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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 23, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag (US 6,402,849) in view of Simson (US 4,854,266) and Osaka (US 2016/0245704).
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).
Simson teaches an apparatus for processing a plurality of substrates comprising a reaction chamber (12), the reaction chamber comprising a reaction space for receiving a substrate boat constructed and arranged for holding a plurality of substrates
Simson teaches each of the inlet gas manifold (56) and the exhaust gas manifold (12 (66, fig. 2 and 3) has an outer side that faces an inner wall of the reaction chamber (12) because it would allow a retrofittable cross flow liner with little expense to already existing diffusion furnace equipment to provide enhancement of performance with little new equipment expense (col. 3, ln. 3-10).
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 exhaust gas manifold of Kwag by providing each of the inlet gas manifold (56) and the exhaust gas manifold (12 (66, fig. 2 and 3) has an outer side that faces an inner wall of the reaction chamber (12), as taught by Simson, because it would allow a retrofittable cross flow liner with little expense to already existing diffusion furnace equipment to provide enhancement of performance with little new equipment expense (col. 3, ln. 3-10).
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 (222) and the exhaust gas manifold (224) has respective opposing ends (sidewalls of 222 and 224, [0039] fig. 2), the respective opposing ends (sidewalls) being separated from each other by a distance (209), thereby creating a defined space between the respective opposing ends (sidewalls of 222 and 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.
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, Simson and Osaka 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. Siegfried 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, Simson and Osaka 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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag, Simson and Osaka 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwag, Simson and Osaka 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, no prior art teaches 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.
Regarding claim 14, no prior art teaches the substrate boat comprises a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface and at least four sides connecting the first surface to the second surface such that a first opening and a second opening, opposite to the first opening, are formed, thereby, in use, streaming gas flow in the gas flow path from the gas injector into the substrate boat through the first opening and out of the substrate boat through the second opening to the gas exhaust conduit, wherein a width of the first opening is larger than a width of the second opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set out above.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues Kwag does not teach an internal distribution tube or an internal exhaust tube. The Examiner disagrees because no internal distribution tube or internal exhaust tube has been claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant submits that Siegfried cannot teach or suggest “each of the inlet gas manifold and exhaust gas manifold is formed by joining mid-piece manifold sections and two end manifold sections because it has not exhaust manifold at all.
The Examiner does not agree because Kwag teaches an exhaust manifold.
Applicant submits that the particular problem is defined too broadly and submits that the problem is improving gas flow between a plurality of substrates in a substrate boat.
The Examiner does not agree because 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, in response to applicant's argument that there isn’t any teaching as to how Kwag’s openings would be arranged into corresponding rows within Seigfried’s modular sections, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner maintains the position that the requirements of claim 7 are well known and taught by the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant submits Kollberg’s protects the required layer during cleaning by cooling the surface below 100 degrees C and therefore doesn’t teach claim 9.
The Examiner does not agree because claim 9 does not define how the etch selectivity is provided for.
Claim 12 is indicated allowable above, as such Applicant’s arguments are moot.
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. The Examiner takes the position that an exhaust line inherently has a lower pressure than that of the space exhaust to remove gases from the chamber.
Conclusion
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