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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Jeong’s spiral groove wraps circumferentially and cannot be interpreted as a slit that runs parallel to the tube axis. This argument is not persuasive. First, the instant Application includes non-linear slit claim limitations as dependent claims (see claim 7) and including angles to the longitudinal direction (claim 8). The spiral groove of Jeong runs along the longitudinal direction, and therefore falls well within BRI of the claim limitation as recited.
Applicant argues Jeong is a completely different field than the semiconductor processing. This argument is not persuasive. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1-2) requires only that the reference discloses every element of the claim, and under the previous rejection, Jeong teaches each claimed element. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive even if the technical field were of instant relevance: Both Jeong and the instant invention ae directed to tubular support assemblies for high temperature processing equipment. Both involve a hollow support tube surrounding and supporting a process tube arranged coaxially in a heated environment. Similar inventive concepts are being addressed by Jeong as well: how to structurally support a hollow process tube within an outer support tube.
Applicant argues Seo does not disclose bearing elements arranged below a horizontal median plane. This argument is not persuasive. The claim defines horizontal median plane as “a horizontal plane in which lies the center line of the support tube”. This defines a geometric reference, and whether the tube is oriented vertically or horizontally, a horizontal plane through the center line divides the tube cross-section into an upper and lower half. In Seo, the reinforcing elements (140, 142, 144) extend from the outer surface of the tube. As shown in Figure 3, the elements are arranged in a pattern where at least two elements are positioned below the horizontal line through the center of the tube. Such a geometric orientation holes regardless of the tube’s axial orientation.
With respect to Murata is silent on the bearing elements on the outer surface of a support tube or slit running along longitudinal direction. This argument is not persuasive. Murata was only relied upon for the steps of depositing, sealing, and treating at a predetermined temperature, not for the structural features of the support tube.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-15 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.
Claims 13-15 depend on cancelled claims 11-12. It is therefore unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what is required of the claims given the improper dependencies.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 13-15 depend on cancelled claims 11-12. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 1020120040806) in view of Seo (US 20170022610).
Regarding claim 1, 10, and 13-16;
Jeong discloses process assembly for processing a semiconductor product, the process assembly comprising: a hollow support tube (300), said support tube being formed with a slit (spiral groove 302) running along a longitudinal direction of said support tube (see Figures 6-7, slit runs along the longitudinal direction); and a hollow process tube (290) defining a process volume for a semiconductor process, said process tube being arranged, at least sectionally, within said support tube and said support tube supporting said process tube (see Figures 4-7, the tubes are arranged overlapping and coaxially).
Jeong fails to teach said support tube further comprises a bearing structure for bearing said support tube, said bearing structure being arranged on an outer surface of said support tube, said support tube comprises at least two bearing elements arranged on an outer surface of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are arranged below a horizontal median plane of said support tube; wherein, relative to a center line of said support tube, each of said at least two bearing elements is arranged at an angle of substantially 45° below the horizontal median plane of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are arranged on the outer surface of said support tube symmetrically with respect to a vertical median plane of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are said rails running along the longitudinal direction, and said support tube and said bearing structure are fabricated in one piece.
Seo teaches a process assembly for a semiconductor product comprising an inner region (400) and a support tube (100), the support tube includes a plurality of bearing elements (140, 142, 144) on the outer surface. The bearing structure being arranged on an outer surface of said support tube (Figure 2), said support tube comprises at least two bearing elements (140, 142, 144) arranged on an outer surface of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are arranged below a horizontal median plane of said support tube (when the plane is intersecting the support tube, at least two halves of a respective bearing will be “below” the horizontal median plane since they form portions of an “X”, the lower parts of the “X” being the “below”; see Figure 3); wherein, relative to a center line of said support tube, each of said at least two bearing elements is arranged at an angle of substantially 45° below the horizontal median plane of said support tube (see above with respect to the bearing portions forming an “X” which divided would be approximately 45 degrees; additionally, Figure 3 gives various angles whereby the bearing element/median angle can be approximated and it falls within the range of approximately 45 degrees; see Paragraph 67), said at least two bearing elements are arranged on the outer surface of said support tube symmetrically with respect to a vertical median plane of said support tube (see Figures 2-3), said at least two bearing elements are said rails running along the longitudinal direction (Figure 2, the bearing elements extend along the tubular/longitudinal direction and form “rails”), and said support tube and said bearing structure are fabricated in one piece (see Figures 3-4, the bearing structure and support tube are not demarcated, forming one piece).
Because Seo teaches a cylindrical tubular element for heating and forming semiconductor portions and the tubular element includes support/bearing ribs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process assembly of Jeong such that said support tube further comprises a bearing structure for bearing said support tube, said bearing structure being arranged on an outer surface of said support tube, said support tube comprises at least two bearing elements arranged on an outer surface of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are arranged below a horizontal median plane of said support tube; wherein, relative to a center line of said support tube, each of said at least two bearing elements is arranged at an angle of substantially 45° below the horizontal median plane of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are arranged on the outer surface of said support tube symmetrically with respect to a vertical median plane of said support tube, said at least two bearing elements are said rails running along the longitudinal direction, and said support tube and said bearing structure are fabricated in one piece as taught by Seo for the purposes of reinforcing the assembly and preventing damage from the temperatures.
Regarding claims 2-4, Jeong in view of Seo teaches the process assembly according to claim 1 above. Jeong further discloses an inner surface of said support tube lies flat against an outer surface of the process tube, and the support tube and process tube are arranged coaxially (see Figure 6), and the slit is formed to intersect said support tube over an entire length of the support tube (it is considered to “intersect” since it is both formed within the support tube through a groove, and because it helically wraps around and thereby “intersects” the support tube).
Regarding claims 5-6;
Jeong in view of Seo teaches the processing assembly according to claim 1 above. Jeong further discloses the width of the slit (see Figures 6-7, the width is defined by the dimensions of the groove).
Jeong does not explicitly teach the width of the slit “covers” approximately 6% of the outer circumference of the support tube.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the width of the slit covering a certain circumference solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that it defines the maximum deformation of the tube. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the slit of Jeong such that it covers approximately 6% of the outer circumference, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious for the purposes of arranging a properly sized tube and heating element arrangement through the slit.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong in view of Seo teaches the process assembly according to claim 1 above. Jeong further discloses the slit is non-linear (see Figure 6, wraps around the tubes).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong in view of Seo teaches the process assembly according to claim 1 above. Jeong further discloses said support tube comprises at least one section in which said slit runs substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction or at least encloses a non-zero an angle with the longitudinal direction (see Figure 7 showing the slit running perpendicular to the longitudinal direction because the dimensions of the slit is arranged at a non-zero, almost 90 degree angle relative to the longitudinal direction; alternatively, because of the helical arrangement, the slit is additionally non-zero at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Jeong in view of Seo teaches the process assembly according to claim 1 above. Jeong further discloses the process tube is fabricated from quartz and the support tube can be ceramic (see abstract which discloses the utilization of quartz for the process tube, and the other tube can be constructed of a ceramic), and a heating unit (100) arranged circumferentially around the support tube.
Regarding claim 18;
Jeong in view of Seo teaches the process assembly according to claim 1 above.
Jeong fails to teach the wall thickness of said support tube is less than 50% of a wall thickness of the process tube.
Jeong further discloses that the support tube wall thickness at the slit is less thick than the thickness of the process tube.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness of the support tube as less than 50% of the thickness of the process tube solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above achieving a selected elasticity in the tube(s). Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
The dimensions of the respective tubes depends upon the necessary temperatures and the dimensions of the product that is produced within the process tube. Selecting the dimensions of the respective tubes would therefore fall within the scope of an ordinary skilled artisan when designing the engineering dimensions for processing the semiconductor product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall thickness of the tubes of Jeong such that the wall thickness of said support tube is less than 50% of a wall thickness of the process tube because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious for the purposes of arranging a properly sized tube relative to one another for processing the required semiconductor components.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 1020120040806) in view of Seo (US 20170022610), and further in view of Murata (US 9064912).
Jeong in view of Seo teaches a process assembly that produces product from particles within a heating tube assembly according to claim 1 above.
Jeong fails to teach a method for processing a semiconductor product that deposits a semiconductor product within a process volume of the process tube of the process assembly, sealing the process tube, and treating the semiconductor product within the process tube at a predetermined process temperature.
Murata teaches a method for processing a semiconductor product that deposits a semiconductor product within a process volume of the process tube of the process assembly (see Figure 1 process tube 13 with a process volume 14), sealing the process tube (seal caps 20), and treating the semiconductor product within the process tube at a predetermined process temperature (performs CVD process; temperature sensor 24 connected to controller 280).
Because Jeong is directed to a tubular furnace and chamber for constructing elements from particles, and because Murata teaches a semiconductor process assembly with a tubular furnace that utilizes a CVD process for forming the wafers, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Jeong such that it is utilized in a method for processing a semiconductor such that the method for processing a semiconductor product that deposits a semiconductor product within a process volume of the process tube of the process assembly, sealing the process tube, and treating the semiconductor product within the process tube at a predetermined process temperature as taught by Murata as none but the expected result is achieved, namely, producing semiconductor product from the tubular process assembly; if the first furnace heats a material and the second furnace processes it into a wafer, each machine is simply "performing the same function it had been known to perform" and "applying a known technique to a known device”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights