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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species D and Species F, represented by claims 1-8 and 11-18, in the reply filed on 3 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of the claims as a whole would not present a serious search or examination burden on the examination. This is not found persuasive because, in fact, the number of groups and species included in the claim set do represent a search and examination burden, that presents a serious search and examination burden. Additionally, the highly generic nature of at least the independent claims further expands the search and examination required to properly address the claimed invention(s) .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,086,680 to Foster et al.
Regarding claim 1: Foster et al. discloses a chamber capable of epitaxial growth, comprising: a component (Fig. 18, 124) having a macrocell support structure with interconnecting supports that are in fluid communication with one another (i.e. open cell support).
With respect to claim 2, in Foster et al., the susceptor is considered a baseplate for the article worked upon (i.e. substrate 128).
With respect to claim 3, in Foster et al., the interconnecting physical supports of the component comprise a ceramic, (i.e. silicon carbide).
With respect to claim 7, in Foster et al., the macrocell support structure may have a surface sealed configuration (i.e. the component may have a skin (see, e.g., Fig. 14, 84).
With respect to claim 11, in Foster et al., the macrocell support structure in the surface sealed configuration comprise and encasing surface comprising a different material than the interconnecting physical supports, wherein the encasing surface may be a dense silicon carbide rather than an open cell foam of silicon carbide.
Regarding claim 13: Foster et al. discloses a component configured for (i.e. capable of) use in an epitaxial growth chamber, comprising: a macrocell support structure (Fig. 18, 124) having interconnecting supports that are in fluid communication with one another (i.e. open cell support).
With respect to claim 14, in Foster et al., the component/susceptor is considered a baseplate for the article worked upon (i.e. substrate 128).
With respect to claim 15, in Foster et al., the interconnecting physical supports of the component comprise a ceramic, (i.e. silicon carbide).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0056897 to Shamouilian et al.
Regarding claim 1: Shamouilian et al. disclose a chamber (e.g., Fig. 100) capable of epitaxial growth (e.g. using gas source and, substrate support and processing conditions for intended use of epitaxial growth), comprising: a component (liner 141, having upper and lower portions) having a macrocell support structure with interconnecting supports that are in fluid communication with one another (i.e. pores of the macrocell structure are capable of being at least partially filled making them open and in fluid communication). See, e.g., para. 19.
With respect to claim 2, Shamouilian et al. disclose the liner having the upper portion and the lower portion, making it an upper liner, lower liner and combination thereof.
With respect to claim 3, in Shamouilian et al., the interconnecting physical supports of the component comprise a ceramic.
With respect to claim 6, in Shamouilian et al., the macrocell support structure has a permeability of about 20% to about 100% of the pores of the macrocell support structure (as determined by filling with fluorinated polymer, see, e.g., para. 22).
With respect to claim 7, Shamouilian et al., the macrocell support structure may have a surface sealed configuration (i.e. the component may have layer formed by 145 (e.g. “fluorinated polymer”).
With respect to claim 8, Shamouilian et al., disclose the component may be made by a mold such that it will be a unitary component (see, e.g., para. 24).
With respect to claim 11, Shamouilian et al., the macrocell support structure in the surface sealed configuration comprise and encasing surface comprising a different material than the interconnecting physical supports, wherein the encasing surface may be a fluorinated polymer rather than open pore ceramic.
With respect to claim 12, Shamouilian et al., the macrocell support structure in the surface sealed configuration further comprises a fluid (e.g., fluorinated polymer) within the macrocell support structure.
Regarding claim 13: Foster et al. discloses a component configured for (i.e. capable of) use in an epitaxial growth chamber, comprising: a macrocell support structure (Fig. 1, liner 141, having upper and lower portions) having interconnecting supports that are in fluid communication with one another (i.e. pores of the macrocell structure are capable of being at least partially filled making them open and in fluid communication). See, e.g., paras. 19.
With respect to claim 14, Shamouilian et al. disclose the liner having the upper portion and the lower portion, making it an upper liner, lower liner and combination thereof.
With respect to claim 15, in Shamouilian et al., the interconnecting physical supports of the component comprise a ceramic.
With respect to claim 18, in Shamouilian et al., the macrocell support structure has a permeability of about 20% to about 100% of the pores of the macrocell support structure (as determined by filling with fluorinated polymer, see, e.g., para. 22).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 11-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0040172 to Fujiwara et al.
Regarding claim 1: Fujiwara et al. disclose a chamber/furnace (not illustrated) capable of epitaxial growth (e.g. using gas source and, substrate support and processing conditions for intended use of epitaxial growth), comprising: a component (100 which may be a susceptor) having a macrocell support structure with interconnecting supports that are in fluid communication with one another (i.e. pores of the macrocell structure are capable of being at least partially filled making them open and in fluid communication). See, e.g., paras. 3, 33-34, 57, 91.
With respect to claim 2, in Fujiwara et al., the susceptor is considered a baseplate for the article worked upon.
With respect to claim 5, in Fujiwara et al., the pores of the macrocell support structure have an average pore size of about 1 to about 5000 microns (see, e.g., para. 56).
With respect to claim 7, in Fujiwara et al., the macrocell support structure may have a surface sealed configuration (i.e. the component may have layer formed by 3 (e.g. “tantalum carbide”).
With respect to claim 11, in Fujiwara et al., the macrocell support structure in the surface sealed configuration comprise and encasing surface comprising a different material than the interconnecting physical supports, wherein the encasing surface may be tantalum carbide rather than carbon/graphite.
With respect to claim 12, Fujiwara et al., the macrocell support structure in the surface sealed configuration further comprises a fluid (e.g., tantalum compound) within the macrocell support structure. See, e.g., para. 57.
Regarding claim 13: Fujiwara et al. disclose a component configured for (i.e. capable of) use in an epitaxial growth chamber, comprising: a macrocell support structure (100, which may be a susceptor) having interconnecting supports that are in fluid communication with one another (i.e. pores of the macrocell structure are capable of being at least partially filled making them open and in fluid communication). See, e.g., paras. 3, 33-34, 57, 91.
With respect to claim 14, in Fujiwara et al., the susceptor is considered a baseplate for the article worked upon.
With respect to claim 17, in Fujiwara et al., the pores of the macrocell support structure have an average pore size of about 1 to about 5000 microns (see, e.g., para. 56).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 11 and 13-15 above, Shamoulian et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15 and 18 above or Fujiwara et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-14 and 17 above in view of Fujiwara et al. as further set forth below.
Foster et al., Shamoulian et al., and Fujiwara et al. disclose the epitaxial growth chamber and component for use in an epitaxial growth chamber substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, none of these discloses the macrocell structure has a porosity of about 60% to about 99% of a volume of the macrocell support structure.
Fujiwara et al. disclose optimizing the porosity to achieve sufficient and balanced depth of impregnation of sealing film and mechanical strength of the macrocell support structure itself (see, e.g., para. 57). Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided an optimized porosity in any of Foster et al., Shamoulian et al., and Fujiwara et al. such that sufficient and balanced depth of impregnation of the sealing film and mechanical strength of the macrocell support structure itself are achieved as taught by Fujiwara et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0012242 discloses an open-pore macrocell support structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights