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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 and 18 appear to have “floating” limitations in that the claims end with a period but then include a separate line (“preferably 4% to 8%” and “preferably less than 30%, further preferably less than 10%”. The claims are objected to rather than rejected as indefinite because these limitations don’t appear to be part of the claims at all, but are floating immediately afterwards in space. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 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 5-6 define a width of the slit such that it “covers” between 2-10% and approximately 6% of the outer circumference of the support tube. This is not clear because it’s not understood what is meant by “covers” the required length. Additionally, the dimension of the width is not defined and it’s not clear what dimension this measurement is measuring.
Claim 7 recites the slit is a nonlinear slit, then includes “straight-line” in parentheses. It’s unclear if this is part of the claim or was meant to be deleted. The claim is not qualified as “amended”. As such, it’s not clear what the limitations is meant to convey, and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (KR 1020120040806).
Regarding claim 1, 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).
Regarding claims 2-4, Jeong discloses 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 claim 7, Jeong discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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.
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 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 1020120040806).
Regarding claims 5-6;
Note: such that the limitations are definite and understood; Jeong discloses the process 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 18;
Jeong discloses 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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 1020120040806) in view of Seo (US 20170022610).
Jeong discloses the process assembly according to claim 1 above.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 1020120040806) in view of Murata (US 9064912).
Jeong discloses a process assembly that produces product from particles within a heating tube assembly.
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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uemori (US 20050082281) teaches the splitting of the support and/or process tube (see the splits in Figure 6).
Emami (US 10798781) teaches an elongated modular heater which has a slit between halves of the support tube (16). See Figure 10.
Ban (US 4263872) teaches a tubular CVD process assembly.
Conclusion
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