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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on March 5, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 5, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “close to” in claim 3 is interpreted in light of ¶[0231] of the published application as meaning that the temperature difference may be less than or equal to 5 °C and the pressure difference does not exceed 10 Pa.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “conveyance assembly” in claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14-15..
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 claim limitations relating to the “conveyance assembly” in claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14-15 and the has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “assembly” coupled with functional language “conveyance” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14-15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
the conveyance assemblies (208) in at least Figs. 2A, 3A, and 8 as well as at least ¶¶[0149]-[0153] of the published application.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 7 and 10-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 10, 12, and 14-15 recite “a conveyance assembly” and depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 which further recites “a conveyance assembly.” Accordingly, it is unclear whether the conveyance assembly recited in claims 7, 10, 12, and 14-15 is the same as or different from the conveyance assembly recited in claim 1. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the conveyance assembly.” Dependent claims 11 and 13 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 10.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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) 1-2, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2001/0013313 to Droopad, et al. (hereinafter “Droopad”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2010/0206229 to He, et al. (“He”) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,533,264 to Sherrill, et al. (“Sherrill”).
Regarding claim 1, Droopad teaches a method for producing a composite crystal, the method being executed in a multi-chamber growth device, the multi-chamber growth device including a plurality of chambers and conveyance assemblies in the plurality of chambers, respectively (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and entire reference which teach a method for preparing a composite crystal (300)-(600) in a multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) including a plurality of chambers; furthermore, the reactor systems (100) or (250) include transfer modules (130), (150), and/or (200)-(230) which necessarily extend within the chambers in order to insert and remove substrates from said chambers), comprising:
conveying and processing at least one substrate between the plurality of chambers, successively (see, e.g., Figs. 1-8, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach successively conveying and processing a substrate (310) between a plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190)); and
in one of the plurality of chambers, obtaining at least one composite crystal by growing a target crystal through vapor deposition, the at least one composite crystal including the at least one substrate and the target crystal (see, e.g., Figs. 1-8, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach that a composite crystal (300)-(600) comprised of a target crystal is grown on a substrate (310) through vapor deposition in one or more of the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190)).
Droopad does not explicitly teach that the conveyance assemblies in the plurality of chambers are connected successively in a head-tail-head-tail manner. However, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for sequentially performing thin film growth by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) on a plurality of substrates. The CVD system is provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. The wafer carrier track (400) and wafer carriers (480) are provided within and transported through the plurality of chamber stations (160) and (162) or plurality of reactors (1100a)-(1100c). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on a plurality of wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates.
Droopad also does not explicitly teach that conveyance assembly are provided in the plurality of chambers as claimed. However, in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which is are provided within the confines of the reaction chamber(s) (24). In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which the substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Droopad teaches that before the conveying and processing at least one substrate between the plurality of chambers successively, the method further includes: polishing the at least one substrate; or cleaning the at least one substrate (see, e.g., Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0066]-[0084] which teach a step (820) of cleaning the substrate (310) in a cleaning chamber (170) to remove contaminants before conveying the substrate (310) to a deposition chamber (110); alternatively, see ¶[0067] which teaches the use of a Si(001) wafer as a substrate which necessarily means that the surface has been polished before being introduced into the plurality of chambers in order to form a (001) surface plane which is suitable for epitaxial growth).
Regarding claim 5, Droopad teaches that the multi-chamber growth device at least includes an in-situ etching chamber, a carbonization chamber, a growth chamber, and a buffer chamber, wherein the conveyance assemblies are configured to convey the at least one substrate through the in-situ etching chamber, the carbonization chamber, the growth chamber, and the buffer chamber successively for processing (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) may include a plurality of chambers which may be utilized as, inter alia, an etching chamber (190), a carbonization chamber (110), a growth chamber (120), another growth chamber (140) and an RTA chamber (180) (e.g., either of which may be considered as the buffer chamber), and a conveyance assembly comprised of transfer modules (200)-(240) and a central hub (245); furthermore, the system is configured to convey the substrate (310) through these chambers successively for processing).
Moreover, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a CVD system provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E, for example, which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates. Then in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame. In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which the substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon.
Regarding claim 7, Droopad teaches that the multi-chamber growth device includes a vacuum chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) includes a load-lock (160) which may be equated with the claimed vacuum chamber), and the method includes: placing the at least one substrate in the vacuum chamber before the at least one substrate is processed in the in-situ etching chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach that in order to be introduced into the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) and, hence, into etching chamber (190), the substrate must first be loaded into the load-lock (160)); adjusting a pressure of the vacuum chamber and a pressure of the in-situ etching chamber to a first pressure range (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach that the entire reactor system (100) or (250) is under vacuum in order to avoid atmospheric contamination which necessarily means that the load-lock (160) is pumped down to a pressure sufficiently close to the pressure within the transfer modules (200)-(240) and central hub (245)); and conveying, via a conveyance assembly in the vacuum chamber, the at least one substrate to the in-situ etching chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0066]-[0084] which teach that after loading the substrates in step (810), they are transferred to the etching chamber (190) in order to perform a cleaning step).
Moreover, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a CVD system provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E, for example, which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates. Then in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame. In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which the substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droopad in view of He and further in view of Sherrill and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,911,834 to Fairbairn, et al. (“Fairbairn”).
Droopad, He, and Sherrill do not explicitly teach that a pressure and/or temperature of a chamber adjacent to a previous chamber are pre-adjusted to be equal or close to a pressure and/or a temperature of the previous chamber during conveying the at least one substrate between the plurality of chambers. However, in Fig. 22A and col. 16, l. 1 to col. 17, l. 39 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Fairbairn teaches an analogous embodiment of a vacuum system (700) which includes, inter alia, a load lock (112), transfer chamber (104), and a process chamber (106). The vacuum pressure in the transfer chamber (104) should be equal to or greater than the pressure in the load lock (112) when opening the valve to transfer a substrate in a vacuum in order to ensure that potential contaminants in the load lock (112) are not transmitted to the transfer chamber (104). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Fairbairn and would be motivated to ensure that the pressure in adjacent chambers (e.g., between the load lock (160) and transfer module (200)) in the system and method of Droopad is substantially equal during conveyance of the substrate between each chamber in order to avoid the propensity for the transmission of contaminants between each chamber during sample transfer.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droopad in view of He and Sherrill and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0029158 to Aigo, et al. (“Aigo”) and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2005/0016959 to Tan, et al. (“Tan”) and even further in view of Chinese Patent Appl. Publ. No. CN101150055A to Zeng Yiping (“Yiping”).
Regarding claim 4, Droopad, He, and Sherrill do not explicitly teach that the method further includes: obtaining the target crystal by ultrasonically cleaning, using an etching solution, the composite crystal in a first temperature range for a first time period. However, in Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0090]-[0092] Aigo teaches that the dislocation density on the surface of an epitaxial SiC layer may be measured by etching the surface with, for example, a molten KOH solution such that pits form and reveal the location of surface dislocations. Droopad and Aigo do not explicitly teach that etching is performed using an ultrasonic process. However, in Fig. 7, ¶¶[0003]-[0009], and ¶¶[0105]-[0106] Tan teaches that the uniformity and effectiveness of etching processes on a workpiece may be improved through the use of an ultrasonic etching apparatus. Thus, based on the combined teachings of Aigo and Tan an ordinary artisan would be motivated to ultrasonically etch the surface of the composite crystal produced according to the method of Droopad with the motivation for doing so being to effectively clean the surface and provide a means for reliably determining the dislocation density of the thus-grown composite crystal.
Droopad, He, Sherrill, Aigo, and Tan do not explicitly teach that the basal plane dislocation density of the target crystal is within a range of 120 to 2000 cm-2. However, in Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 Yiping teaches a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates(11) which include the steps of initially cleaning the surface of the Si substrate by hydrogen etching followed by carbonization and then growth of an epitaxial SiC film (13) on the carbonized layer (12). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) of Droopad may be used to performing a hydrogen etch in an etching chamber (190), a carbonization treatment in a deposition chamber (110), and SiC epitaxial growth in a second deposition chamber (120) as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate in-situ processing of the substrate in order to reduce potential contamination of the surface by the ambient between processing steps. Accordingly, since the method of Droopad and Yiping teaches each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily yield the same results, namely a basal plane dislocation density in the range of 120 to 2,000 cm-2. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, a basal plane dislocation density in the range of 120 to 2,000 cm-2, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droopad in view of He and further in view of Sherrill and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,582,720 to Shunpei Yamazaki (“Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 6, Droopad, He, and Sherrill do not explicitly teach that the method further includes: before completing the conveying and processing the at least one substrate between the plurality of chambers successively, initiating conveying and processing of another batch of at least one substrate between the plurality of chambers, wherein the substrates of the two batches are conveyed and processed in different chambers of the multi-chamber growth device simultaneously. However, in Fig. 1 & 6, col. 3, l. 6 to col. 8, l. 42, and col. 9, l. 24 to col. 10, l. 10 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Yamazaki teaches an analogous system and method for sequentially processing one or more substrates through a plurality of chambers (A)-(G). In col. 8, ll. 15-37 Yamazaki specifically teaches that after the first batch of substrates is transferred from reaction chamber (B) to (C), a second batch of substrates placed in chamber (A) is then transferred to chamber (B), and a third batch of substrates is introduced to chamber (A). In this manner it is possible to perform a continuous operation which minimizes downtime and increases the throughput. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Yamazaki and would be motivated to introduce another batch of substrates to the load lock (160) of Droopad while the first batch of substrates is being processed in one or more of the processing chambers such that multiple chambers can be utilized simultaneously in order to reduce downtime and increase the throughput.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droopad in view of He and further in view of Sherrill and still further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,225,032 to Ilan Golecki (“Golecki”).
Regarding claim 8, Droopad teaches that processing the at least one substrate in the in-situ etching chamber includes: maintaining a pressure of the in-situ etching chamber in a second pressure range and a temperature of the in-situ etching chamber in a second temperature range for a second time period (see, e.g., Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0066]-[0084] which teach that after the substrates (310) are loaded into a cleaning (170) or etching chamber (190) and prior to performing the etching step (820) the substrates (310) are necessarily held at a predetermined temperature and pressure within the cleaning (170) or etching (190) chamber for a predetermined period of time); introducing hydrogen into the in-situ etching chamber; and performing an in-situ etching operation by maintaining the temperature of the in-situ etching chamber in a third temperature range for a third time period (see, e.g., Fig. 8 and ¶[0068] which teach that the substrate (310) is exposed to a hydrogen plasma clean process of about 60-300 seconds at an elevated temperature), but does not explicitly teach that hydrogen is introduced into the in-situ etching chamber to cause the pressure of the in-situ etching chamber to an atmospheric pressure. However, in col. 7, l. 21 to col. 8, l. 52 Golecki teaches a method of cleaning a Si substrate prior to performing SiC epitaxial growth which involves, inter alia, a step of heating and annealing the Si substrate (4) under flowing hydrogen gas at pressures in the range of 10-6 to 760 Torr (i.e., up to atmospheric pressure). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Golecki and would readily recognize that when utilizing a Si substrate for epitaxial growth in the system and method of Droopad, a suitable cleaning process would involve heating the Si substrate under a hydrogen atmosphere at atmospheric pressure with the motivation for doing so being to remove contaminants from the surface of the Si substrate.
Claims 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droopad in view of He and further in view of Sherrill and still further in view of Golecki and even further in view of Yiping.
Regarding claim 9, Droopad, He, Sherrill, and Golecki do not explicitly teach that processing the at least one substrate in the carbonization chamber includes: performing a carbonization operation by maintaining a pressure of the carbonization chamber in a third pressure range and a temperature of the carbonization chamber in a fourth temperature range for a fourth time period. However, in Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 Yiping teaches a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates which include the steps of initially cleaning the surface of the Si substrate by hydrogen etching followed by carbonization at a temperature of 1,100 to 1,200 °C, a pressure of 40 mTorr to 100 Torr, and a 1 to 10 standard ml/min flow of propane or ethylene in order to prepare the surface for growth of a crystalline SiC film. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) of Droopad may be used to performing a hydrogen etch in an etching chamber (190) and a carbonization treatment in a deposition chamber (110) at a third pressure and fourth temperature as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate in-situ processing of the substrate in order to reduce potential contamination of the surface by the ambient between processing steps.
Regarding claim 10, Droopad and Golecki do not explicitly teach the carbonization operation as claimed. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 9, Yiping teaches a carbonization operation which includes:
adjusting the temperature of the carbonization chamber to the third temperature range (Utilization of the deposition chamber (110) in Figs. 1-2 of Droopad to perform the carbonization method of Yiping necessarily means that the chamber (110) is at a first temperature prior to initiation of the carbonization process.);
conveying, via a conveyance assembly in the in-situ etching chamber, the at least one substrate to the carbonization chamber (After performing hydrogen etching in the etching chamber (190) the substrate (310) is necessarily transferred from within the etching chamber (190) to chamber (110) via transfer modules (200)-(240) and/or a central hub (245) in order to perform the carbonization process of Yiping as detailed below);
adjusting the temperature of the carbonization chamber to a fifth temperature range and the pressure of the carbonization chamber to a fourth pressure range, and simultaneously introducing propane and hydrogen to cause the pressure of the carbonization chamber to the third pressure range; and performing a carbonization operation by maintaining the pressure of the carbonization chamber in the third pressure range and the temperature of the carbonization chamber in the fourth temperature range for a fourth time period (see, e.g., Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 of Yiping which teach a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates which includes the steps of carburizing the surface of the Si substrate by heating to a temperature of 500 to 1,100 °C at a growth pressure of 40 mTorr to 100 Torr and introducing a 1 to 10 standard ml/min flow of propane or ethylene at a growth temperature of 1,100 to 1,200 °C for a predetermined time period in order to prepare the surface for growth of a crystalline SiC film).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) of Droopad may be used to performing a hydrogen etch in an etching chamber (190) and a carbonization treatment in a separate deposition chamber (110) as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate in-situ processing of the substrate in order to reduce potential contamination of the surface by the ambient between processing steps and to increase the throughput of the deposition process.
Moreover, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 5, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a CVD system provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E, for example, which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates. Then in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame. In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which the substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon.
Regarding claim 11, Droopad, He, Sherrill, and Golecki do not explicitly teach that processing the at least one substrate in the growth chamber includes: maintaining a temperature of the growth chamber in a sixth temperature range and a pressure of the growth chamber in the fourth pressure range, introducing one or more reaction raw materials, and performing a crystal growth on the at least one substrate by adjusting the pressure of the growth chamber to a fifth pressure range. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 9-10, in Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 Yiping teaches a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates which include the steps of initially cleaning the surface of the Si substrate by hydrogen etching followed by carbonization and then growth of an epitaxial SiC film (13) on the carbonized layer (12) at a growth pressure in the range of 40 mTorr to 100 Torr, a growth temperature of 1,100 to 1,350 °C, a silane flow of 0.5 to 4 standard ml/min and a propane or ethylene flow of 1 to 8 standard ml/min. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) of Droopad may be used to performing a hydrogen etch in an etching chamber (190), a carbonization treatment in a deposition chamber (110), and SiC epitaxial growth in a second deposition chamber (120) as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate in-situ processing of the substrate in order to reduce potential contamination of the surface by the ambient between processing steps and to increase the throughput of the deposition process. It is also noted that growth chamber (120) will necessarily be at a sixth temperature range and a fourth pressure range as claimed prior to initiating SiC epitaxial growth at a fifth pressure range.
Regarding claim 12, Droopad, He, Sherrill, and Golecki do not explicitly teach the crystal growth operation as claimed. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 9-11, Yiping teaches a crystal growth operation which includes:
adjusting the temperature of the growth chamber to the fourth temperature range and the pressure of the growth chamber to the third pressure range (Utilization of the deposition chamber (120) in Figs. 1-2 of Droopad to perform the SiC epitaxial growth method of Yiping necessarily means that the chamber (120) is at a fourth temperature prior to initiation of crystal growth.);
conveying, via a conveyance assembly in the carbonization chamber, the at least one substrate to the growth chamber (After performing carbonization in deposition chamber (110), the substrate (310) is necessarily transferred from within the deposition chamber (110) to chamber (120) via transfer modules (200)-(240) and/or a central hub (245) in order to perform the epitaxial growth process of Yiping as detailed below);
adjusting the temperature of the growth chamber to the sixth temperature range and the pressure of the growth chamber to the fourth pressure range; performing the crystal growth on the at least one substrate by introducing silane and propane to cause the pressure of the growth chamber to the fifth pressure range; and stopping the crystal growth when a thickness of the target crystal reaches a target thickness (See, e.g., Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 of Yiping which teach a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates which includes growing an epitaxial SiC film (13) on the carbonized layer (12) at a growth pressure in the range of 40 mTorr to 100 Torr, a growth temperature of 1,100 to 1,350 °C, a silane flow of 0.5 to 4 standard ml/min and a propane or ethylene flow of 1 to 8 standard ml/min for a predetermined time period in order to obtain a crystalline SiC layer (13) having the desired thickness.).
Yiping does not explicitly teach that hydrogen is also introduced during deposition of the crystalline SiC layer. However, in col. 6, ll. 50-57 and col. 8, l. 53 to col. 9, l. 59 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Golecki teaches an analogous method of growing a crystalline SiC layer on a carbonized Si substrate using Si-, C-, and H-containing precursor gases. In one embodiment Golecki specifically teaches the use of hydrogen gas as, for example, a carrier gas in combination with the Si- and C-containing precursor gases. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Golecki and would readily recognize that hydrogen (H2) may be utilized as, for example, a carrier gas and/or mild etchant in combination with the silane and propane source gases in order to promote more efficient flow of the precursor gases towards the substrate and/or to further promote crystal growth on the surface. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) of Droopad may be used to performing a hydrogen etch in an etching chamber (190), a carbonization treatment in a deposition chamber (110), and SiC epitaxial growth in a second deposition chamber (120) as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate in-situ processing of the substrate in order to reduce potential contamination of the surface by the ambient between processing steps and to increase the throughput of the deposition process.
Moreover, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 10, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a CVD system provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E, for example, which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates. Then in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame. In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon.
Claims 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droopad in view of He and Sherrill and further in view of Golecki and still further in view of Yiping and even further in view of Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 13, Droopad, He, Sherrill, and Golecki do not explicitly teach that processing the composite crystal in the buffer chamber includes: cooling the composite crystal by maintaining a temperature of the buffer chamber in a seventh temperature range for a fifth time period. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 9-11, in Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 Yiping teaches a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates (11) which includes growing an epitaxial SiC film (13) on a carbonized layer (12). After film growth the substrate is subject to a hydrogen gas flow of 5 to 20 standard liters/min at a temperature of 1,100 to 1,200 °C and pressure of 40 mTorr to 100 Torr and is subsequently cooled to below 500 °C. Then in Fig. 1 & 6, col. 3, l. 6 to col. 8, l. 42, and col. 9, l. 24 to col. 10, l. 10 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Yamazaki teaches an analogous system and method for sequentially processing one or more substrates through a plurality of chambers (A)-(G). In col. 8, ll. 15-37 Yamazaki specifically teaches that after the first batch of substrates is transferred from reaction chamber (B) to (C), a second batch of substrates placed in chamber (A) is then transferred to chamber (B), and a third batch of substrates is introduced to chamber (A). In this manner it is possible to perform a continuous operation which minimizes downtime and increases the throughput. In col. 7, ll. 40-65 Yamazaki specifically teaches that in chamber (C) the substrates are subject to an inert gas purge and are necessarily further cooled from the growth temperature utilized in chambers (B) or (G). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Yiping and Yamazaki and would be inclined to transfer the Si substrate having a SiC epitaxial layer formed thereupon to a buffer chamber in the form of chamber (140) in Figs. 1-2 of Droopad such that a cool-down and purge operation may be performed with the motivation for doing so being to reduce the system downtime and increase the throughput by enabling SiC epitaxial layers to be grown on a new batch of wafers while the previous batch is still being etched/purged and cooled down.
Regarding claim 14, Droopad, He, Sherrill, and Golecki do not explicitly teach the method for cooling the composite crystal as claimed. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 9-11 and 13, Yiping teaches a method of cooling a composite crystal which includes:
adjusting the temperature of the buffer chamber to the sixth temperature range (Utilization of chamber (140) in Figs. 1-2 of Droopad to cool down the deposited SiC epitaxial layer in the method of Yiping and Yamazaki would necessarily mean that the chamber (140) is at a sixth temperature prior to initiation of the cool-down process.);
conveying, via a conveyance assembly in the growth chamber, the composite crystal to the buffer chamber (After performing SiC epitaxial growth in deposition chamber (120), the substrate (310) is necessarily transferred from within the deposition chamber (120) to chamber (140) via transfer modules (200)-(240) and/or a central hub (245) in order to perform a cool-down and/or purge process as taught by Yamazaki in claim 13 supra and/or by Yiping as detailed below);
adjusting the temperature of the buffer chamber to the seventh temperature range; and cooling the composite crystal by maintaining the temperature of the buffer chamber in the seventh temperature range for the fifth time period (See, e.g., Figs. 1-4 and Embodiments 1-3 at pp. 4-6 of Yiping which teach a method of preparing large area epitaxial SiC films on Si substrates (11) which includes growing an epitaxial SiC film (13) on a carbonized layer (12). After film growth the substrate is subject to a hydrogen gas flow of 5 to 20 standard liters/min at a temperature of 1,100 to 1,200 °C and pressure of 40 mTorr to 100 Torr and is subsequently cooled to below 500 °C for a predetermined time period.).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) of Droopad may be used to performing a hydrogen etch in an etching chamber (190), a carbonization treatment in a deposition chamber (110), SiC epitaxial growth in a second deposition chamber (120), and a cool-down process in a third chamber (140) as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate in-situ processing of the substrate in order to reduce potential contamination of the surface by the ambient between processing steps and to increase the throughput of the SiC epitaxial layer deposition process.
Moreover, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 10-11, and 13, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a CVD system provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E, for example, which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates. Then in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame. In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which the substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon.
Regarding claim 15, Droopad teaches that the multi-chamber growth device includes a terminal chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], and ¶¶[0051]-[0084] which teach that the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) includes a plurality of chambers and specifically includes, inter alia, a load lock (160) which may be equated with the terminal chamber as claimed); and the method further includes: maintaining a temperature of the terminal chamber at room temperature; conveying, via a conveyance assembly in the buffer chamber, the composite crystal to the terminal chamber; and cooling the composite crystal to the room temperature (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2 and specifically ¶¶[0061]-[0062] which teaches that chamber (160) may be a load-lock chamber which is configured to receive wafers from the transfer system for processing and expose the wafers to a vacuum pressure; conversely the load-lock chamber (160) is necessarily at or would be reasonably expected to be at room temperature in order to safely transition substrates to and from the ambient; furthermore, by definition a load-lock is also used to receive and store processed substrates that have had, for example, a SiC crystalline layer deposited thereupon as per the teachings of Golecki and Yiping and would necessarily be utilized to perform a final cool-down to room temperature before being removed from the multi-chamber reactor system (100) or (250) and exposed to the atmosphere in order to minimize the propensity for contaminants for adhere to and react with the substrate surface).
Moreover, as detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 10-11, and 13, in Figs. 1A-C, 4A-E, 9A-D, & 12A-E and ¶¶[0035]-[0052], ¶¶[0076]-[0089], and ¶¶[0156]-[0168], as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference He teaches an analogous embodiment of a CVD system provided with a plurality of chamber stations such as (160) and (162) in Fig. 1C or a plurality of reactors (1100a), (1100b), and (1100c) as in Fig. 9C which are linearly connected from head to tail. Substrates are conveyed from one chamber to the next via a wafer carrier track (400) as shown in Figs. 4A-E, for example, which is capable of supporting and transporting a plurality of wafer carriers (480) as shown in Figs. 12A-E. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of He and would readily recognize that the plurality of chambers (110), (120), (140), (160), (170), (180), and (190) utilized in the teachings of Droopad may be rearranged such that they are connected head to tail successively such that substrates may be sequentially transported through each chamber via wafer carriers (480) provided on wafer carrier tracks (400) which are also successively connected from head to tail with the motivation for doing so being to increase the throughput of the system by permitting successive deposition on a plurality of substrates. Then in Fig. 3 and col. 5, l. 44 to col. 6, l. 34 Sherrill teaches an analogous embodiment of a system (20) for vapor deposition onto one or more substrates (23) which are continuously fed through a reaction chamber(s) (24). The substrates (23) are provided on cartridges (22) that are supported by a plurality of rollers (38) which, in turn, are supported by a conveyance frame. In col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 3 Sherrill specifically teaches an embodiment in which the substrate (i.e., a copper forming sheet) may be transported through the reaction chamber via a plurality of rollers which are used to support the copper forming sheet. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the teachings of Sherrill and would readily recognize that the wafer carrier tracks (400) utilized in the system and method of He may be supported and transported by a plurality of rollers (38) which are supported by a conveyance frame, all of which are located within the confines of the reaction chamber as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to provide a robust and controllable means of transporting substrates through the deposition system of Droopad and He such that one or more thin films having the desired thickness and materials properties may be deposited thereupon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714