Detailed Correspondence
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 07/27/2026, in response to claims 12-13, 15, 20-21, 23-25, and 27-39 rejection from the non-final office action (03/25/2026), by amending claims 12-13, 24, 27, 29, and 35-36, cancelling claims 23, 31, and 34, and adding new claims 39-41 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Interpretations
The previously added limitation “A system … by measuring thicknesses and stress of the coating on both of the vertical sidewalls after the vertical sidewalls are removed from the furnace“ of claim 12 and “A system … by measuring thicknesses of the coating on both of the witness wafers after the coating is formed by the LPCVD process and the wafers are removed from the furnace“ of claim 27, the process of measurement outside the claim system/apparatus is not part of the system/apparatus.
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed” (See MPEP 2111.04 II).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The “a first witness means and a second witness means” in claim 35 as the means performing the function of witness. These are considered as “a first witness wafer and a second witness wafer” as disclosed in abstract.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “a mount for securely for holding a three dimensional part other than a wafer on the platform during a low pressure chemical vapor deposition process” of claim 12 involves several intended use of the apparatus. Applicants’ disclosure does not include other component connect to mount 205A, 205B, therefore, “securely” will be considered including by weight, or by other commonly known securing device such as clamp, bolts, magnets, etc..
The “for depositing a coating using a low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) process” of claim 12, Applicants’ Specification define low pressure in P9, 2nd paragraph. The process performed in an apparatus that is considered an intended use of the apparatus. An apparatus that is capable of this process is considered read into the claim. Various dependent claims with “using …” is also an intended use of the apparatus.
The “horizontal platform” and “a first vertical sidewall and a second vertical sidewall wherein the platform is between the sidewalls” of claim 12, Applicants’ Specification includes “platform wafer”, “a platform supported by one or more pedestals”, “a platform connected to columns extending from the platform”, “wherein the mount comprises fixture fixing the part on a top surface of the horizontal platform”, also the support bars below the platform wafer as shown in Fig. 2 can be considered the “horizontal platform” which is consistent with “the boat comprises: a first slot for holding a first wafer vertically in the first slot; a second slot for holding a second wafer vertically in the second slot; and wherein the horizontal platform is between the first slot and the second slot” of new claim 20. For claim 12, it is broad but not indefinite.
The “for depositing the coating at a pressure in a range of 10 mTorr to 1 Torr” of claim 24,
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 29, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added limitations “etched wells on a surface of the horizontal platform comprising a silicon wafer“ of claim 29 does not have support in Applicants’ Specification.
Applicants’ Specification discloses the platform comprises etched (e.g.; shallow) wells and the part (structures) stand in the wells (i.e.; the mount comprises the wells), but there is no disclosure of etched well on a silicon wafer.
The newly added limitation “further comprising a system for performing measurements the thickness and stress of the coating on both of the vertical sidewalls after removal of the sidewalls from the furnace and associating the thickness and stress of the coating on the part as between the thickness and the stress measured on the first vertical sidewall and the thickness and the stress measured on the second vertical sidewall” of claim 39 does not have support in Applicants’ Specification.
The examiner notices Applicants cancelled the offending portion from claim 12, but then added this back to claim 39.
The newly added limitation “further comprising an output for a measurement of the coating's property based on deposition time of the coating” of claim 41 does not have support in Applicants’ Specification in two aspects. Applicants’ Specification describes “FIG. 11 illustrates the weight gain of SiN versus coating time of SiN which can be used to determine thickness of the coating” ([0051]). There is no description this is an output from the structure of the system nor from the controller. It merely describes how an operator use the data. Furthermore, parent claim 12 (or any 27 or 35) describes “a range of the coating's property … the thickness and stress of the coating …”. Applicants’ Fig. 11 shows weight gain as a function of time. Even consider that is related to the thickness as a function of time, there is no disclosure of reporting stress as a function of time.
Claims 39 and 41 are 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.
