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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 10, 2026.
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.
Claims 5, 9, 10, 12 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.
Claims 5, 9, 10 and 12 recite “every position” which as claimed includes an infinite number of positions or it could include a subjective number of positions. These claims do not define the positions to be measured for distance. The Examiner takes the position that these claims do not provide the metes and bounds of what “every position” would encompass.
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 1-3, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takebayashi (US 2008/0216742).
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) ,
wherein a plurality of plates (300) is provided to the wafer boat with at least one slot of the at least a first set of slots (213) being provided in between two neighboring plates (300, fig. 2).
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 9, Takebayashi 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 facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate (200,fig. 6), wherein a distance between the surface of the plate (300) and the fully exposed surface of the substrate (200) varies at every position from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate.
The Examiner notes that “every position” is undefined. In Takebayashi in at least two positions from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate the distance varies.
Regarding claim 12, Takebayashi teaches each plate (300) of the plurality of plates is convex-shaped so that that the distance increases at every position from the central axis towards the circumferential edge of the plate (Fig. 6, 7b, [0113]).
The Examiner notes that “every position” is undefined. In Takebayashi in at least two positions from a central axis towards a circumferential edge of the plate the distance varies.
Claim 13 recites intended use: “the plurality of substrates are receivable on and held by the convex-shaped plates” of the plate with a material worked upon. Claim 13 does add any additional structural limitations to the apparatus. Takebayashi’s plate 300 is inherently capable of receiving and supporting a substrate 200 placed thereon.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi as applied to claim 1 above.
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).
Claims 5-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi 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 surface varies at every position from a central axis towards 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 at every position from a central axis towards 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 teaches each plate of the plurality of plates is planar but does not teach the surface of the plate 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 surface of the plate 175 facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate (S) comprises holes (175a), the holes having a hole density varying across the surface of the plate (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 surface of the plate facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate comprises holes, the holes having a hole density varying across the surface 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)..
Regarding claim 7, Takebayashi does not teach the hole density around a central portion of the surface of the plate is higher than that in a circumferential edge of the plate.
‘316 teaches the hole density (Fig. 5a) around a central portion of the surface of the plate 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 surface of the plate 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).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi as applied to claim 9 above Okajima (PCTJP2019/030919 see US 2022/1047628 for citations).
Regarding claim 10, Takebayashi does not teach each plate of the plurality of plates is concave-shaped so that the distance decreases at every position from the central axis towards the circumferential edge of the plate
Okajima teaches each plate (46) of the plurality of plates is concave-shaped so that the distance decreases at every position from the central axis towards the circumferential edge of the plate (Fig. 3b).
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 (46) of the plurality of plates is concave-shaped so that the distance decreases at every position from the central axis towards the circumferential edge of the plate, as taught by Okajima, because it would allow to easily uniformize temperatures of the wafer in a film forming process [0034].
Regarding claim 14, Takebayashi does not teaches 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.
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 a surface facing a 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].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi and Okajima as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shimada (JP 2004-281669).
Regarding claim 11, Takebayashi does not teach Okajima teach a surface of the concave-shaped plate opposite to its surface facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate is at least partially flat so that each substrate of the plurality of substrates is receivable on and held by the concave shaped plates.
Okajima teach a surface of the concave-shaped plate opposite to its surface facing the fully exposed surface of the substrate is at least partially flat (Fig. 3b) but does not teach whether it could function so that each substrate of the plurality of substrates is receivable on and held by the concave-shaped plates (Fig. 3b).
Shimada teaches a concave shaped plate with a flat surface so that each substrate of the plurality of substrates is receivable on and held by the concave-shaped plates (Fig. 3b) because it would produce a high quality device suppressing dislocation defects during heat treatment (abstract).
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 substrate of the plurality of substrates is receivable on and held by the concave-shaped plates, as taught by Shimada, because it would produce a high quality device suppressing dislocation defects during heat treatment (abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takezawa (US 2018/0179630).
Regarding claim 15, Takebayashi teaches s vertical furnace comprising:
a reaction chamber (201, [0060], fig. 1) configured for forming a layer on a plurality of substrates (200), and a wafer boat (217) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and being loadable in the reaction chamber (201) along a central axis (Fig. 1 and 2),
a heater (207) configured for heating and maintaining reaction temperature in the reaction chamber [0060],
a pressure controller (243e), [0073]) configured for attaining and maintaining reaction pressure in the reaction chamber (201, fig. 2),
a controller (280) configured for executing instructions comprised in a non-transitory computer readable medium, and to cause the vertical furnace to form the layer on the plurality of substrates [0076].
Takebayashi does not teach at least one precursor storage module,
Takezawa is directed to a film forming apparatus including a substrate boat for vertically holding target substrates. It teaches at least one precursor storage module [0034].
Each cited prior art is directed to a CVD apparatus for forming a film on vertically stacked substrate held in a substrate boat. Takezawa makes explicit that which is implied by Takebayashi, that the precursor gases for forming films on the substrate originate from a precursor source. Therefore Takezawa teaches that precursor sources are well known and operable within a CVD film coating apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a precursor source of Takezawa with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the reactor of Takebayashi by providing at least one precursor storage module, as taught by Takezawa, because it would allow film forming by a CVD method or ALD method [0034] and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the element as claimed b 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.
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