DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hisakado (2021/0147978).
Hisakado teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
- an inner tube providing a process space – see inner tube 4B, Figs. 1 and 2,
- an outer tube enclosing the inner tube, see 4A,
- a gas supply conduit connect to the process space – see at least 9,
- a boat in the process space – see boat holding wafers 21,
- wherein a first inner diameter of the inner tube at a first position is different from a second inner diameter at a second position – see wherein the diameter of the inner tube, shown more clearly in Fig. 2 at 39a is smaller than the rest of the portion, and the narrower section has a circular shape along an entire perimeter [0038]. The first position is the bottom for example below 39a and the second is 39a.
Regarding claim 2, the boat is depicted as having a plurality of supports, as indicated by a plurality of wafers and the level of the highest support as depicted is higher than the level of the second position.
Regarding claim 3, based on the claims as written, the portions of the first and second positions are reasonably exchanged and the diameter requirements are met.
Regarding claim 5, there is a third diameter above, for example in the region of the boat, is the same as the first diameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisakado.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings are silent on the diameters, but as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a selection or change of size/dimension is obvious without a showing of criticality. To select the claimed range of dimensions would have been obvious as there is no showing of criticality commensurate to the scope of the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisakado in view of Saido (2019/0287829).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hisakado teaches a configuration of the tubes that includes a flange (see 4C of Fig. 5, [0047], but does not specifically teach the claimed opening– but Saido teaches that such a configuration is useful, see Fig. 1 and related text, wherein a flange 4C surrounds the system and supports an outer tube and encloses the inner tube and further the gas supply conduit, 9 and the exhaust, 15 penetrate the flange. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include a flange as claimed as it would be an obvious modification of the system per the teachings of Saido. Further, per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality.
In this case, to modify the structure to include the flange would have been obvious based on a rearrangement as supported by Saido, with the exhaust and gas inlets going through – and further to modify during the combination of such elements is further obvious. Further to claim 7, the prior art teaches that the top of the inner tube is open (in addition to the exhaust conduit as noted).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed. The teachings of Yoshioka are overcome for the reasons of record. The teachings of Hisakado do not apply because the varied chamber width portion is below the process space area and below the boat area.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712