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 1 and 2 are cancelled. Claims 3-5 are amended. Claims 6-10 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 6-10 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: if originally presented, claims 3-5 would have been restricted from claims 6-10 as follows: restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 3-5 are drawn to an apparatus for growing crystals.
Group II, claim(s) 6-10 are drawn to a method of growing crystals.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons. The common technical features are “method for producing semiconductor wafers in a deposition chamber, the process comprising executing a removal operation removing, from the deposition chamber, material that has been deposited in the deposition chamber in a course of preceding coating operations by etching of the deposition chamber; carrying out a plurality of coating operations in succession, each of the coating operations comprising depositing a respective epitaxial layer on a respective substrate wafer in the deposition chamber by passing a first gas stream of a first deposition gas over the respective substrate wafer to form a respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer, the respective semiconductor wafer being one of the semiconductor wafers, the respective substrate wafer being one of a plurality of substrate wafers; and carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out before or after carrying out each one of the plurality of coating operations, the respective deposition gas operation comprising passing a second gas stream of a second deposition gas to an edge region of the respective substrate wafer or to an edge region of the respective semiconductor wafer for the respective deposition gas operation at least one process parameter is adjusted such that through the passing of the second deposition gas, deposition of material in the edge region increases as a function of a number of the plurality of coating operations carried out since the execution of the removal operation.” These elements cannot be considered as a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2 because this feature is already known in Haberecht et al (DE 102015205719 A1, machine translation, “Haberecht”) in view of Nakamura et al (JP 2019114699 A, machine translation, “Nakamura”). Specifically, Haberecht teaches a method for producing semiconductor wafers in a reactor for deposition (a deposition chamber) (abstract), the process comprising executing a removal operation removing, from the deposition chamber, material that has been deposited in the deposition chamber in a course of preceding coating operations by etching of the deposition chamber (0003, 0005, 0014, 0016, 0017, 0030, 0035); carrying out multiple/at least one (a plurality of) coating operations in succession, each of the coating operations comprising the deposition of a respective epitaxial layer on a respective substrate wafer in the deposition chamber by passing a first gas stream of a first deposition gas over the respective substrate wafer to form a respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer, the respective semiconductor wafer being one of the semiconductor wafers, the respective substrate wafer being one of a plurality of substrate wafers (abstract, 0001-0003, 0010, 0015, 0018, 0028, claims 1 and 7); and after each of the coating operations carried out in succession, passing a second gas stream of a second deposition gas to an edge region of the respective substrate wafer or of the respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer (fig 1, abstract, 0010, 0012, 0018, 0031 and claim 1), reading on carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out after carrying out each one of the plurality of coating operations. Haberecht teaches the removal of material from the deposition chamber as addressed above, and further teaches deposition of material in an edge region increases with a process of coating each new wafer (as a function of number of coating operations carried out) (0011, 0034), reading on the respective deposition gas operation comprising passing a second gas stream of a second deposition gas to an edge region of the respective substrate wafer and deposition of material in the edge region increases as a function of a number of the plurality of coating operations carried out since the execution of the removal operations, but does not explicitly teach that at least one process parameter is adjusted such that through the passing of the second deposition gas. However, Nakamura teaches a method of manufacturing a wafer, wherein a second process gas is supplied to a peripheral/edge region of the wafer, and as the wafer/susceptor rotate, a gas flow of a second process gas changes (0010-0015, 0025, 0028, 0033, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0057, 0058, claim 1). 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 Haberecht per teachings of Nakamura in order to improve robustness in control of film thickness uniformity at the time of forming an epitaxial layer (Nakamura abstract). Accordingly, the special technical feature linking the two Groups of inventions does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concept exists.
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 6-10 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Claims 3-5 are currently examined on the merits.
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 3-5 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 3 recites "...executing a removal operation … a plurality of coating operations … a plurality of substrate wafers… carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out … the plurality of coating operations … the respective deposition gas operation … the plurality of … the plurality of coating operations carried out since the execution of the removal operation …", which is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected because they depend on claim 3.
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 3-5 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the process". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recited in claim 3 “…carrying out a plurality of coating operations in succession, each of the coating operations comprising depositing a respective epitaxial layer on a respective substrate wafer in the deposition chamber by passing a first gas stream of a first deposition gas over the respective substrate wafer to form a respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer, the respective semiconductor wafer being one of the semiconductor wafers, the respective substrate wafer being one of a plurality of substrate wafers; and carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “carrying out a plurality of coating operations in succession, each of the coating operations comprising depositing a respective epitaxial layer on a respective substrate wafer in the deposition chamber by passing a first gas stream of a first deposition gas over the respective substrate wafer to form a respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer, the respective semiconductor wafer being one of the semiconductor wafers, the respective substrate wafer being one of a plurality of substrate wafers; and carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out” means; for example, it is not clear whether the plurality of coating operations and the plurality of depositions gas operations are carried out for an entire batch of wafers (e.g., after a plurality of coating operations performed on a plurality of wafers, and then a plurality of depositions gas operations performed on the plurality of wafers) or the plurality of coating operations and the plurality of depositions gas operations are carried out in an alternating way for wafter by wafer for example depositions gas operation being performed on a wafer after the coating operation being performed on the wafer (e.g., after coating operation on a first wafer and then performing a first deposition gas operation on the first wafer, then performing coating operation on a second wafer and then performing a second deposition gas operation on the second wafer, etc.). Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected because they depend on claim 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberecht et al (DE 102015205719 A1, machine translation, “Haberecht”), and further in view of Nakamura et al (JP 2019114699 A, machine translation, “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 3, Haberecht teaches a method for producing semiconductor wafers in a reactor for deposition (a deposition chamber) (abstract), the process comprising executing a removal operation removing, from the deposition chamber, material that has been deposited in the deposition chamber in a course of preceding coating operations by etching of the deposition chamber (0003, 0005, 0014, 0016, 0017, 0030, 0035); carrying out multiple/at least one (a plurality of) coating operations in succession, each of the coating operations comprising the deposition of a respective epitaxial layer on a respective substrate wafer in the deposition chamber by passing a first gas stream of a first deposition gas over the respective substrate wafer to form a respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer, the respective semiconductor wafer being one of the semiconductor wafers, the respective substrate wafer being one of a plurality of substrate wafers (abstract, 0001-0003, 0010, 0015, 0018, 0028, claims 1 and 7); and after each of the coating operations carried out in succession, passing a second gas stream of a second deposition gas to an edge region of the respective substrate wafer or of the respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer (fig 1, abstract, 0010, 0012, 0018, 0031 and claim 1), reading on carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out after carrying out each one of the plurality of coating operations.
Haberecht teaches the removal of material from the deposition chamber as addressed above, and further teaches deposition of material in an edge region increases with a process of coating each new wafer (as a function of number of coating operations carried out) (0011, 0034), reading on the respective deposition gas operation comprising passing a second gas stream of a second deposition gas to an edge region of the respective substrate wafer and deposition of material in the edge region increases as a function of a number of the plurality of coating operations carried out since the execution of the removal operations, but does not explicitly teach that at least one process parameter is adjusted such that through the passing of the second deposition gas. However, Nakamura teaches a method of manufacturing a wafer, wherein a second process gas is supplied to a peripheral/edge region of the wafer, and as the wafer/susceptor rotate, a gas flow of a second process gas changes (0010-0015, 0025, 0028, 0033, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0057, 0058, claim 1). 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 Haberecht per teachings of Nakamura in order to improve robustness in control of film thickness uniformity at the time of forming an epitaxial layer (Nakamura abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Haberecht/Nakamura teaches that the at least one process parameter comprises for example a speed (velocity) with which the substrate wafer is rotated (Nakamura 0012, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0032-0035, 0055, 0056, 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Haberecht/Nakamura teaches that the passing of the first gas stream along a first flow direction and by the passing of the second gas stream along a second flow direction, wherein the first flow direction and the second flow direction comprise an angle which is 40° to 80° (Nakamura 0019, 0020, 0036), overlapping the instantly claimed 45° to 90°. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Haberecht and Nakamura, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest “carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out before or after carrying out each one of the plurality of coating operations” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Haberecht teaches after each of the coating operations carried out in succession, passing a second gas stream of a second deposition gas to an edge region of the respective substrate wafer or of the respective semiconductor wafer with the respective epitaxial layer (fig 1, abstract, 0010, 0012, 0018, 0031 and claim 1), reading on carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out after carrying out each one of the plurality of coating operations.
Applicant’s arguments that Nakamura fails to disclose or suggest “carrying out a plurality of deposition gas operations such that a respective deposition gas operation of the plurality of deposition gas operations is respectively carried out before or after carrying out each one of the plurality of coating operations” have been considered, but not found persuasive. The primary reference to Haberecht already teaches this limitation. It is also well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, as applicant already noted, 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. Furthermore, 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).
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
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