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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the top and bottom surfaces of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not support a top surface or a bottom surface of the substrate boat. The specification indicates a first surface and second surface but these are not shown in the figures. The Examiner takes the position that neither the specification nor drawings support the claimed orientation of surfaces, therefore claim 14 recites new matter. Claim 15 depends on rejected claim 14 and therefore is rejected
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.
Claims 1- 5, 8, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kwag (US 6,402,849).
Regarding claim 1, Kwag teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus for processing a plurality of substrates, comprising:
a reaction chamber (300), the reaction chamber comprising:
a reaction space (100), for receiving a substrate boat (200) constructed and arranged for holding the plurality of substrates (210),
an inlet gas manifold position within the reaction chamber (130, 150) for providing gas into the reaction space (Fig. 6),
an exhaust gas manifold position within the reaction chamber (170, 180) for removing the gas from the reaction space (Fig. 6),
wherein each of the inlet gas manifold (130) and the exhaust gas manifold (170) has a concave side (Fig. 6) constructed and arranged to face a central axis of the reaction chamber (Fig. 6), thereby forming the reaction space (Fig. 6),
wherein, the inlet gas manifold and the exhaust gas manifold are constructed and arranged to at least partially enclose the plurality of substrate substrates in the substrate boat and, in use, to form a gas flow path (Fig. 1) that is substantially directed in between the substrates (210, fig. 8) from the concave size of the inlet gas manifold to the concave side of the exhaust gas manifold (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Kwag teaches the inlet gas manifold (130) comprises a gas inlet (120) for providing the gas to the inlet gas manifold (130) and a first set of openings (150) to provide the gas to the reaction space and the exhaust gas manifold (170) comprises a gas exhaust outlet (500)for removing the gas from the exhaust gas manifold (170, fig. 6)
and a second set of openings (180) for removing the gas from the reaction space.
Regarding claim 3, Kwag teaches the openings (150) in the first set are constructed and adapted to correspond, at least partially, to the openings in the second set (180, fig 6, 8).
Regarding claim 4, Kwag teaches the plurality of substrates (210, fig. 1) are separated from one another, in the substrate boat (Fig. 1 and 8), by a substrate spacing and wherein the openings in the first set (150) are constructed and adapted to at least partially correspond, through the substrate spacing, to the openings in the second set (180, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Kwag teaches wherein each of the inlet gas manifold (130) and the exhaust gas manifold (170) comprises at least one tube (400 and 500) being operably connected to the at least one gas inlet and to the at least one gas exhaust outlet, respectively (Fig. 6),
and being constructed and arranged for distributing the gas and for exhausting the gas within the inlet gas manifold and from within the exhaust gas manifold, respectively (Fig. 6, col. 4, ln. 50-67).
Regarding claim 8, Kwag teaches each of the inlet gas manifold (130, 140, 150 col. 5, ln. 5-15) and the exhaust gas manifold (170) is formed by a single manifold piece and wherein each of the gas inlet (400) is operably connected to the inlet gas manifold (130, 140, 150) and the gas exhaust outlet (500) is operably connected to the exhaust gas manifold (170, 180) from at least one of its lower end and its upper end (Fig. 1, 2 and 3, col. 5-6).
Regarding claim 13, Kwag teaches the concave side of the inlet gas manifold (130, 150) comprises a gas injector (150) for providing gas into the reaction space (fig. 7 and 8) and the concave side of the exhaust gas manifold (170, 180) comprises a gas exhaust conduit (170, 500) for removing the gas from the reaction space (Fig. 5), and
wherein each of the gas injector and the gas exhaust conduit being constructed and arranged to face the substrate boat (200, Fig. 1 and 8),
Regarding claim 16, Kwag teaches the pressure in the exhaust gas conduit 500 is lower than that in the reaction space because it teaches that the gases are evacuated using a vacuum pump attached to the exhaust gas conduit 500 therefore necessarily providing the claimed function recited by claim 16.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Siegfried (US 2005/0045035).
Regarding claim 6, Kwag does not teach wherein each of the inlet gas manifold (130) and the exhaust gas manifold (170) is formed by joining mid-piece manifold sections and two end manifold sections.
Siegfried teaches a modular gas manifold to provide gas over different length for an ion beam. Siegfried provides a modular gas manifold and is analogous prior art because it is directed to the same function as Applicant, the distribution of gas over the length of a substrate processing apparatus [0028]. Siegfried teaches an end module 202 [0036] that connects to longitudinal gas distribution plate module [0035]. Therefore Siegfried teaches a gas manifold formed by joining mid-piece manifold sections and two end manifold sections (Fig. 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify each of the inlet gas manifold (130) and the exhaust gas manifold (170) of Kwag by providing each is formed by joining mid-piece manifold sections and two end manifold sections, as taught by Siegfried, because it would allow distribution of gas over different lengths as desired [0028].
Regarding claim 7, Kwag teaches the inlet gas manifold (130) a first set of openings (150) and an exhaust gas manifold (170) comprises second set of openings (180, fig. 8). Kwag teaches the openings in the first set (150) are constructed and adapted to at least partially correspond, to the openings in the second set (180, fig. 8).
Kwag does not teach mid-piece manifold sections of the inlet gas manifold and each of the mid-piece manifold sections of the exhaust gas manifold. Siegfried teaches a modular gas manifold with mid-piece manifold sections [0035-0036] are operable and well known in the vacuum arts. Siegfied teaches manifold sections allow for different length gas manifold to be produced from multiple manifold section which offers the advantage of meeting different length requirements with the assembly of the same part to extend or reduce the length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used mid-piece manifold sections of Siegfried with the partially corresponding first and second openings of Kwag with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inlet gas manifold and the exhaust gas manifold of Kwag by providing mid-piece manifold sections to the inlet gas manifold and mid-piece manifold sections to the exhaust gas manifold, as taught by Siegfried, because it would allow distribution of gas over different lengths as desired [0028] and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kollberg (US 2019/0226082) and Qui (EP 1830392 as cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Kwag does not explicitly teach wherein the inlet gas manifold, the exhaust gas manifold and the at least one tube comprised in the inlet gas manifold and in the exhaust gas manifold, respectively, are constructed from metal, and are provided with a layer of a material, thereby providing etch selectivity towards an etchant suitable for in-situ cleaning.
Qui teaches the vessel and liner can be made of metal, ceramic crystalline or glass material [0076]. Qui teaches that materials other than the quartz described by Kwag are operable and applicable for substrate boat CVD reactor vessels.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the inlet gas manifold, the exhaust gas manifold and the at least one tube comprised in the inlet gas manifold and in the exhaust gas manifold of Kwag are constructed from metal, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Kollberg teaches a metal gas inlet with a passivation layer that prevents metal atoms being detached from the metal surface by reactive gases [0035]. Therefore Kollberg provides a teaching that metal components within a reactive gas processing apparatus are coated with a passivation layer to prevent the underlying metal from being etched [0035].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inlet gas manifold, the exhaust gas manifold and the at least one tube comprised in the inlet gas manifold and in the exhaust gas manifold of Kwag are constructed from metal, and are provided with a layer of a material, thereby providing etch selectivity towards an etchant suitable for in-situ cleaning, as taught by Kollberg, because prevent the metal from being etched by reactive gases [0035].
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ueno (JP 2005-317734).
Regarding claim 10, Kwag does not teach the apparatus further comprising baffles within the reaction chamber.
Ueno teaches the apparatus further comprising baffles (34) within the reaction chamber (31, fig. 5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kwag by providing baffles within the reaction chamber, as taught by Ueno, because it would direct the flow of gas uniformly over the substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Kwag does not explicitly teach baffles.
Ueno teaches baffles (34, fig. 5) are constructed and arranged to channel the gas, within the reaction space, in between each of the plurality of substrates.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kwag by providing the baffles are constructed and arranged to channel the gas, within the reaction space, in between each of the plurality of substrates, taught by Ueno, because it would direct the flow of gas uniformly over the substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Kwag does not teach the baffles are constructed and arranged to be positioned within a space defined in between opposing ends of the inlet gas manifold and the exhaust gas manifold and are further constructed and arranged to extend longitudinally through the space defined.
Ueno teaches the baffles (34) are constructed and arranged to be positioned within a space defined in between the opposing ends of the inlet gas manifold (66) and the exhaust gas manifold (37) and are further constructed and arranged to extend longitudinally through the space defined (Fig. 3 and 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kwag by providing the baffles are constructed and arranged to be positioned within a space defined in between the opposing ends of the inlet gas manifold and the exhaust gas manifold and are further constructed and arranged to extend longitudinally through the space defined, as taught by Ueno, because it would direct the flow of gas uniformly over the substrate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ueno (JP 2005-317734)
Regarding claim 17, Kwag does not teach the reaction chamber has a rectangular or square shape.
Ueno the reaction chamber has a rectangular or square shape (31b, Fig. 7b) because it would provide a uniform gas flow over the substrate.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the reaction chamber of Kwag by providing it has a rectangular or square shape, as taught by Ueno, because it would provide a uniform gas flow over the substrate.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osaka (US 2016/0245704)
Regarding claim 18, Kwag does not teach each of the inlet gas manifold and the exhaust gas manifold has respective opposing ends, the respective opposing ends being separated from each other by a distance, thereby creating a defined space between the respective opposing ends.
Osaka directed to a substrate boat for plasma processing teach each of the inlet gas manifold (235) and the exhaust gas manifold (236) has respective opposing ends (222, 224, fig. 2), the respective opposing ends being separated from each other by a distance (209), thereby creating a defined space between the respective opposing ends (222, 224, fig. 2).
Osaka teaches discrete ends of its exhaust and inlet manifold separated by a distance provided by curvature 209. Therefore this prior art teaches separate gas and exhaust manifolds are operable for substrate boat processing apparatus. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claimed would have been obvious is that all the claimed element were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inlet gas manifold and the exhaust gas manifold of Kwag by providing each have respective opposing ends, the respective opposing ends being separated from each other by a distance, thereby creating a defined space between the respective opposing ends, as taught by Osaka, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kwag does not teach separate gas inlet and exhaust manifolds. This is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require these elements to be separate.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues Kwag does not function as required by claim 16. The Examiner does not agree. Claim 16 only recites functional language without any additional structure. Claim 16 has been given patentable weight but Kwag’s apparatus has all the structure required for functioning as required by claim 16 therefore its inherently capable of meeting this functional limitation. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Siegried with Kwag.
The Examiner does not agree because motivation has been provided in the rejection of claim 6 above.
In response to applicant's argument that Siegfried is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, each of Siegfried and the instant invention are directed to the manipulation of gases in vacuum environments, therefore Siegried is directed to the same problem as Applicant directing gases within a vacuum environment.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above to the new grounds of rejection setout in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant submits claim 9, 10-12 and claim 17 is patentable. The Examiner disagrees because claim 1 is not patentable.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights