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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/20/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, as indicated in the signed copy of the IDS included herewith, KR 102356878 was not considered with the IDS because no translation, English abstract, or statement of relevance was provided. It is noted that applicant appears to have made a bona fide attempt to submit an English abstract, as indicated on the IDS, however the portion submitted does not actually have an abstract and instead indicates the English abstract is in process. Because this appears to be a bona fide attempt, Examiner has included a copy of KR 102356878 herewith and cited in the notice of references cited so that the record is clear the examiner has considered the reference.
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” as 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 the center of the susceptor body in a plan view”. Consistent with the instant specification (see [0091] inter alia), “and crossing the 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 no 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 1-18 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 "the center of the susceptor body in plan view" in line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “a center of the susceptor body”. The term is not inherently supported because the shape of the susceptor has not been recited and the term may refer to a geometric center or a center of mass (i.e. there is not merely one “center” of a structure). As noted above in claim interpretation, the term is interpreted as referring to a center point rather than a central region. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim is interpreted inclusive of referring to a geometric center. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity by reciting “a center of the susceptor body in plan view”.
Claim 6 and 7 recites the limitation "the first direction crossing the center of the susceptor body" in line 2-3. 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 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the center of the susceptor " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “a center of the susceptor”. The term is not inherently supported because the shape of the susceptor has not been recited and the term may refer to a geometric center or a center of mass (i.e. there is not merely one “center” of a structure). As noted above in claim interpretation, the term is interpreted as referring to a center point rather than a central region. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim is interpreted inclusive of referring to a geometric center. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity by reciting “a center of the susceptor”.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9, 13-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2015/0176128 of Song et al., hereinafter Song.
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 the 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 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 13, Song teaches as being farther away from the gate in the first direction, the area taken by the first hot-wire is constant or becomes smaller (note that for the portion of the first hot-wire farther from the gate than the center of region 34, the area taken by the first hot-wire becomes smaller as the distance from the gate increases).
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 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).
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 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) 2, 10-12, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song.
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 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of US Patent 6,278,089 of Young et al., hereinafter Young.
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 US Patent Application Publication 2017/0051406 of Mori et al., hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claim 5, song fails to teach the second hot wire is divides 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2006/0186110 teaches multizone heating (see Fig 4). US 2015/0114948 teaches multizone heating (Fig 2). KR 102356878 is cited as indicated in the above IDS section.
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
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716