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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3-13 are newly added. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8-13 are directed to an invention/species that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: If previously presented, claims 8-13 (species group II) would have been restricted from claims 1-7 as follows: restriction/species election is required under 35 U.S.C. 121. Species group I (claims 1-7) requires “…determining a corrective precept… determining the corrective precept for the substrate wafer comprises selecting one of a plurality of corrective precepts…”, which is not required by species group II; species group II requires “…a second substrate wafer… a second epitaxial layer on the second substrate wafer to produce the second semiconductor wafer… the first range and the second range do not overlap”, which is not required by species group I. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Claims 1-7 are currently under examining on the merits
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
The recitation “determining a corrective precept for a substrate wafer based on a specific resistance of the substrate wafer… determining the corrective precept for the substrate wafer comprises selecting one of a plurality of corrective precepts as the corrective precept based on the specific resistance of the substrate wafer being within a respective range associated with a respective one the plurality of corrective precepts, the plurality of corrective precepts comprising a first corrective precept and a second corrective precept, the first corrective precept being associated with a first range, and the second corrective precept being associated with a second range” in claim 1 is an abstract idea, as doing this sort of calculation is a mental exercise. Additionally, the process does not require that it is done in a particular way. It is noted that the claim recites additional features of placing the substrate wafer on a susceptor with a circular perimeter by a robot… depositing the epitaxial layer on the substrate wafer to produce a semiconductor wafer of the semiconductor wafers. However, the process of placing the substrate wafer on a susceptor with a circular perimeter by a robot and depositing the epitaxial layer on the substrate wafer to produce a semiconductor wafer of the semiconductor wafers is routine and conventional, for example, as disclosed in Toru (JP 2016213218 A, machine translation, “Toru”) and Freund et al (US 20180002826 A1, “Freund”). Thus, these additional features are not sufficient to make the claim as a whole directed to anything other than the abstract idea of “determining a corrective precept” and thus the claim is patent ineligible and does not meet 35 USC 101.
The recitation “calculating a value of the first corrective precept as an average value corresponding to a mean deviation of positions of centers of a first plurality of substrate wafers from the center of the susceptor during preceding deposition operations; and calculating a value of the second corrective precept as an average value corresponding to a mean deviation of positions of centers of a second plurality of substrate wafers from the center of the susceptor during the preceding deposition operations, wherein the first plurality of substrate wafers each have a respective specific resistance falls within the first range, wherein the second plurality of substrate wafers each have a respective specific resistance the falls within the second range, and wherein the substrate wafer is not one of the first plurality of substrate wafers nor the second plurality of substrate wafers” in claim 3 is an abstract idea, as doing this sort of calculation is a mental exercise. Thus, these additional features are not sufficient to make the claim as a whole directed to anything other than the abstract idea of “calculating a value” and thus the claim is patent ineligible and does not meet 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "...determining a corrective precept for a substrate wafer based on a specific resistance of the substrate wafer… determining the corrective precept for the substrate wafer comprises selecting one of a plurality of corrective precepts as the corrective precept based on the specific resistance of the substrate wafer being within a respective range associated with a respective one the plurality of corrective precepts…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites "...a first specific resistance… a second specific resistance…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 3 recites "... calculating a value of the first corrective precept as an average value corresponding to a mean deviation of positions of centers of a first plurality of substrate wafers from the center of the susceptor during preceding deposition operations; and calculating a value of the second corrective precept as an average value corresponding to a mean deviation of positions of centers of a second plurality of substrate wafers from the center of the susceptor during the preceding deposition operations, wherein the first plurality of substrate wafers each have a respective specific resistance falls within the first range, wherein the second plurality of substrate wafers each have a respective specific resistance the falls within the second range, and wherein the substrate wafer is not one of the first plurality of substrate wafers nor the second plurality of substrate wafers", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. It is also well established that any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, see MPEP 2173.05(i). Claim 4 is rejected because it depends on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites "... the first plurality of substrate wafers comprises at least 10 substrate wafers, and the second plurality of substrate wafers comprise at least 10 substrate wafers…", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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 1 and 2 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “determining a corrective precept for a substrate wafer based on a specific resistance of the substrate wafer”, and the claim also recites “determining the corrective precept for the substrate wafer comprises selecting one of a plurality of corrective precepts as the corrective precept based on the specific resistance of the substrate wafer being within a respective range associated with a respective one the plurality of corrective precepts, the plurality of corrective precepts comprising a first corrective precept and a second corrective precept, the first corrective precept being associated with a first range, and the second corrective precept being associated with a second rang” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 2 “…an amount of the first corrective precept is larger or smaller than an amount of the second corrective precept, depending on whether a first range covers a first specific resistance which is smaller or larger than a second specific resistance which is covered by the second range.” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is noted that parent claim 1 already recites a first range and a specific resistance; It is not clear whether the first range and a specific resistance refers to the previously recited first range and specific resistance or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada Toru (JP 2016213218 A, machine translation, “Toru”), and further in view of Freund et al (US 20180002826 A1, “Freund”).
Regarding claim 1, Toru teaches a process for producing semiconductor wafers with an epitaxial layer deposited from a gas phase in a reactor (deposition chamber), the process comprising determining a position/angle (corrective precept) for a substrate wafer (0047, 0049, 0057, 0070), placing the substrate wafer on a susceptor with circular perimeter by a robot (0009-0012), where the robot moves the substrate wafer into a placement position and then places the substrate wafer on the susceptor, with the corrective precept such that a center C1 of the substrate wafer in the placement position does not to lie above a center O of the susceptor (figs 10-12, 0031, 0050, 0065-0072); and depositing the epitaxial layer on the substrate wafer to produce a semiconductor wafer of the semiconductor wafers (abstract, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0032), wherein a plurality deviation of the substrate center and the susceptor center are measured and calculated (0012, 0051, 0052, 0055, 0059-0061, 0068-0070), and the measurement and the calculation are repeated (0068, 0069), and the deviation are different (figs 10-12, 0065, 0066, 0069), reading on the instantly claimed a first corrective precept and a second corrective precept, and the first corrective precept and the second corrective precept differ from one another.
Toru teaches the substrate wafer being moved into the placement position by the robot, the first corrective precept and the second corrective, as addressed above, and further teaches that a plurality of substrates being processed (abstract, 0011, 0012, 0023, 0058, 0059, 0063, 0065, 0068, 0069); it is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that Toru can determine the corrective precept for the substrate wafer comprises selecting one of a plurality of corrective precepts as the corrective precept the plurality of substrate being within the respective range associated with a respective one the plurality of corrective precepts and the plurality of corrective precepts comprising the first corrective precept and the second corrective precept, the first corrective precept being associated with a first range, and the second corrective precept being associated with a second range, because Toru teaches corrective precept being determined and a plurality of substrates being process as just addressed. Toru does not explicitly teach the positioned (corrective precept) substrate wafer based on (having) specific resistance However, Freund teaches method of manufacturing wafers, wherein sub-group of wafers have different specific resistances (0005, 0020, 0025, 0062, 0065, 0066, 0090-0092). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Tonu per teachings of Freund in order to provide suitable wafers for manufacturing semiconductor devices (Freund 0006-0009, 0025, 0030, 0031).
Regarding claim 3, Toru/Freund teaches determining the corrective precept for the substrate wafer as addressed above, and further teaches calculating a value of the first corrective precept as an average value corresponding to a mean deviation of positions of centers of a first plurality of substrate wafers from the center of the susceptor during preceding deposition operations and calculating a value of the second corrective precept as an average value corresponding to a mean deviation of positions of centers of a second plurality of substrate wafers from the center of the susceptor during the preceding deposition operations (Toru abstract, 0011-0016, 0019-0026, 0031, 0043, 0051-0063, 0065, 0068-0070, claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9), wherein the first plurality of substrate wafers each have a respective specific resistance falls within the first range (Freund 0005, 0020, 0025, 0062, 0065, 0066, 0090-0092), wherein the second plurality of substrate wafers each have a respective specific resistance the falls within the second range (Freund 0005, 0020, 0025, 0062, 0065, 0066, 0090-0092), and wherein the substrate wafer is not one of the first plurality of substrate wafers nor the second plurality of substrate wafers since Toru teaches the substrate wafer while Freund teaches the first plurality of substrate wafers and the second plurality of substrate wafers as addressed above. Moreover, it is well-established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Also see MPEP 2144.04 IV C. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process (e.g., Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Toru/Freund teaches the plurality of substrates as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the first plurality of substrate wafers comprises at least 10 substrate wafers, and the second plurality of substrate wafers comprise at least 10 substrate wafers. However, the court has held that repeating steps would have been obvious, and "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," MPEP 2143 I. It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Toru/Freund teaches that the substrate wafer comprises a dopant (Toru 0038; Freund 0052, 0053, 0069). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Toru/Freund teaches that the corrective precept determines (codetermines) the placement position into which the robot move the substrate wafer before it is placed onto the susceptor (0007, 0047, 0047, 0049, 0057, 0070 and claim 7). Moreover, it is well-established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Also see MPEP 2144.04 IV C. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process (e.g., Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru/Freund as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nathan G. Stoddard (US 20100193989 A1, “Stoddard”).
Regarding claim 6, Toru/Freund teaches the first range and the second range as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the first range is from 11 to 12 ohm-cm and the second range is from 9 to 10 ohm-cm. However, Stoddard teaches that an ingot is cut into (0036, 0087, 0099, 0101), and a resistivity of the wafer is about 0.1 to about 50 ohm-cm (0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Toru/Freund per teachings of Stoddard in order to provide suitable wafers for various applications (Stoddard 0003). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable claims
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record to Yamada Toru (JP 2016213218 A, machine translation, “Toru”) teaches a process for producing semiconductor wafers, but does not teach, disclose, anticipate or reasonably suggest that an amount of the first corrective precept is larger or smaller than an amount of the second corrective precept, depending on whether the first range covers a first specific resistance which is smaller or larger than a second specific resistance which is covered by the second range, as recited in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant' s arguments that Toru and Freund, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest “determining a corrective precept for a substrate wafer based on a specific resistance of the substrate wafer” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Toru teaches the process comprising determining a position/angle (corrective precept) for a substrate wafer (0047, 0049, 0057, 0070), but does not explicitly teach the positioned (corrective precept) substrate wafer based on (having) specific resistance However, Freund teaches method of manufacturing wafers, wherein sub-group of wafers have different specific resistances (0005, 0020, 0025, 0062, 0065, 0066, 0090-0092). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Tonu per teachings of Freund in order to provide suitable wafers for manufacturing semiconductor devices (Freund 0006-0009, 0025, 0030, 0031).
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner' s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mitsuhiro Okada (US 20170287914 A1) teaches 50 to 150 wafers being processed (0044, 0058, 0064).
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 Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714