The new claim 39 recites “The system of claim 12, further comprising a system …” which raises antecedent issue.
This portion of claim 39 will be examined inclusive ““The system of claim 12, further comprising a sub-system …”
The newly claim 41 depends on cancelled claim 1. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it data is related to the structure of the system/apparatus, and/or output to what/where/whom.
Claim 41 will be examined inclusive depending on claim 12 and operational procedure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-13, 15, 21, 24-25, 27, 29-30, 32-33, 35, and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chruma et al. (US 3900597, hereafter ‘597), in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20210324511, hereafter ‘511), Fischer (US 5191286, hereafter ‘286), Takeuchi et al. (US 5923429, hereafter ‘429) and Mozumder et al. (US 5408405, hereafter ‘405). (Ito US 5227196 is evidenced for stress thickness relationship of SiN).
‘597 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 12: FIG. 7 shows the schematic view of the apparatus of the present invention (col. 3, lines 15-16, includes the claimed “A system comprising”),
means for depositing polycrystalline silicon from silane in a vacuum (abstract), the N2 and SiH4 flows enter the tube 32 at the point where the line 38 passes through an appropriate fitting in the end cap 36 (col. 5, lines 47-50, includes the claimed “a low pressure chemical vapor deposition furnace, comprising an inlet at an end of the furnace, configured for depositing a coating using a low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) process “);
Wafers 47 are placed into a quartz boat 49 (col. 6, lines 42-43, includes the claimed “a boat, comprising: a horizontal platform”);
a method for depositing polycrystalline silicon in a heated evacuated tube under a vacuum on a substrate and using a gaseous source (col. 2, lines 60-62, includes the claimed “during the LPCVD process”),
the wafers at the two ends of the boat reads into the claimed “a first vertical sidewall and a second vertical sidewall“).
‘597 also teaches that Also other factors such as flow rates and temperatures will give different numbers from run to run if minute differences in such run parameters occurred (col. 4, lines 30-33).
‘597 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 12: and a mount for securely for holding a three dimensional part other than a wafer on the horizonal platform (during the LPCVD process);
wherein: the mount is between the vertical sidewalls,
the first vertical sidewall, the mount, and the second vertical sidewall are positioned so that the first vertical sidewall is closest to, and second vertical sidewall is furthest from, the inlet for a gas source for the LPCVD process, so that a range of the coating's property across the three dimensional part can be measured by measuring thicknesses and stress of the coating on both of the vertical sidewalls after the vertical sidewalls are removed from the furnace; and
a controller for controlling the furnace for depositing the coating on the 3D part using the LPCVD process, wherein the controller controls deposition conditions of LPCVD process, including output from the gas source, so as to tailor the coating's property of the 3D part in the range determined by the measuring so that the thickness and stress of the coating on the part as being between the thickness and stress measured on the first vertical sidewall and the thickness and the stress measured on the second vertical sidewall.
‘597 further teaches that wafers were placed at greater distances and wafers were manufactured having the top view as shown in FIG. 10 (col. 6, lines 52-54). Note Fig. 9 shows an linear decrease in coated thickness as wafers are placed away from inlet 38.
‘511 is analogous art in the field of HOT FILAMENT CVD DEVICE (title), to deposit a uniform diamond coating film on a surface of the workpiece having a three-dimensional shape ([0003]), a vacuum pump (not illustrated) to cause the internal space of the chamber 2 to be in a vacuum or a substantially vacuum state during the coating treatment ([0028], last sentence). ’511 teaches that The hot filament CVD device 1 performs coating treatment on multiple workpieces 5 (base materials). The workpieces 5, for example, are each a drill blade ([0027]), the hot filament CVD device 1 further includes the stage 3, multiple workpiece support blocks 4 (base material supports) for supporting the respective multiple workpieces 5 (Fig. 2, [0029]).
‘286 is analogous art in the field of Method And Probe For Non-destructive Measurement Of The Thickness Of Thin Layers And Coatings (title). ’286 teaches that Since the measured object is not generally available in a non-coated form, and often has very complex shapes, it is mostly very difficult to measure layer thicknesses on concave or convex surfaces (col. 1, lines 55-58).
‘429 is analogous art in the field of Apparatus For Monitoring In-situ The Thickness Of A Film During Film Deposition And A Method Thereof (title), an LPCVD (low-pressure CVD) apparatus … a quartz boat 4 (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 30-37). ’429 teaches that dummy wafers are stacked at the upper and lower sections of the boat 4, reserving the intermediate space for product wafers. The product wafer 10 nearest to the rotary shaft 48 is used as the monitor wafer 16 for monitoring the thickness of the film. It should be noted that the monitor wafer 16 may be a product wafer or it may be used solely for thickness overseeing (col. 4, lines 10-16), wherein the strength of said reflected laser beam detected by said optical generating means is transmitted to a controller which monitors, based on a deposition period, a change in thickness of said film on said surface of said substrate (claim 16 of ‘429). A computer 36 analyzes changes in thickness of the film and determines the deposition period based on changes occurring in the value of the voltage (col. 5, lines 65-67).
‘405 is analogous art in the field of a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of silicon nitride (PECVD Nitride) (col. 3, lines 5-6), Manufacturing of many types of discrete products can benefit from multi-variable computerized controllers. The semiconductor wafer processing area is an example of an area of particular interest. The small feature sizes and the large number of steps required to fabricate state of the art integrated circuits (on semiconductor wafers) make it essential that each of the process steps meet a tight set of specifications. Since process variations are inevitable, statistical process control (SPC) is one of the techniques used for controlling fabrication processes. Often, implementing SPC on a wafer-by-wafer basis requires having equipment with in-situ sensors for measuring the desired quality characteristics, or making changes to existing equipment to incorporate in-situ sensors. Obtaining new equipment with in-situ sensors or modifying existing equipment can be expensive. In addition to the cost of the sensors, adding sensors to existing equipment can cause expensive downtime and decrease mean time between failure (MTBF) (col. 2, lines 12-31). ’405 teaches that Four product parameters are measured: film deposition rate, index of refraction, stress, and thickness non-uniformity (col. 4, lines 27-29), The sensors can be ex-situ as well as in-situ (col. 2, line 43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added support blocks 4 for supporting three-dimensional shaped workpieces 5 of ‘511, to the boat 49 of ‘597, for the purpose of coating substrate other than wafer, as taught by ‘511. Furthermore, to have recognized the difficulty of thickness measurement of complex shape, as taught by ‘286, and to have adopted monitor wafer and dummy wafers at two ends, as taught by ‘429, and to have applied the thickness profile in Fig. 10 of ‘597, as an alternative for monitoring thickness of the coating on the three-dimensional shaped workpieces 5 of ‘511. Still furthermore, to have applied computerized control of multi-variable control with ex-situ sensors including stress and thickness, as taught by ‘405, to control the variation of the combined apparatus, for the purpose of a tight set of specifications, as taught by ‘405 (col. 1, line 19). As Fig. 9 of ‘597 already teaches the relationship of thickness vs. the position in the coating zone, the stress can also be estimated accordingly. US 5227196 is evidenced that FIG. 3 is a graph showing the relation between the stress and the changes in thickness of a silicon nitride film layer (Col. 4, lines 62-63).
‘597 also teaches some limitations of:
Claim 27: FIG. 7 shows the schematic view of the apparatus of the present invention (col. 3, lines 15-16, includes the claimed “A system comprising”):
Wafers 47 are placed into a quartz boat 49 (col. 6, lines 42-43), means for depositing polycrystalline silicon from silane in a vacuum (abstract), a method for depositing polycrystalline silicon in a heated evacuated tube under a vacuum on a substrate and using a gaseous source (col. 2, lines 60-62, includes the claimed “a boat configured for a low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) process in a furnace”);
the wafers at the two ends of the boat reads into the claimed “a first witness wafer and a second witness wafer“.
Claim 35: FIG. 7 shows the schematic view of the apparatus of the present invention (col. 3, lines 15-16, includes the claimed “A system comprising”):
means for depositing polycrystalline silicon from silane in a vacuum (abstract), a method for depositing polycrystalline silicon in a heated evacuated tube under a vacuum on a substrate and using a gaseous source (col. 2, lines 60-62), means for depositing polycrystalline silicon from silane in a vacuum (abstract), the N2 and SiH4 flows enter the tube 32 at the point where the line 38 passes through an appropriate fitting in the end cap 36 (col. 5, lines 47-50, includes the claimed “a low pressure chemical vapor deposition furnace comprising an inlet for a gas source“),
Wafers 47 are placed into a quartz boat 49 (col. 6, lines 42-43), a method for depositing polycrystalline silicon in a heated evacuated tube under a vacuum on a substrate and using a gaseous source (col. 2, lines 60-62, capable of the claimed “the boat comprising: a horizontal platform”);
the wafers at the two ends of the boat reads into the claimed “a first witness means and a second witness means“.
‘597 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 27: a three dimensional device on a horizontal wafer positioned between the first witness wafer and the second witness wafer, and
the first witness wafer, the three dimensional device, and the second witness wafer are positioned so that the first witness wafer is closest to, and second witness wafer is furthest from, an inlet for a gas source for the LPCVD process, so that a range of a coating's property across the three dimensional device can be measured by measuring thicknesses and stress of the coating on both of the witness wafers after the coating is formed by the LPCVD process; and
so that the thickness and stress of the coating on the three dimensional part is defined as being between the thickness and stress measured on the first witness wafer and the thickness and the stress measured on the second witness wafer.
Claim 35: coupled to a controller configured for controlling a low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) process depositing a coating on a three dimensional part, including deposition conditions of the LPCVD process so as to tailor a property of the 3D part in a range determined by measurements of a thickness and stress of the coating on (a first witness means and a second witness means) when the three dimensional part is mounted on a boat in the furnace between the first witness means and the second witness means,
a mount for securely holding the three dimensional part on the horizontal platform during the low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) process; and
positioning for the first witness means and the second witness means, so that the first witness means is closest to, and second witness means is furthest from, the inlet for the gas source for the LPCVD process, and
wherein the range of the coating's property across the three dimensional part comprises the measurements of thicknesses and stress of the coating on the witness surfaces of the witness means; and the controller further for controlling the depositing of the coating on all exposed surfaces of the three dimensional part in one deposition run without flipping the part, so that the coating is uniform across one or more of the exposed surfaces to within 60% of the average thickness of the coating on the part and/or has a stoichiometric composition that is uniform across the part to within 1% and the thickness and stress of the coating on the part is outputted as between the thickness and stress measured on the first witness means and the thickness and the stress measured on the second witness means.
‘597 further teaches that wafers were placed at greater distances and wafers were manufactured having the top view as shown in FIG. 10 (col. 6, lines 52-54). Note Fig. 9 shows an linear decrease in coated thickness at wafer are placed away from inlet
‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405 are analogous arts as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added support blocks 4 for supporting three-dimensional shaped workpieces 5 of ‘511, to the boat 49 of ‘597, for the purpose of coating substrate other than wafer, as taught by ‘511. Furthermore, to have recognized the difficulty of thickness measurement of complex shape, as taught by ‘286, and to have adopted monitor wafer and dummy wafers at two ends, as taught by ‘429, and to have applied the thickness profile in Fig. 10 of ‘597, as an alternative for monitoring thickness of the coating on the three-dimensional shaped workpieces 5 of ‘511. Still furthermore, to have applied computerized control of multi-variable control with ex-situ sensors including stress and thickness, as taught by ‘405, to control the variation of the combined apparatus, for the purpose of a tight set of specifications, as taught by ‘405 (col. 1, line 19). Note tight specification of ‘405 clearly includes 1% thickness variation or lower. As Fig. 9 of ‘597 already teaches the relationship of thickness vs. the position in the coating zone, the stress can also be estimated accordingly. US 5227196 is evidenced that FIG. 3 is a graph showing the relation between the stress and the changes in thickness of a silicon nitride film layer (Col. 4, lines 62-63).
The combination of ‘597, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 13: the boat 49 of ‘597 is the easiest location to place the imported support block 4 from ‘511 (includes the claimed “wherein the mount comprises fixture fixing the part on a top surface of the horizontal platform”, as “comprising a wafer”, it is noted that using an existing dummy wafer instead of a mount performs the same function and convenience of parts at hand).
Claim 15: the wafers at the two ends of the boat of ‘597 reads into the claimed “wherein the sidewalls comprise witness wafers”, furthermore, ‘429 teaches dummy wafers at two ends.
Claims 21 and 29: Each of the workpiece support blocks 4 is provided with multiple support holes 4H (refer to FIG. 9) (holes) opened in its upper surface (‘511, [0031], includes the claimed “further comprising one or more rings to keep the 3D part from moving after being placed on the platform” of claim 21 and “further comprising a mount comprising one or more rings and/or etched wells on a surface of the horizontal platform comprising a silicon wafer to keep the 3D device from moving after being placed on the on the horizontal wafer”).
Claim 30: The N2 and SiH4 flows enter the tube 32 at the point where the line 38 passes through an appropriate fitting in the end cap 36 (‘597, col. 5, lines 47-50, includes the claimed “further comprising the chemical vapor deposition furnace, comprising the inlet at an end of the furnace“, the imported support blocks 4 for supporting three-dimensional shaped workpieces 5 reads into the claimed “for performing the deposition process coating the 3D device when the 3D device is mounted on the boat in the furnace”).
Claims 24 and 32: a pressure of 200 mTorr (1 atmosphere=760 Torr, 1 Torr=133 Pa) is employed (‘429, col. 4, lines 4-5, includes the claimed “wherein the deposition conditions include a pressure in a range of 10 mTorr to 1 Torr” of claim 24 and “wherein the furnace is a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition furnace for depositing the coating at a pressure in a range of 10 mTorr to 1 Torr” of claim 32, note this is an intended use of the system/apparatus).
Claims 25 and 33: The present invention is directed to the method and means for depositing polycrystalline silicon (‘597, abstract, includes the claimed “wherein the furnace comprises at least one source for depositing the coating comprising or consisting essentially of at least one of silicon, an oxide of silicon, a nitride of silicon, an oxynitride of silicon, or a doped version thereof”).
Claim 37: Four product parameters are measured: film deposition rate, index of refraction, stress, and thickness non-uniformity (‘405, col. 4, lines 27-29, stress is a mechanical property, includes the claimed “wherein the controller tailors the coating's properties for an application of the three dimensional part using the properties selected from at least one of an optical property, a mechanical property, or an electrical property”).
Claim 38: make it essential that each of the process steps meet a tight set of specifications (‘405, col. 1, lines 18-19, includes the claimed “wherein the controller is configured for controlling the deposition conditions to deposit the coating on all exposed surfaces of the three dimensional part in one deposition run without flipping the part, so that the coating is uniform across one or more of the exposed surfaces to within 60% of the average thickness of the coating on the part and/or the has a stoichiometric composition that is uniform across the part to within 1%”).
Claim 39: By using ex-situ sensors to measure stress and thickness as taught by ‘405 on the monitor wafer and dummy wafers of ‘511 imported into ‘597, reads into the claimed “further comprising a system for performing measurements the thickness and stress of the coating on both of the vertical sidewalls after removal of the sidewalls from the furnace and associating the thickness and stress of the coating on the part as between the thickness and the stress measured on the first vertical sidewall and the thickness and the stress measured on the second vertical sidewall”.
Claim 40: using an existing dummy wafer instead of a mount performs the same function and convenience of parts at hand, includes the claimed “wherein the horizontal platform is or comprises a silicon wafer”.
Claim 41: The deposition rate is then calculated as a function of the film thickness and the time spent on the deposition. Based on this calculated rate, the deposition time of the next batch (i.e., the next film) is adjusted to form a film on the surface of the wafer having the calculated thickness (‘429, col. 1, lines 25-30, includes the claimed “further comprising an output for a measurement of the coating's property based on deposition time of the coating”).
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘597, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405, as being applied to claims 12 and 27 rejection above, further in view of Alberti et al. (US 4098923, hereafter ‘923).
‘597 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 20: the wafers at the two ends of the boat reads into the claimed “the first witness wafer comprises the first vertical sidewall and the second witness wafer comprises the second vertical sidewall”, particularly with thickness relationship as shown in Fig. 10.
The combination of ‘597, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 20: wherein the boat comprises:
a first slot for holding a first wafer vertically in the first slot; and
a second slot for holding a second wafer vertically in the second slot; and
wherein the horizontal platform is between the first slot and the second slot.
Claim 28: wherein the boat comprises:
a first slot for holding the first witness wafer vertically in the first slot; and
a second slot for holding the second witness wafer vertically in the second slot; and
wherein the horizontal platform is between the first slot and the second slot.
‘923 is analogous art in the field of Pyrolytic Deposition Of Silicon Dioxide On Semiconductors Using A Shrouded Boat (title). ’923 teaches that provided with slotted side rails 112 and 114 and a similarly slotted bottom rail 115 (not visible in this view) (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 17-19).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the flat boat 49 of ‘597 with slotted rails 112, 114, 115 of ‘923, for the purpose of controlled spacing and/or for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Alternatively claims 21 aner 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘923, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405, as being applied to claim 12 rejection above, further in view of Kölker et al. (US 20180105935, hereafter ‘935).
In case Applicants argue that the holes 4H of ‘511 is not a through hole, therefore, it is not a ring of claims 21 and 29.
‘935 is analogous art in the field of LOADING WORKPIECES IN A COATING SYSTEM (title), chemical vapor deposition (CVD) ([0002]). ’935 teaches that Here the loading device 20 provides external loading in which the workpieces 16 are arranged in a stationary manner on the holder 22 facing outward in each case (Figs. 1-2b, [0046], last sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted holder 22 with through holes for workpiece, as taught by ‘935, as the holder of drill of ‘511, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘597, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405, as being applied to claims 12 and 27 rejection above, further in view of and Meyer et al. (US 3859182, hereafter ‘182).
The combination of ‘597, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 36: further comprising the boat in the furnace and the 3D part mounted on the boat, the 3D part selected from a battery component, a ceramic deformable mirror, a printed circuit board, or a thermoelectric module.
‘182 is analogous art in the field of vapor deposition (col. 5, line 45). ’182 teaches that the substrate must be electrically conductive and in the case of an electrical printed circuit board, may be made electrically conductive by chemical deposition of a metal on a surface of the printed circuit board (col. 5, lines 41-45).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the combined apparatus of ‘597, ‘511, ‘286, ‘429, and ‘405 to a printed circuit board, for the purpose of the specific product required by ‘182.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US JP 3651217 is cited for coating of complicated workpiece W on a platform 600(Fig. 6, [0036]).
US 20160268173 is cited for in situ stress measurement ([0007]). US 20210370435 is cited for ex situ stress of thin film measurement ([0033]).
US 20020014311 is cited for dummy wafers above and below process region and film thickness monitoring for each dummy wafer (Fig. 4, [0031]).
The examiner notices Applicants’ IDS, “Ivanda” teaches boat in LPCVD.
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights