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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/878582, filed on 05/19/2020.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Rotation driving mechanism (any structure that drives the rotating stage, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0041]) in claims 11-18.
Air inlet unit (any structure that allows air flow, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0041]) in claims 11-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "wherein the second heating region comprises a plurality of second heaters" in the claim. It is unclear if the plurality of second heaters in the second region is the same of different from the at least one second heater disposed under the second heating region, introduced in claim 1. Examiner interprets as the same. Also, are the heaters “in” or “under” the second heating region? Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160204008 to Brien in view of US 2011/0185969 to Yang, and further in view of US 6072162 to Ito.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-12: Brien discloses a chemical vapor deposition system, comprising: a chamber (13 and “process chamber”, Fig. 2); a heating apparatus (7/8), disposed in the chamber, wherein the heating apparatus comprises: a rotating stage (7 [susceptor], Fig. 1, 2, 4), comprising a rotating axis (Z [axis], para. [0028]); a plurality of wafer carriers (8 [disk-shaped substrate holders]), disposed on the rotating stage (7), wherein the rotating stage (7) drives the wafer carriers (8) to rotate on the rotating axis (para. [0028]);
a plurality of first heaters (at least one of 3, 5, 1), disposed under a first heating region (central region), wherein there is a first spacing Sa between any two adjacent first heaters (Fig. 4), and each of the first heaters (3, 5, 1) comprises a first width Wa (first width of 3, 5, or 1) in a radial direction of the rotating stage (7, Fig. 4); and at least one second heater (at least one of 2, 4), disposed under a second heating region (outer region), wherein the second heater (at least one of 2, 4) comprises a second width Wb (second width of 2 or 4) in the radial direction of the rotating stage (Fig. 4); and an air inlet unit (14 [gas inlet member], Fig. 2), disposed in the chamber (para. [0028]) and located above the rotating stage (7, Fig. 2); wherein, a vertical projection of each of the wafer carriers (8) on the rotating stage (7) overlaps a vertical projection of the first heating region on the rotating stage (Fig. 1); (claims 3, 12) wherein the second heating region (outer region, Fig. 4, Brien) comprises a plurality of second heaters (2, 4).
The apparatus of Brien does not disclose a rotation driving mechanism, connected to the rotating stage and driving the rotating stage to rotate. Yet Brien teaches the susceptor is driven about the center axis thereof (para. [0003]), but does not explicitly disclose the actual structure.
Yang discloses a rotation driving mechanism (122 [shaft], Fig. 1-2), connected to the rotating stage (120 [stage]) and driving the rotating stage (120) to rotate for the purpose of being rotatably attached to the stage (120, para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rotation driving mechanism as taught by Yang with motivation to be rotatably attached to the stage.
However the apparatus of Brien in view of Yang does not disclose (claims 1, 11) there is a smallest spacing Sab between the at least one second heater and the first heating region, and Wa, Wb, Sa and Sab satisfy the equation: Wa/(Wa+Sa) ≥ Wb/(Wb+Sab); (claims 3, 12) there is a second spacing Sb between any two adjacent second heaters, and Wa, Wb, Sa and Sb satisfy the equation: Wa/(Wa+Sa) ≥ Wb/(Wb+Sb); (claim 5) wherein the wafer carriers comprise a symmetry center each, and the symmetry centers overlap a vertical projection of the first heating region on the wafer carriers.
Ito teaches a first heating region (inner region, Fig. 7-9) and a second heating region (outer region), where spacing between the heaters (14) and/or the regions (inner and outer, referred to as “first and second heater constituting sections”) can be equal or not equal (see col. 8, lines 24-55 and Fig. 7-9), for the purpose of compensating for heat dissipation in the outer edge and a heat loss in the upstream side (col. 8, lines 60-65), and/or finely segmenting temperature control (col. 8, lines 24-30). It is noted that depending on the spatial arrangement of the heaters which are subject to experimentation as taught by Ito, the vertical projections and/or symmetry centers necessarily overlap the wafer carriers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of first and second heating regions and/or heater spacings as taught by Ito with motivation to compensate for heat dissipation in the outer edge and a heat loss in the upstream side, and/or finely segment temperature control.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Brien in view of Yang, Ito does not disclose wherein the first heating region comprises a radial width in the radial direction of the rotating stage, the wafer carrier comprises a wafer carrier diameter, and a ratio of the radial width to the wafer carrier diameter is greater than 0.5 and less than 1.
Yang discloses varying the width of various portions of the resistive heating elements based on their radial position for the purpose of ensuring heating uniformity, and achieving radial control of the susceptor temperature (para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of first widths and radials widths of the heaters which necessarily includes equal widths, as taught by Yang with motivation to ensure heating uniformity, and achieve radial control of the susceptor temperature.
Claims 4, 13: The apparatus of Brien in view of Yang, Ito discloses wherein the first heaters (at least one of 3, 5, 1, Fig. 4, Brien) comprise a first temperature, the second heater (2, 4) comprises a second temperature, and the first temperature is not equal to the second temperature (para. [0039-0041]).
Claims 10, 18: The apparatus of Brien in view of Yang, Ito does not disclose wherein there is a distance H1 between the rotating stage and the first heaters in an axial direction of the rotating axis, there is a distance H2 between the rotating stage and the at least one second heater in the axial direction of the rotating axis, and the distance H1 is different from the distance H2.
However Yang teaches that the radially outer heating elements may be closer to the susceptor than the radially inner heating elements for the purpose of ensuring heating uniformity (para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of distances to be different between the first and second heater distances as taught by Yang with motivation to ensure heating uniformity.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brien in view of Yang, Ito as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 11-13 above, and further in view of US 6768084 to Liu.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17: The apparatus of Brien in view of Yang, Ito does not disclose (claims 6, 14) at least one third heater, disposed under a third heating region, wherein at least part of the third heating region does not overlap the rotating stage, the third heater comprises a third width Wc in the radial direction of the rotating stage, there is a smallest spacing Sac between the at least one third heater and the first heating region, and Wa, Wc, Sa and Sac satisfy the equation: Wa/(Wa+Sa) ≥ Wc/(Wc+Sac); (claims 7, 15) at least one fourth heater, disposed under a fourth heating region, wherein the fourth heating region does not overlap the rotating stage, the fourth heater comprises a fourth width Wd in the radial direction of the rotating stage, there is a smallest spacing Sbd between the at least one fourth heater and the second heating region, there is a distance H between the rotating stage and the at least one fourth heater in an axial direction of the rotating axis, and Wd, Sbd, Wb, Sab and H satisfy the equation: Wb/(Wb+Sab) ≥ Wd/[(Wd+Sbd):HP¹], where nl is greater than 0; (claims 9, 17) further comprising: at least one fifth heater, disposed under a fifth heating region, the fifth heater comprises a fifth width We in the radial direction of the rotating stage, there is a smallest spacing Sce between the at least one fifth heater and the third heating region, and We, Sce, Wc, Sac and H satisfy the equation: Wc/(Wc+Sac) ≥ We/[(We+Sce):Hᵐ²], where n2 is greater than 0.
Ito teaches multiple heating regions (multiple regions, Fig. 7-9, col. 6, l. 15-30 where multiple regions are considered), where spacing between the heaters (14) and/or the regions can be equal or not equal (see col. 8, lines 24-55 and Fig. 7-9), for the purpose of compensating for heat dissipation in the outer edge and a heat loss in the upstream side (col. 8, lines 60-65), and/or finely segmenting temperature control (col. 8, lines 24-30). It is noted that depending on the spatial arrangement of the heaters which are subject to experimentation as taught by Ito, the vertical projections and/or symmetry centers necessarily overlap the wafer carriers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of several heating heating regions and/or heater spacings as taught by Ito with motivation to compensate for heat dissipation in the outer edge and a heat loss in the upstream side, and/or finely segment temperature control.
However the apparatus of Brien in view of Yang, Ito does not disclose (claims 9, 17) wherein the fifth heating region does not overlap the rotating stage.
Liu discloses that a heating region (119 [heater rings], Fig. 4a/4b) does not overlap the stage (130 [substrate]) for the purpose of providing an additional tuning of thermal radiation profile of the heater assembly to improve the heating along the edge of a substrate (col. 8, lines 45-51).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Liu with motivation to provide an additional tuning of thermal radiation profile of the heater assembly to improve the heating along the edge of a substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718