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of sizing of the susceptor as taught by Ishibashi with motivation to be changed in an appropriate manner according to the diameter of the wafer.
The apparatus of Adachi in view of Ishibashi does not disclose (claim 1) a thickened edge portion at a radially outer part of the flange, the thickened edge portion forming which forms a wafer catching edge wherein the flange comprises an annular portion extending radially between the support area and the thickened edge portion. and wherein an upper surface of the support area on which the wafer is supported and an upper surface of the flange are substantially coplanar, and the thickened edge portion projects above said upper surfaces; (claim 21) wherein the thickened edge portion is integrally formed with the flange.
However Ishibashi’711 teaches (claim 1) a thickened edge portion (218b [peripheral parts], Fig. 9-10) at a radially outer part of the flange (outer 218a, and 218b), the thickened edge portion (218b) forming which forms a wafer catching edge (inner edge of 218b) wherein the flange (outer 218a, and 218b) comprises an annular portion (outer 218a [concave part]) extending radially between the support area (area under 200 [wafer]) and the thickened edge portion (218b), and wherein an upper surface of the support area (upper surface of 218a under wafer) on which the wafer (200) is supported and an upper surface of the flange (upper surface of outer 218a, and 218b) are substantially coplanar (Fig. 9-10), and the thickened edge portion (218b) projects above said upper surfaces (Fig. 9-10); (claim 21) wherein the thickened edge portion (218b) is integrally formed with the flange (outer 218a, and 218b), for the purpose of suppressing deposition of films on the rear surfaces of the wafers due to the top surfaces of the thickened edge portion (218b) being coplanar with the top surfaces of the wafer (200, para. [0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Ishibashi’711 with motivation to suppress deposition of films on the rear surfaces of the wafers due to the top surfaces of the thickened edge portion being coplanar with the top surfaces of the wafer.
Claims 2-3: (Withdrawn).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Adachi in view of Ishibashi discloses wherein the support area (central area under 10, Fig. 2A-2B, Adachi) is closed so that the wafer support is substantially plate-shaped and capable of supporting an entire bottom surface of a wafer (Fig. 2A-2B).
Claim 5: (Withdrawn).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Adachi in view of Ishibashi discloses wherein the wafer support (11, Fig. 2A-2B, Adachi) with the wafer (10) is removable from the wafer boat (1, para. [0007]).
Claim 7: (Cancelled).
Claims 8-19: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040099219 discloses a wafer boat (wafer loading boat, Fig. 11-12a-12b) which has first and second supporting pillars (11, 21) with slots (20a, 11a) that support the wafer holder (25) which is a plate, but has cutouts for the second supporter to lift the substrate (100, para. [0063-0066]).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights