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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 12/24/25 is acknowledged. Claims 15-16 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1-14, the phrase "capable" (in claims 1,13 and 14) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the claim is not further limiting in relation to claim 2 since both claims recite the same relationship/limitation with respect to the first and second gap. In claim 2, when the first gap is wider then than second gap then the second gap is narrower than the first gap and hence claim 3 is not further limiting with respect to claim 2. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 10, the formation of the trench on the substrate is unclear and confusing as to how a trench is formed “on” a substrate as opposed to “in” a substrate? Is a trench formed by “non-uniform” coating of the first gas, second gas? Clarification is requested. Additionally, the claim is unclear and confusing as to when or how the trench is formed? Prior to supplying the first and second gas? As a result of the first or second gas? Is the gas an etching gas? Clarification is requested.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The reference to gap G2 in paragraph [0043] of the specification is not found in the Figs. 3A-3B. In addition, it appears that only 2 figures are represented by Figs. 3A-3C which is confusing and renders the question whether another figure should be represented. 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (2017/0025293).
Jung et al. (2017/0025293) teaches a substrate processing apparatus whereby a plurality of loading spaces (claimed first gap and second gap) are formed between a plurality of substrates and a plurality of partition plates to for processes on the substrates independently. A gas supply unit supplying process gas containing a raw material gas and an etching gas through spray nozzles (claimed first, second and third gas) and auxiliary nozzles to supply gases as well (claimed first, second and third gas) to achieve uniform growing films with excellent quality [0009]-[0019]. In Fig. 1, a substrate boat (110) (claimed substrate support) including partition plates (111) (claimed upper partition plate) forming a plurality of loading spaces (claimed first and second gaps) in an internal reaction tube (claimed process chamber). Connection rods (112) are arranged to support the partition plates (111) and the connection rods have a plurality of slots which allows for varying the height between partition plates (111) can be adjusted [0040]. The adjusted partition plates would vary the gap/height between them and the substrates on the substrate boat (110) and can be done with respect to supply condition of the process gas, diameter of the spray nozzles, ratios or concentration of the gases which affect the flow of the gases [0041]. Adjusting the flow of the process gas according to ratios of the material gas, etching gas, carrier gas, dopant gas, the heights of the partition plates may be adjusted and therefore loading spaces (claimed first and second gaps) have different heights [0043].
Regarding claim 1, the claimed first and second gap are not defined as being different and hence setting the height of the partition plate from the substrate would meet the claimed limitation of both the first gap and the second gap. Furthermore, Jung et al. (2017/0025293) teaches adjusting the heights of the partition plates from the substrate based upon the gases utilized which would suggests different heights for first gap and second gap and these would be set based upon the gases utilized.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jung et al. (2017/0025293) is silent with respect to the heights of the differing gases but would be inclusive of the first gap being wider than the second gap as well as the second gap being narrower than the first gap.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jung et al. (2017/0025293) depicts a stack of substrates whereby one substrate being above the gas supply port while another being below the gas supply port (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Jung et al. (2017/0025293) teaches a plurality of substrates arranged in a vertical direction at a predetermined interval and a plurality of partition plates between the plurality of substrates respectively (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 7, Jung et al. (2017/0025293) teaches supplying an etching gas which would meet the claimed “film-forming inhibitory” gas as the etching gas removes material and does not form a film. Jung et al. (2017/0025293) teaches this can be supplied separately or with the other gases [0050]-[0051].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Jung et al. (2017/0025293) teaches supplying forming gas, carrier gas, dopant gas, etching gas of which one of them would constitute the claimed third gas supplied separately or in combination with one being a source gas and another being a reactive gas [0050]-[0051].
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (2017/0025293) in combination with Harada et al. (2018/0308681).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jung et al. (2017/0025293) are incorporated here.
Jung et al. (2017/0025293) fails to teach forming a trench on the substrate and forming a semiconductor device.
Harada et al. (2018/0308681) teaches a method of manufacturing semiconductor device having a concave portion formed in the surface of the substrate with a similar processing apparatus (abstract, Fig. 1 and [0015]-[0069]). The concave portion including a trench (Figs. 6A,6B,7 and [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung et al. (2017/0025293) substrate processing apparatus to form a semiconductor device having a trench as evidenced by Harada et al. (2018/0308681) with the expectation of producing an improved semiconductor device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (2017/0025293) in combination with Iwata (2006/0219274).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Jung et al. (2017/0025293) are incorporated here.
Jung et al. (2017/0025293) fails to teach using a driver to move/adjust the partition plates.
Iwata (2006/0219274) teaches a substrate processing apparatus whereby a partition plate driver for vertically moving the partition plates (62b, 62c, 63,b, 63c) and the partition plate driver is controlled by a controller (70) [0119].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung et al. (2017/0025293) substrate processing apparatus to include a partition plate driver to moe/adjust the partition plates as evidenced by Iwata (2006/0219274) with the expectation of producing an improved semiconductor device by controlling the processing space between the substrates and the partition plates thereby improving the growth of the films.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, 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. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights