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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 of the instant application shows label (22) as being the axis of the susceptor (2), but at least ¶[0042] of the published application and Figs. 3-4 show that component (22) is actually the axis of the preheat ring (3). It is assumed that label (22) in Fig. 1 should actually be label (26) which is the axis of the susceptor (2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4 and 7 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 1 recites, inter alia, the step of “determining an excentricity between an axis perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring and an axis perpendicularly through the center of the susceptor.” However, it is unclear as to what is meant by the term “excentricty” and how, exactly, an excentricity between an axis of the preheat ring and an axis of the susceptor is determined. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word “excentric” as “not centrally located” which suggests that the two axes do not originate from the same central location. However, it still is unclear as to what is meant by “determining an excentricity” and what information is to be obtained as a result of this determination. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore indefinite. For examination purposes it is assumed “determining an excentricity” means detecting any difference in alignment between a central axis of the preheat ring and a central axis of the susceptor. Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites “displacing the supporting shaft from a starting position in which the axis of rotation is arranged along the axis perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring to an end position and back to the starting position with the frequency of the rotating of the supporting shaft, the displacement path from the starting position to the end position being dependent on the excentricity.” It is unclear what is meant by displacing the supporting shaft from a starting position which is arranged along the axis perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring. Is the supporting shaft moved such that it is in a starting position where its central axis coincides with the central axis of the preheat ring? However, if the two axes become concentric then they no longer are excentric and there shouldn’t be a need to move the support shaft away from this location because there would be a uniform gap around the entire periphery of the susceptor? Moreover, what does it mean to move the support shaft from a starting position to an end position and then back to the starting position “with the frequency of the rotating of the support shaft”? How is the movement such that it is “with” the frequency of the rotating of the support shaft? It is unclear how the movements are correlated such that they are “with” each other. Finally, it is unclear how the displacement path is “dependent on the excentricity.” What does it mean to be “dependent” on the excentricity and how is the displacement path changed based on the excentricity? Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore indefinite. Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, inter alia, that “the magnitude of the further vector being dependent on a wedge character of the substrate wafer and the direction of the further vector having the flow direction of the deposition gas.” It is unclear how the further vector depends on a wedge character of the wafer. What does it mean to depend on the wedge character and how does the further vector change based upon the wedge character? Moreover, it is unclear what it means when the further vector “has” the flow direction of the deposition gas. How does the further vector possess or “have” the flow direction of the deposition gas. Does it mean that the further vector is in a flow direction of the deposition gas? Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the offset” in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 further recites that “the offset is determined as an offset vector defining an offset magnitude and an offset direction.” However, there is no explanation as to the relevance of the offset as claimed and how its magnitude and direction are determined since, with how it is currently written, the offset can be essentially any vector that has a magnitude and direction. It is assumed applicants intended for the offset to be the magnitude and direction of a vector between the preheat ring axis and a susceptor axis, analogous to what is recited in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0010239 to Tong, et al. (hereinafter “Tong”).
Regarding claim 1, Tong teaches a method for depositing an epitaxial layer on a substrate wafer of semiconductor material in a deposition apparatus (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and entire reference which teach a method of depositing an epitaxial layer on a substrate (102) in a deposition apparatus (100)), the method comprising:
placing the substrate wafer on a susceptor of the deposition apparatus, which is surrounded, separated by a gap, from a preheat ring and is held by a supporting shaft (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0029] which teach placing a substrate (102) on a susceptor (106) which is supported by a shaft (118) and is separated from a circular shield (146) by a gap);
determining an excentricity between an axis perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring and an axis perpendicularly through the center of the susceptor (see Figs. 2 & 4A-B and ¶¶[0032]-[0039] which teach that the amount the shaft (118) is offset from a center axis which coincides with a center of the circular shield (146) is determined in order to perform a correction in which the shaft (118) is moved in the X- and Y-directions);
passing deposition gas over the substrate wafer along a flow direction pointing from a gas inlet to a gas outlet (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0030]-[0031] which teach that process gases (172) flow over the substrate (102) from inlet (114) to outlet (116));
passing purge gas along a lower side of the preheat ring and a lower side of the susceptor (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0030]-[0031] which teach that a purge gas (162) flows along a lower side of the circular shield (146) and susceptor (106) from inlet (164) to outlet (116));
rotating the supporting shaft about an axis of rotation with a frequency (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0022]-[0024] which teach that the shaft (118) and, hence, the susceptor (106) is rotated about an axis of rotation by a rotary actuator (122) at a predetermined frequency) which comprises
displacing the supporting shaft from a starting position in which the axis of rotation is arranged along the axis perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring to an end position, the displacement path from the starting position to the end position being dependent on the excentricity (See Figs. 4A-B and ¶[0039] which teach that the shaft (118) is first displaced in the X-direction until it is arranged along the longitudinal axis (A) of the deposition apparatus (100), including the central axis of the circular shield (146) and the shaft (118) is then displaced in the Y-direction until the central axis of the shaft (118) coincides with the central axis of the deposition apparatus (100) and the shield (146) with the amount of the displacement being based on the degree of misalignment from the central axis. In Figs. 5A-C and ¶¶[0040]-[0045] an additional correction due to the tilt of the shaft (118) relative to the longitudinal axis (A) is performed by means of a tilt adjustment device (126)).
Tong does not explicitly teach that the support shaft is displaced back to the starting position with the frequency of the rotating of the supporting shaft. However, during normal operation rotation of the shaft (118) at a predetermined frequency during epitaxial deposition, heating and cooling of the susceptor by the lamp heaters (104), as well as insertion and removal of different substrates (102) for subsequent deposition processes will necessarily result in wear and tear on the system which will cause the shaft (118) to again become misaligned from the longitudinal axis (A) of the deposition apparatus (100) and the circular shield (146). Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to repeat the process of aligning the shaft (118) with the longitudinal axis (A) that is taught in Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0039]-[0045] of Tong at periodic intervals in order to displace the shaft (118) back to a starting position in response to the shaft (118) being rotated at a predetermined frequency during each film growth interval.
Regarding claim 2, Tong teaches that the displacement path from the starting position to the end position is described by a vector whose magnitude is the magnitude of the excentricity and whose direction is opposite to the direction of the excentricity (see Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0039]-[0045] which teach that the shaft (118) is displaced in the X- and Y-directions by an amount equal to and opposite that of its displacement from the longitudinal axis (A) of the deposition apparatus (100), including the central axis of the circular shield (146)).
Regarding claim 3, Tong teaches that the displacement path from the starting position to the end position is described by a resultant vector of a vector sum with the vector and a further vector as summands, the magnitude of the further vector being dependent on a wedge character of the substrate wafer and the direction of the further vector having the flow direction of the deposition gas (see Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶[0039]-[0045] which teach that the shaft (118) is displaced in both the X- and Y-directions and is also tilted until the central axis of the shaft (118) aligns with the longitudinal axis (A) of the deposition system (100) and the circular shield (146) which therefore means that the displacement includes the sum of at least two components; since the adjustment in the X- and Y-direction in Figs. 4A-B includes a component along the flow path of the process and purge gases and the adjustment to the tilt in Figs. 5A-C accounts for nonuniformities in the vertical displacement of the substrate (102), these adjustments are necessarily dependent on a wedge character of the substrate and include an adjustment in the flow direction of the deposition gas).
Regarding claim 4, Tong teaches that the supporting shaft is displaced by at least one actuator (see Figs. 2-4 and ¶[0024] which teach the use of one or more actuators such as a rotary actuator (122) and vertical actuator (124) to move and adjust the stem (118)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are allowed.
Claim 7 would be allowable if claims 1 and 7 are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or reasonably suggest a method for depositing an epitaxial layer on a substrate wafer of semiconductor material in a deposition apparatus comprising placing the substrate wafer on a susceptor, the susceptor being surrounded, separated by a gap, from a preheat ring, and the susceptor being held by a supporting shaft having a supporting shaft axis which is the axis of rotation of the supporting shaft; determining an offset between a preheat ring axis and a susceptor axis, the preheat ring axis being perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring, and the susceptor axis being perpendicularly through the center of the susceptor; determining a displacement path by determining a starting position as where the supporting shaft axis is arranged along the preheat ring axis and determining an end position based on the starting position and the offset; passing deposition gas over the substrate wafer along a flow direction pointing from a gas inlet to a gas outlet; passing purge gas along a lower side of the preheat ring and a lower side of the susceptor; rotating, with a rotation frequency, the supporting shaft about the supporting shaft axis; and during each rotation of the supporting shaft, displacing the supporting shaft from the starting position to the end position and back to the starting position at a frequency matching the rotation frequency as recited in the context of claim 5. Dependent claim 6 is also deemed to be in condition for allowance due to its dependence on claim 5.
The prior art of record also does not teach, disclose, or reasonably suggest a method for depositing an epitaxial layer on a substrate wafer of semiconductor material in a deposition apparatus wherein the offset is determined as an offset vector defining an offset magnitude and an offset direction, and wherein the method further comprises determining a displacement vector based on the offset vector such that the displacement vector has a displacement magnitude that is the magnitude of the offset magnitude and has a displacement direction that is opposite to the offset direction; determining a wedge characteristic of the substrate wafer as a ratio between a greatest and smallest cross-sectional thickness of the substrate wafer; and determining a further vector as having a direction as the flow direction and having a magnitude determined based on the wedge characteristic of the substrate wafer, and wherein the determining of the end position based on the starting position and the offset comprises determining the end position as a shift from the starting position according to a sum of the displacement vector and the further vector as recited in the context of claim 7.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed December 31, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue against the objection to the drawings by contending that Fig. 1 is illustrated and labeled correctly because only the preheat axis (22) is indicated and labeled in Fig. 1. See applicants’ 12/31/2025 reply, p. 5. This argument is not found persuasive as ¶[0042] of the published application specifically states determining an excentricity between “the axis 22 perpendicularly through the center of the preheat ring 3 and an axis 26 perpendicularly through the center of the susceptor 2.” In Fig. 1 the axis that is labeled as (22) appears to pass through the center of the susceptor (2) and, conceivably, also through the center of the preheat ring (3) while no label for axis (26) is provided. Since axis (22) in Fig. 1 passes directly through the susceptor (2) it appears to be improperly identified as the axis of the susceptor (2) rather than of the preheat ring (3). If axis (22) in Fig. 1 is that of the preheat ring (3), then applicants are requested to show and/or clarify where the axis of the susceptor (26) is present in Fig. 1.
Applicants initially argue against the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 by contending that the Office appears to be applying a different standard for indefiniteness than what has been established by the Courts and the MPEP because the Office has not referenced the specification in any of its explanation of the claim terms. Id. at pp. 5-6. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is the Examiner’s position that the step of “determining an excentricity” as recited in claim 1 is not a well-known or understood process in the art. Moreover, the specification does not provide an explicit definition for the word “excentricity” or how it is actually determined as used in the context of claim 1. Thus, in order to understand the word “excentricity” and how it is to be interpreted in the context of the claim language, the Examiner has properly relied upon the dictionary definition of the word “excentric” which means “not centrally located.” Courts, including the Federal Circuit have long consulted dictionaries for help in determining the meaning of terms used in patent claims since dictionaries may be considered as reliable objective evidence.
Applicants then contend that when interpreted in the context of the present application, “determining an excentricity” as recited in claim 1 means measuring the magnitude and direction by which an axis perpendicular through the center of the preheat ring and an axis perpendicular through the center of the susceptor are not coincident and refers to ¶[0006] and ¶[0044] of the published application for support. Id. at pp. 6-7. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. It is the Examiner’s position that since the specification does not provide an explicit definition for the word “excentricity” and does not provide an explicit definition for what it means to “determin[e] an excentricity,” applicants are relying on limitations which are not actually claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that interpreting the step of “determining an excentricity” as obtaining “the magnitude and direction by which the two perpendicular axes through their respective centers are not coincident” involves reading limitations into the claims.
Applicants subsequently argue that the steps of “displacing the supporting shaft from a starting position . . . to an end position and back to the starting position . . . .” as recited in the context of claim 1 is definite because it performs the steps identified at p. 7 of applicants’ December 31, 2025, reply. This argument is not found persuasive as applicants appear to be arguing that the claim language is clear by basically repeating the language of the claim itself. As an example, the third bullet states that “the path between the starting position and the end position is called the ‘displacement path’, the path is dependent on the determined excentricity.” This statement appears to beg the question as the indefiniteness rejection is at least partially based on the premise that it is unclear how the displacement path is to be dependent on the determined excentricity. At p. 4 of the October 3, 2025, non-final Office Action the Examiner has explained in detail which aspects of these limitations are unclear and presents a series of questions that remain unanswered by applicants. It is also noted that it appears as if new claim 5 now recites applicants’ intended meaning for claim 1 in sufficiently clear and definite terms which supports the Examiner’s position that applicants’ arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 are based on features which are actually claimed.
Applicants argue against the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 by contending that the claim language is sufficiently clear when read in light of Fig. 3 and ¶[0044] of the published application and that a vector is a fundamental concept in physics having a direction component and a magnitude component. See applicants’ 12/31/2025 reply, p. 8. This argument is found unpersuasive as the indefiniteness rejection is not based on the definition of a vector, but instead the question raised is what does it mean for the further vector to be “dependent on a wedge character of the substrate wafer” and “hav[e] the flow direction of the deposition gas.” What is the “wedge character” and how is it meant to affect or determine the further vector. Similarly, what does it mean to “have” the flow direction of the deposition gas? Does it mean that the further vector points in the same direction as the flow direction of the deposition gas? Since these and other questions regarding the metes and bounds of patent protection sought remain unanswered the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the claims is therefore maintained.
Applicants then argue against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 by referring to Figs. 1 & 3 of the instant application and contending that the presently claimed invention involves determining an excentricity between axes (22) and (26) as vector E (see Fig. 3) and rotating the supporting shaft with a frequency and displacement path along vector Vr1 which is dependent on the excentricity and that Tong does not teach these limitations. Id. at pp. 10-12. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive since, as explained supra with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1, it is based on features which are not claimed. It is the Examiner’s position that since the step of “determining an excentricity” is not explicitly defined in the specification it does not specifically require determining vector E nor is the displacement path required to be along vector Vr1. As detailed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation it is the Examiner’s position that the method of Tong reads upon each and every limitation recited in the claim.
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 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