DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 1/14/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 10-17 and 19-26 are pending.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 21-26 are new.
Claim 13 is currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, the Examiner interprets the “thermal conductivity” limitations in claims 10, 12, and 17 in accordance with pars. [0092]-[0095] of the instant PG-Pub. Particularly, this disclosure cites where exemplary materials for:
the stage includes metals such as stainless steel, copper, and aluminum ([0092]-[0093]); and
the “members” include ceramics such as metal oxide, metal carbide, metal nitride, or glass, more specifically zircon cordierite, cordierite, alumina, zirconia, mullite, titanium oxide, titanium nitride, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, zinc oxide, forsterite, steatite, sialon, soda glass, aluminosilicate glass, borosilicate glass, and/or alkali-free glass ([0092], [0094]).
Thus if the prior art discloses where a chamber comprises a stage selected from the above materials and a “member” selected from the other above materials, it meets the limitations of the claim despite no explicit recitation of thermal conductivities.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 24 are objected to due to minor informalities: in each claim, “stearite” should be corrected to “steatite” and “siaron” to “sialon” (see par. [0094] of the instant PG-Pub).
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.
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.
Claims 10, 12-17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka (US Pub. 2020/0388491) in view of Watanabe (US Pub. 2004/0182316).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Nagaoka teaches a mist CVD film formation device (Fig. 2, entirety) comprising: a film forming chamber ([0020] and Fig. 2, furnace #120) including: a mist inflow port (Fig. 2, port from #180 leading through end #120a) through which a film forming mist containing a mist of a film forming raw material and a carrier gas flows into the film forming chamber ([0026]), a stage ([0021] and Fig. 2, substrate stage #126) that supports a film forming target ([0021] and Fig. 2, substrate #112), and a mist outflow port (Fig. 2, port from end #120b to ejection pipe #128) through which the film forming mist flows out of the film forming chamber ([0029]), and a heater that heats the stage ([0021] and Fig. 2, heater #127).
Nagaoka does not teach wherein a thermal conductivity of 1) a first member located close to the mist inflow port relative to the stage in the film forming chamber, or 2) a member located on a top surface of the film forming chamber, is lower than a thermal conductivity of a material of the stage.
While Watanabe does not explicitly teach the limitations of the claims, Watanabe does teach wherein materials such as stainless steel, quartz/pyrex glass, and/or ceramics may be used for various elements of a process chamber (Watanabe – [0080]; see Claim Interpretation section presented earlier in this Action for details).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the materials of Watanabe for the stage and member of Nagaoka in order to provide chemical and thermal resistance for processing (Watanabe – [0080]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness case. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Nagaoka does not teach wherein a thermal conductivity of a second member located on a top surface of the film forming chamber is lower than the thermal conductivity of the material of the stage.
While Watanabe does not explicitly teach the limitations of the claims, Watanabe does teach wherein materials such as stainless steel, quartz/pyrex glass, and/or ceramics may be used for various elements of a process chamber (Watanabe – [0080]; see Claim Interpretation section presented earlier in this Action for details).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the materials of Watanabe for the stage and member of Nagaoka in order to provide chemical and thermal resistance for processing (Watanabe – [0080]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness case. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Nagaoka teaches wherein the film forming chamber includes a slope (Fig. 2, leading sloped edge of #126) that has a low side at the mist inflow port (Fig. 2, left side) and a high side at the stage (Fig. 2, side closest to #112) and is positioned closer to the mist inflow port than the stage (Fig. 2, high side of the leading edge is closer to #120a than the portion of #126 supporting #112).
Regarding claim 14, Nagaoka teaches wherein the slope has a flat surface on a side thereof close to the stage (Fig. 2, flat portion right of the angled wall prior to #112).
Regarding claim 15, Nagaoka teaches wherein a height of a space of the mist outflow port is smaller than the height of the space in the film forming chamber on the stage (Fig. 2, diameter of #128 must be substantially the same as the height of the outflow port -not shown-, which appears to be smaller than the space between #112 and the ceiling of #120).
Regarding claim 16, Nagaoka teaches wherein a width of the space of the mist outflow port is smaller than a width of the space in the film forming chamber on the stage (Fig. 2, diameter of #128 must be substantially the same as the width of the outflow port -not shown-, which appears to be smaller than the space between #112 and the ceiling of #120; as the chamber is shown as cylindrical, the width would be substantially the same as the height).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Nagaoka does not teach wherein the first material/member comprises a metal oxide, metal carbide, metal nitride, glass, zircon cordierite, cordierite, alumina, zirconia, mullite, titanium oxide, titanium nitride, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, zinc oxide, forsterite, steatite, or sialon.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein quartz glass or Pyrex glass can be used for chamber components (Watanabe – [0080]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the materials of Watanabe for the stage and member of Nagaoka in order to provide chemical and thermal resistance for processing (Watanabe – [0080]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness case. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 22-23 and 25-26, Nagaoka does not teach wherein the material of the stage is stainless steel, copper, or aluminum.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein a stage comprises stainless steel (Watanabe – [0080]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the materials of Watanabe for the stage and member of Nagaoka in order to provide chemical and thermal resistance for processing (Watanabe – [0080]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness case. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka (US Pub. 2020/0388491) and Watanabe (US 2004/0182316), as applied to claims 10, 12-17, and 21-26 above, further in view of Kamei (US Patent 6,090,211).
The limitations of claims 10, 12-17, and 21-26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nagaoka does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the space in the film forming chamber on the stage is 10 mm or less.
However, Kamei teaches this limitation (Kamei – C4, L60-64: space varies from 50mm to 5mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the aforementioned space of modified Nagaoka to 10mm or less since the courts have held that prima facie obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Applicant has cancelled claim 6 and amended claim 13 to correct a minor informality, thus the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of claims 10 and 17 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth herein.
Applicant argues that Watanabe does not provide guidance on: 1) why one would select any of those particular materials” and 2) “how those materials correspond to the actual disclosed device of Nagaoka”. Additionally, Applicant argues that: 3) Watanabe only teaches modifications resulting in a single material (Remarks, pgs. 6-7).
Concerning 1), this is untrue- Watanabe explicitly states the materials are used for their resistance to heat and cleaning chemicals (par. [0080]). Additionally, there is no requirement that the reference disclosing the claimed materials (Watanabe) give a reason for selection. The courts have held that “an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Concerning 2), this is untrue- Watanabe explicitly states the materials are employed in upper/side/lower walls (“bulkheads”), rotating body, and/or the substrate holder. As such, a PHOSITA would recognize that at least any of the walls, rotating bodies, and/or substrate holders of Nagaoka could comprise the materials listed in Watanabe.
Additionally, the Examiner construes the word “member” as a nonce word that can reasonably be used to describe any physical component of a CVD apparatus. The word “member” does not explicitly or implicitly require any particular structure, nor does the instant disclosure provide an explicit definition of any structure covered by the word “member”. It is thusly irrelevant that Nagaoka does not: “disclose or suggest the claimed ‘first member’ or ‘member’” or that: “the work [sic] ‘member’ is not mentioned”.
The Examiner identified the structures in Nagaoka that are interpreted to correspond to the claimed “member” and “first member”. Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s interpretation in any particular detail.
Concerning 3), there is nothing in the disclosure of Watanabe that would appear to restrict a potential modification to include only one material.
Watanabe specifically lists a plurality of possible materials and a plurality of chamber components, and then remarks: “the material…may be selected and employed appropriately, as respective materials” of the aforementioned chamber components (par. [0080]).
Watanabe thus appears to provide flexibility in material selection as would be understood by a PHOSITA. As is stated frequently throughout this action, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness case. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718