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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are pending. In the amendment filed 05/26/2026, claims 1, 6-7, and 16 were amended, no claims were newly added, and claim 13 was canceled.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1-18, the claims use “direction” in a manner that appears to be directed to describing a line rather than merely a general direction. Therefore, use of “direction” has been interpreted inclusive of a line extending in the first/second direction. This interpretation is consistent with the specification as originally filed. Applicant is kindly requested to consider amending the claims to refer to a “line extending in a first/second direction”.
Claim 1 line 12-13 recites “a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and crossing a center of the susceptor body in a plan view”. Consistent with the instant specification (see [0091] inter alia), “and crossing a center of the susceptor body in a plan view” is interpreted as modifying “a second direction”.
In claim 1, 16 and claims dependent therefrom, the term “center” is being interpreted inclusive of point rather than a region (i.e. the central region). This is consistent with the instant specification use of “center”. Applicant may wish to consider amending to recite “a center point” so that it is clear that center is not merely the inner portion or region.
Claim 2 recites “the first hot-wire has a higher heating value per unit area than that of the second hot-wire”. The heating value per unit area of a hot-wire is a function of the amount of current applied to the wire and the positioning or density of the wire (i.e. how much of the wire is in a given area). Therefore, the limitation is inclusive of being directed to the intended use because the same wire may have more or less current applied which will alter the heating value per unit area without a physical change to the positioning or density of the wire. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claims 5 and 6 use the terminology “(2-1)-th hot-wire”, and claim 5 uses the terminology “(2-2)-th hot-wire”. Consistent with the instant specification (see at least [0086-0087], [0089]), the use of (2-1)-th and (2-2)-th is being interpreted as a label for the hot-wire, similar to if the claim language had used “first” and “second”. The term is not interpreted inclusive of requiring a specific structure or type of hot-wire.
The term “adjacent” is interpreted as “close, nearby” and is not interpreted as requiring the structures to be contacting.
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.
Claim 1-12 and 14-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "as being farther away from the gate in the first direction, an area taken by the first hot-wire is only constant or becomes smaller so that the area taken by the first hot-wire does not increase" in line 16-18. This limitation is unclear because as the distance from the gas increases (being farther away) the area (i.e. total area) of the first hot-wire increase (note that even when the width or dimension along the second direction is reduced, the structure is still extending in the first direction and therefore the area (i.e. total area) increases. It is unclear if applicant intended to refer to an area for a set length along the first direction such that when the width is constant along the second direction the area in each set length along the first direction will be the same and when the width along the second direction is reduce, the area in each set length along the first direction will decrease, or if applicant did intend to indicate the area does not increase as the dimension along the first direction (distance from gate valve) is increased. It is noted that the later is not supported by the instant specification as filed other than for portions of the support where the first hot-wire is not present. Consistent with the instant specification Fig 3, the limitation is interpreted inclusive of requiring that the width (or length) along the second direction is only constant or becomes smaller when the distance from the gate is increase. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 1 for clarity.
Regarding claim 16, lines 12-14 have the same clarity issue raised above regarding claim 1 lines 16-18. The slight differences in wording do not fix the issue. The text of lines 12-14 are being examined inclusive of the same applied interpretation requiring that the width along the second direction is only constant or becomes smaller when the distance is closer to the center of the susceptor body.
Claim 6 and 7 recites the limitation "the first direction crossing the center of the susceptor body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite the first direction crosses the center of the susceptor body and therefore, while “the first direction” has antecedent basis, the term “the first direction crossing the center of the susceptor body” does not. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claims will be examined with an interpretation that the claim is referring to the same “first direction” but adding that the first direction is crossing the center of the susceptor body (note this presumes that claim 1 is fixed to provide antecedent basis for “a center of the susceptor body”). Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as by amending claims 6 and 7 in line 2 to recite that the first direction crosses the center of the susceptor body and then recite that the specific hot-wire is symmetric with respect to the first direction crossing the center of the susceptor body.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (prev. presented US 2015/0176128).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a deposition apparatus (abstract, Fig 2, [0005]) comprising: a chamber (20 Fig 2-3) [0036] which provides an inner space (3 Fig 3) [0036]; a gate (22 Fig 2-3) [0036], [0051] which is disposed on one side of the chamber [0036] (Fig 2-3) and opens and closes the chamber through which a substrate is loaded and unloaded [0036], [0051]; and a susceptor (30 Fig 2-3) [0037] including one surface on which the substrate is seated [0038], the susceptor including: a susceptor body including a first region (region including d1) and a second region (remainder of susceptor body, including at least some of d2) disposed in a first direction farther away from the gate than the first region (Fig 7) [0053]; a first hot-wire arranged in a first pattern in the first region (hot wire 37’ in 34 Fig 7); and a second hot-wire arranged in a second pattern in the first and second regions (hot wire 37’ in 32 Fig 7), wherein the first and second hot-wires are asymmetric with respect to a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and crossing a center of the susceptor body in a plan view (Fig 7), and the first and second hot-wires are controlled independently (note [0054] teaches controlling to have different temperatures). Regarding “wherein as being farther away from the gate in the first direction, an area taken by the first hot-wire is only constant or becomes smaller so that the area taken by the first hot-wire does not increase”, which as explained above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is being interpreted as requiring that the width of the area of the first wire in the second direction is constant or decreases, is not taught by Song because Song teaches area of susceptor 34 having wire 37’ (Fig 6-7) is circular such that the distance in the second direction (direction of the shorter side of the rectangular sub-susceptor 32) increases before decreasing as the distance from the left side (gate valve) to the right side increases. However, this represents a mere change of shape of susceptor 34 such as to form a square or rectangular shape to support a square or rectangular substrate. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of susceptor 34. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 2, Song fails to explicitly teach the first hot-wire has a higher heating value per unit area than that of the second hot-wire. Song does teach the wires may be individually controlled to have different temperatures [0054], this is inclusive of providing different current to the wires to provide different heating values per unit area. Regarding which wire has a higher value, this represents an “obvious to try” limitation of choosing between a finite number of options.
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches wherein an exhaust port (28 Fig 2 and 4) adjacent to the gate is defined on a lower surface of the chamber (Fig 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches a first distance from the one side of the chamber on which the gate (22 Fig 2) is disposed in one side of the susceptor body (30 Fig 2) adjacent to the one side of the chamber is bigger than a second distance from another side of the chamber to another side of the susceptor body adjacent to the other side of the chamber (Fig 2, note the additional structures required on the gate side).
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches in a plan view, the first hot-wire is symmetric with respect to the first direction crossing the center of the susceptor body (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 8, Song teaches in the second direction, the first hot-wire is disposed more inside the susceptor than the second hot-wire (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 9, Song teaches a portion of the first hot- wire adjacent to the gate extends along the second direction (Fig 7, note adjacent is inclusive of nearby and a portion of the first hot wire in region 34 extends in the second direction).
Regarding claim 10, Song fails to explicitly teach a maximum length of the first hot-wire along the second direction is about 0.5 times to about 1 times a length of the susceptor body along the second direction. However, it is noted that this ratio appears obvious from the size of the region 34 in which the first hot-wire is positioned. Regarding the maximum length, the bend pattern of the hot-wire to be rotated 90 degrees such that the longest portions extend along the second direction represents a mere change in shape that does not alter the performance of the wire. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the hot wire bends. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 11, Song fails to explicitly teach a minimum length of a planar area of the first hot-wire along the second direction is about 0.6 times or less than a length of the susceptor body along the second direction; however this appears obvious from the shape of the wire shown in Fig 7, despite Song not disclosing if the area is shown to scale. Further this represents routine optimization of the shape of the hot wire to achieve the desired heating effects.
Regarding claim 12, Song fails to explicitly teach a planar area of the first hot-wire is about 0.8 times or less than a planar area of the first region; however this appears obvious from the shape of the wire shown in Fig 7, despite Song not disclosing if the area is shown to scale. Further this represents routine optimization of the shape of the hot wire to achieve the desired heating effects.
Regarding claim 14, Song teaches the first hot-wire is biased toward one side of the first region adjacent to the gate (area 34 Fig 7), and the second hot-wire is biased toward one side of the second region far from the gate (side closer to far end of d2 region Fig 7).
