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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/30/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendments to claims and the addition of new claim 21. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-21 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/30/2026,have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the arguments are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9401271 by Pitney et al. taken collectively with US Patent 5820686 by Moore alone or with JP-2010114138-A, hereinafter JP 138.
Claim 8: Pitney discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor wafer in a reaction apparatus (abstract, Figure 1, column 2, line 48-column 2 line 50), the reaction apparatus including an upper dome and a lower dome defining a reaction chamber (“upper dome” and “lower dome” at column 2, lines 55-60) and a shaft for supporting the semiconductor wafer (“shaft” at Figure 4 and accompanying text), the reaction apparatus a cap positioned on a shaft within the reaction chamber, the cap including a tube with a disc thereon (see Figures, column 4, lines 35-40 “open ended cylinder” which reasonably reads on tube as claimed).
the method comprising: channeling a process gas into the reaction chamber (column 3, lines 18-35); heating the semiconductor wafer with a high intensity lamp positioned below the reaction chamber (column 3, lines 20-25, “lamps that may be located above and below the reaction chamber”); blocking radiant heat from the high intensity lamp from heating the center region of the semiconductor wafer with the disc (translucent material that provides local cooling to the center region of the wafer at column 4, lines 60-65, presence of the translucent cap will block the heat as claimed), wherein the disc generates a uniform temperature distribution on the semiconductor wafer (column 4, lines 46-50 stating “the ring 50 correct, affects, or modulates the radial temperature profile . . . to alleviate non-uniformities”); and depositing a layer on the semiconductor wafer with the process gas, wherein the uniform temperature distribution forms a uniform thickness of the layer on the semiconductor wafer (column 4, lines 46-50 stating “the ring 50 correct, affects, or modulates the radial temperature profile during processing, such as epitaxial deposition to alleviate non-uniformities”).
Pitney positioning the semiconductor wafer on a susceptor in the reaction chamber, the susceptor rotatably supported by a shaft; rotating the susceptor and the semiconductor wafer with the shaft; heating the semiconductor wafer with radiant heating light; channeling a process gas into the reaction chamber to deposit a layer on the semiconductor wafer; and controlling a deposition profile of the layer on the semiconductor wafer using a disc positioned on the shaft proximate a center region of the semiconductor wafer, wherein the disc blocks the radiant heating light from heating the center region of the semiconductor wafer (see above citations)
Pitney is concerned with uniform temperature/heating of the substrate for epitaxial deposition and Moore, also in the art of epitaxial processing using a heat source and discloses using various materials for the processing chamber and selecting those component materials to control the uniformity of the temperature (column 10, lines 40-50, column 25, lines 12-35). Moore discloses materials for such chamber components include quartz, SiC and graphite, including e.g. bead blasted quartz to control the amount of heat retained, and selecting the material for the appropriate uniform temperature control. As such, Moore discloses that quartz, SiC and graphite and bead blasted quartz are known materials to be utilized in a epitaxial chamber to provide control over the heating and provide a uniform heating by controlling the chamber components heat retentions. Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using known materials for known purposes, including SiC and graphite and bead blasted quartz, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and predictable results would have followed, that is to control the control the heating and provide a temperature uniformity during processing, a specific desire of Pitney.
As for opaque material, Pitney is concerned with uniform temperature/heating of the substrate for epitaxial deposition and Moore, also in the art of epitaxial processing using a heat source and discloses using various materials for the processing chamber and selecting those component materials to control the uniformity of the temperature (column 10, lines 40-50, column 25, lines 12-35). Moore discloses materials for such chamber components include quartz, SiC and graphite and selecting the material for the appropriate uniform temperature control. As such, Moore discloses that quartz, SiC and graphite are known materials to be utilized in a epitaxial chamber to provide control over the heating and provide a uniform heating. Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using known materials for known purposes, including SiC and graphite, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and predictable results would have followed, that is to control the control the heating and provide a temperature uniformity during processing, a specific desire of Pitney. Quartz and SiC are taught by the applicant’s as within the scope of the term opaque as evidenced by the applicant’s specification.
Additionally, the examiner cites here JP 138, which also discloses an apparatus for manufacturing an epitaxial wafer and controlling the epitaxial film grown by controlling the temperature of the backside of the wafer by controlling the heating, similar to that of Pitney and discloses a center member to control the temperature in the center and states “it is preferable that the temperature control means is formed of an opaque member” (see page 4, 6). Therefore, taking the references collectively, as Pitney is concerned with controlling the temperature of the center of the substrate during epitaxial formation and JP 138 also concerned with controlling the temperature of the center of the substrate during epitaxial formation, it would have been obvious to have included opaque material as such is taught by JP 138 as a known and suitable material for temperature control.
As for the inner diameter and outer diameter of the ring, Pitney discloses “the inner radius and outer radius are suitably chosen depending on the location and width of a local or global epitaxial layer thickness minimum or maximum of the disc open” (Figure 5 and accompanying text, column 4, line 63-column 5, line 3) and therefore discloses the inner and outer diameter of the ring are result effective variable affecting the deposition profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum inner and outer diameter through routine experimentation to provide the thickness minimum and maximum during epitaxial layer deposition.
Claim 9: Pitney discloses depositing is performed by epitaxial chemical vapor deposition (column 4, lines 46-50 stating “the ring 50 correct, affects, or modulates the radial temperature profile during processing, such as epitaxial deposition to alleviate non-uniformities”).
Claim 12: Pitney discloses heating the semiconductor wafer with a high intensity lamp positioned below the reaction chamber (column 3, lines 20-25, “lamps that may be located above and below the reaction chamber”);
Claim 13: Pitney discloses the ring disc is positioned “less than 25 mm” or “less than 10 mm” between the ring and the center region of the wafer/susceptor and Pitney discloses the ring can be contacting the susceptor (column 5, lines 15-40).
Claim 14: Pitney discloses the disc extends radially outward from the tube a blocking distance selected to block a predetermined amount of the radiant heat from the center region of the semiconductor wafer (see Figure 4 in combination with Column 4, lines 35-40 related to the tube and disc thereon).
Claim 15: Pitney discloses including the ring (claimed disc) to correct, affect, modulate the temperature profile during the processing and arranging the ring as necessary and near regions that localized or regional thicknesses variations occur and discloses the disc extending radially outward from the supports (Figure 4 and accompanying text, column 4, lines 41-60) and sizing, location, and arrangement of the ring to be adjustable to provide for control over the temperature (see Column 5-6). As such, the determination of the optimum ring dimensions, through routine experimentation would have been obvious to have modified Pitney to determine the size, shape, material and location of the ring to provide a uniform control over the temperature during processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 16-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, reasonably discloses or makes obvious the totality of the claims as drafted for at least the reasons set forth by the Applicant in Response to Arguments. Specifically, in combination with the remaining limitations, the added requirement that the inner diameter of the annular disc being the same as the outer diameter of the tube, where the inner diameter of the tube is larger than a shaft diameter such that the tube circumscribes an end of the shaft is not described in the cited or reviewed prior art to reasonably support a prima facie case of obviousness. Here, the structural relationship of the annular disc, tube and shaft as currently claimed is not met by the cited or reviewed prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights