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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 18, 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 1-4, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi (US 2008/0216742) in view of Shimada (JP 2004-281669 see translation for citations) and Foley (US 4,776,745).
Regarding claim 1, Takebayashi teaches a wafer boat for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus, the wafer boat (217) comprising:
at least two wafer boat rods (212, fig. 2, [0052]), each wafer boat rod comprising at least a first set of slots, the first set of slots (notch 213, fig. 6) being constructed and arranged for receiving a plurality of substrates (200 [0053]),
a plurality of plates (300) wherein at least one slot (213) of the at least first set of slots (213) is between two neighboring plates of the plurality of plates (300, fig. 2 [0053-0056]);
and wherein each plate of the plurality of plates (300) comprises a lower plate surface and an upper plate surface, and wherein the lower plate surface is arranged to face a fully exposed surface of a first substrate, of the plurality of substrates (200, Fig. 6 [0053-0056]).
Takebayashi does not teach a distance between the lower plate surface and the fully exposed surface continuously decreases from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate such that each plate is concave-shaped, and the upper plate surface is opposite to the lower plate surface, the upper plate surface is at least partially flat such that a second substrate, of the plurality of substrates, is receivable on and held by the upper plate surface, and the upper plate surface comprises a discontinuity configured to allow loading and unloading of substrates on and off the upper plate surface.
Shimada teaches a wafer boat for use in a semiconductor processing apparatus, the wafer boat (30) comprising: at least two wafer boat rods (40), each wafer boat rod (40) comprising at least a first set of slots (70), the first set of slots (70) being constructed and arranged for receiving a plurality of substrates (66, fig. 8, [0020]),
each plate (64) of the plurality of plates (64) comprises a lower plate surface (82) and an upper plate surface (78), and wherein;
a distance between the lower plate surface (82) and the fully exposed surface (66) continuously decreases from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate such that each plate is concave-shaped (Fig. 8, 12; [0024-0025]), and
the upper plate surface (78) is opposite to the lower plate surface (82), the upper plate surface (78) is at least partially flat (80, fig. 13) such that a second substrate (66), of the plurality of substrates, is receivable on and held by the upper plate surface (79, fig. 8).
Shimada teaches a concave lower surface of a plate of a substrate boat is operable to reduce temperature differences between the circumference of the substrate and its center [0026]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the plates of Shimada as the plates in the substrate boat of Bruce 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 plurality of plates of Takebayashi by providing a distance between the lower plate surface and the fully exposed surface continuously decreases from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate such that each plate is concave-shaped, and the upper plate surface is opposite to the lower plate surface, the upper plate surface is at least partially flat such that a second substrate, of the plurality of substrates, is receivable on and held by the upper plate surface, as taught by Shimada, because it would decrease the temperature difference in the substrate plane [0026] 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.
Neither Takebayashi nor Shimada explicitly teach a discontinuity opening onto the upper plate surface and extending partially through a thickness of the plate, such that a second substrate, of the plurality of substrates, is receivable on and held by a planar and flat portion of the upper plate surface extending between the discontinuity and the circumferential edge, and the upper plate surface comprises a discontinuity is configured to receive a fork therethrough to allow loading and unloading of substrates on and off the planar and flat portion of the upper plate surface.
Foley teaches an upper plate surface is at least partially flat (Fig. 2) comprising a discontinuity opening (207) onto the upper plate surface and extending partially through a thickness of the plate, such that a second substrate is receivable on and held by a planar and flat portion of the upper plate surface extending between the discontinuity (207) and the circumferential edge, and the upper plate surface comprises a discontinuity (207) is configured to receive a fork (vacuum pick, col. 4, ln. 37) therethrough to allow loading and unloading of substrates on and off the planar and flat portion of the upper plate surface (col. 4, ln. 22-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the upper plate surface of Takebayashi by providing a discontinuity opening onto the upper plate surface and extending partially through a thickness of the plate, such that a second substrate, of the plurality of substrates, is receivable on and held by a planar and flat portion of the upper plate surface extending between the discontinuity and the circumferential edge, and the upper plate surface comprises a discontinuity is configured to receive a fork therethrough to allow loading and unloading of substrates on and off the planar and flat portion of the upper plate surface, as taught by Foley, because it would provide clearance for entry of the transload vacuum pick for substrate loading and unloading (col. 4, ln. 35-40).
Regarding claim 2, Takebayashi teaches the plurality of plates (300) is provided to the wafer boat (217) being substantially perpendicular to the at least two wafer boat rods (212, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Takebayashi teach wafer boat rod (212) further comprises a second set of slots and wherein each plate (300) of the plurality of plates are provided in and supported by the second set of slots, each slot of the second set of slots being separated alternatingly and repeatedly from each slot of the first set of slots ([0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Takebayashi teaches each plate (300) of the plurality of plates fixed with the wafer boat rods and positioned alternatingly and repeatedly with each slot of the first set of slots [0054].
Takebayashi discloses the claimed invention except for “the plurality of plates is integrated with the wafer boat rods”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrate the plurality of plates with the wafer boat rods since it has been held that forming in one piece an articles which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 18, Takebayashi teaches each slot (213) is configured to support a lower surface of a respective one of the plurality of substrates (200, fig. 6), the lower surface being opposite the fully exposed surface (200, fig. 6; [ 0053-0056]).
Regarding claim 19, the Examiner takes the position that the fork of the wafer handing robot is a second apparatus within the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore claim 19 is considered a material worked upon by the apparatus and doesn’t receive patentable weight. See MPEP 2115. The Examiner finds Foley to teach a fork is a fork of a fork-shaped wafer handling robot (transload vacuum pick, col. 4, ln. 37), the fork being insertable into the discontinuity (207) from the circumferential edge (Fig. 2).
Claims 5-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi, Shimada and Foley as applied to claim 1 above in view of ‘316 (KR 101760316).
Regarding claim 5, Takebayashi teaches each substrate (200) of the plurality of substrates has a fully exposed surface for forming a layer and wherein each plate (300) of the plurality of plates has a surface (bottom surface) facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate (Fig., 2 and 3).
Takebayashi does not teach an area of the plate surface varies continuously from a central axis to a circumferential edge of the plate.
Each of the cited prior art Takebayashi and ‘316 is directed to a substrate boat horizontally placed substrate within a vertical stack in a reactor tube like chamber for forming a film on a substrate. ‘316 teaches that plates 175 with holes 175a are operable within these film forming chambers with substrate boats. ‘316 teaches that distributing the holes as Applicant requires results in concentrating the process gas as desired because it would allow for the film thickness across the substrate to be made uniform (pg. 7). Therefore ‘316 presents an advantage to the skilled substrate boat artisan looking to increase efficiency of their process and maximize production.
‘316 is directed to a substrate boat for forming a thin film on a substrate vertical stack (Fig. 2). It teaches substrate (S) and plate 172 with holes 175a (Fig. 4). ‘316 teach an area of the surface varies at every position from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate (175a, Fig. 5a, 5b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plate of Takebayashi by providing the plate wherein an area of the surface varies continuously from a central axis to a circumferential edge of the plate, as taught by ‘316, because it would concentrate the process gas to a desired position (pg. 6 of translation) because it would allow for the film thickness across the substrate to be made uniform (pg. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Takebayashi does not teach the plate surface facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate comprises holes, the holes having a hole density varying across the surface of the plate.
‘316 teaches the plate surface 175 facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate (S) comprises holes (175a), the holes having a hole density varying across the plate surface (Fig. 5a, 5b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plate of Takebayashi by providing the plate surface facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate comprises holes, the holes having a hole density varying across the plate surface because it would concentrate the process gas to a desired position (pg. 6 of translation) because it would allow for the film thickness across the substrate to be made uniform (pg. 7)..
Regarding claim 7, Takebayashi does not teach the hole density around a central portion of the plate surface is higher than that in a circumferential edge of the plate.
‘316 teaches the hole density (Fig. 5a) around a central portion of the plate surface is higher than that in a circumferential edge of the plate (175).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plate of Takebayashi by providing the hole density around a central portion of the plate surface is higher than that in a circumferential edge of the plate because it would concentrate the process gas to a desired position (pg. 6 of translation) because it would allow for the film thickness across the substrate to be made uniform (pg. 7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi, Shimada, Foley and ’316 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Seshimo (US 2018/0182652).
Regarding claim 8, Takebayashi does not teach the holes are in a form of blind-holes.
Seshimo teaches a substrate boat 3 with blind holes 36 in figure 3 used for gas diffusion.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the holes of Takebayashi by providing the holes are in a form of blind-holes, as taught by Seshimo, because it would allow the gas to be diffused over the wafer for improved film uniformity [0007].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi and Shimada and Foley as applied to claim 1 above in view of Okajima (PCTJP2019/030919 see US 2022/1047628 for citations).
Regarding claim 14, Takebayashi does not teach each plate of the plurality of plates comprises silicon and wherein each plate further comprises a layer of silicon oxide at least on a surface facing a fully exposed surface.
Okajima teaches each plate of the plurality of plates comprises silicon and wherein each plate further comprises a layer of silicon oxide at least on the lower plate surface facing the fully exposed surface of a substrate (quartz and silicon carbide [0047].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plate of Takebayashi by providing each plate of the plurality of plates comprises silicon and wherein each plate further comprises a layer of silicon oxide at least on a surface facing a fully exposed surface of a substrate, as taught by Okajima, because it would provide a plate with a high thermal conductive material to improve uniformity of the temperature of the wafer on the surface of the wafer in the film forming process [0047].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) August 28, 2026 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection set out above.
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
Prosecution Insights