Regarding claim 15, Song fails to explicitly teach a maximum length of a planar area of the first hot-wire along the first direction is about 0.5 times or more than a length of the first region along the first direction; however this appears obvious from the shape of the wire shown in Fig 7, despite Song not disclosing if the area is shown to scale. Further this represents routine optimization of the shape of the hot wire to achieve the desired heating effects.
Regarding claim 16, Song teaches deposition apparatus (abstract, Fig 2, [0005]), comprising a susceptor (30 Fig 2-3) [0037] including one surface on which the substrate is seated [0038], the susceptor including: a susceptor body including a first region (half of susceptor body including d1, Fig 7) and a second region (remainder of susceptor including portion of d2, Fig 7) which are divided with respect to a first direction (divided with respect to direction extending parallel to the d1 and d2 lines) crossing the center of the susceptor (Fig 7); a first hot-wire bent a plurality of times and disposed in the first region (hot wire 37’ within 34 Fig 7); and a second hot-wire bent a plurality of times and disposed in the first and second regions (hot wire 37’ within 32 Fig 7), wherein in a second direction crossing the first direction, an area taken by the first hot- wire is constant or becomes smaller, as being closer to the center of the susceptor body (for the portion of the hot wire in 34 beyond the center of 34, the area measured along a direction perpendicular to the first direction becomes smaller as the wire approaches the center of the susceptor 30, Fig 7), and the first and second hot-wires are controlled independently (note [0054] teaches controlling to have different temperatures). As explained above regarding the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the area only being constant or becoming smaller as it approaches the center of the susceptor body is unclear. Using width in the second direction as a proxy for the area, as explained above, Song fails to teach the width in the second direction is only constant or becomes smaller because Song teaches a circular shape which has a width in the second direction that increase and then begins decreasing (see 34 Fig 6-7). However, this represents a mere change of shape of susceptor 34 such as to form a square or rectangular shape to support a square or rectangular substrate. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of susceptor 34. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 17, song fails to teach the first and second hot-wires are asymmetric in plan view with respect to the first direction because Song only teaches asymmetric in plan view with respect to the second direction. This represents a mere change in shape of the heaters or rearrangement of parts of the position of region 34.
Regarding claim 18, Song teaches the first hot-wire is biased toward one side of the first region far from the second region (Fig 7, note that far is a relative term and includes the bias of the first hot wire toward the portion of the first region that includes the center of 34).
Claim(s) 2 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Young (prev. presented US 6,278,089).
Regarding claim 2, Song remains as applied to claim 2 above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in case applicant can demonstrate that heat value per unit area is more than a function of the power provided to the hot wire In the same field of endeavor of substrate supports with heaters (abstract), Young teaches it is known to use wires with different heat per unit area values to provide a desired individual heat control (col 5, ln 47-57). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to include hot-wires with different heat per unit area because Young teaches this allows for different zone heating and compensation for heat loss to improve heating control (col 5, ln 47-57). Regarding which wire has a higher value, this represents an “obvious to try” limitation of choosing between a finite number of options.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mori (prev. presented US 2017/0051406).
Regarding claim 5, song fails to teach the second hot wire is divided into two individual wires that are independently controlled and divided by the center to the edge. Addressing the same problem of heating a susceptor, Mori teaches the heating zones may be additionally divided (see Fig 8 relative to Fig 6 or 2) for additional independent control [0086-0092] to improve the control of the temperature [0086-0092]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to include the second wire is divided into separate portions including a center an edge to provide increased temperature control of the susceptor.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Regarding being symmetric with respect to the first direction crossing the center of the susceptor body, this represents a mere change of shape of the heating wire regions and Mori demonstrates different heating zone shapes are obvious (see Fig 7 vs Fig 8) variations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments regarding the anticipation rejection over Song (reply p8-12) are moot because Song is no longer being used as an anticipatory rejection due to the amendments to claims 1 and 16. Song has been maintained as an obviousness rejection in view of a change of shape of the susceptor to reflect a change in shape of the substrate. The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p12-13) rely on the alleged failing of the art to teach the independent claims, which has been addressed above in the obviousness rejection. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1,686,795 demonstrates a square inner heating zone (Fig 4). US 2004/0144488 teaches a support with individually controllable heating zones (Fig 10-13).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights