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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7-19 was/were withdrawn; Claim 7 is no longer withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 21 is/are newly added.
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 Ishibashi’711 in addition to previously relied on references below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 7 is/are no longer withdrawn as claim 7 (Fig. 8) is generic to Species 1 and 2, and additionally, Species 4 (Fig. 8) is hereby removed as a species. Examiner and Applicant agreed to this update in an interview (filed 02/17/2026).
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 circumferential edge of the wafer of the plurality of wafers and the wafer boat posts of the wafer; (claim 20) wherein the width of the flange is substantially 10 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 which forms a wafer catching edge; (claim 21) wherein the thickened portion is integrally formed with the flange.
However Ishibashi’711 teaches (claim 1) a thickened edge portion (218b [peripheral parts], Fig. 9-10) which forms a wafer catching edge (218b); (claim 21) wherein the thickened portion (218b) is integrally formed with the flange (outer portion of 218), 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]).
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