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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Across the claim list,
In all the independent claims, the “Reaction chamber” of Claim 1, “Inner covering element” of Claim 18, and “Epitaxial reactor” of Claim 20, should be:
“A reaction chamber”, “An inner covering element”, and “An epitaxial reactor”.
In all other dependent claims, the “Reaction chamber according to claim 1” and “Inner covering element according to claim 18” should be:
“The reaction chamber according to Claim 1” and “The inner covering element according to claim 18”.
(2) Across the claim list, the applicants use both “said” and “the” to indicate the antecedent basis. It is respectfully requested to use a consistent form by the same term.
(3) In regards to the “Reaction chamber for an epitaxial reactor, the chamber being provided with a cavity wherein reaction and deposition processes of semiconductor material on substrates occur, and comprising a covering system located within said cavity, wherein said cavity is surrounded by four walls, wherein said covering system comprises: - a lower covering element resting on a lower wall of said cavity, and - an upper covering element resting on said lower covering element; wherein said lower covering element and said upper covering element define an inner space included in said cavity and an outer space included in said cavity, and create four walls surrounding said inner space, wherein the walls of said inner space are spaced from the walls of said cavity through an empty space” of Claim 1,
The claims are narrative in form. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified and must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
It is respectfully requested to amend it by clearly separating the preamble and the body of the claims, for instance:
“A reaction chamber for an epitaxial reactor,
the reaction chamber comprising:
a cavity provided in the reaction chamber and surrounded by four walls, wherein reaction and deposition processes of semiconductor material on substrates occur in the cavity,
the reaction chamber further comprising:
a covering system located within the cavity, the covering system comprising:
- a lower covering element resting on a lower wall of the cavity, and
- an upper covering element resting on the lower covering element;
wherein the lower covering element and the upper covering element define inner and outer spaces located in the cavity, and create four walls surrounding the inner space,
wherein the walls surrounding the inner space are spaced from the walls surrounding the cavity through an empty space”.
(4) The “said disc being made of” of Claim 3 would have a better form if amended to be “said disc made of”.
(5) The “said element” of Claim 19 should be “said inner covering element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
(1) The “the chamber” of Claim 1 is not clear.
Does it mean the firstly introduced “reaction chamber” of the claim 1? If so, it is respectfully requested to amend it to be “the reaction chamber”.
All other “the chamber” across the claim list should be “the reaction chamber”.
(2) The “a lower covering element resting on a lower wall of said cavity” of Claim 1 is not clear. It is unclear whether the cited “a lower wall” refers to one of the previously recited “four walls” or to a different wall.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“a lower covering element resting on a lower wall of the four walls surrounding the cavity”.
(3) The “empty space” in “wherein the walls of said inner space are spaced from the walls of said cavity through an empty space” of Claim 1 is not clear, because the applicants’ specification clearly discloses “an empty space wherein there may be gas, in particular process gas or inert gas”, see paragraph [0032] of the applicants’ published instant application, in other words, the space is not empty.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein the walls surrounding said inner space are spaced apart from the walls surrounding said cavity by a gap”.
(4) Claim 1 recites the “subject to deposition of semiconductor material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation will be examined inclusive of “subject to the deposition process of the semiconductor material”.
(5) The “isolated” in “wherein said inner space is isolated from said outer space” of Claim 1 is not clear. According to the applicants’ Fig. 2, the inner space 102 is fluidly coupled to the outer space 103 by the holes 114/109, thus it is not clear how the isolation works.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of “partially isolated”.
(6) The “the walls of the chamber” of Claim 2 is not clear.
Claim 2 is dependent from the claim 1. However, the claim 1 does not recite “walls of the chamber”, thus it is not clear whether “the walls of the chamber” refers to the previously recited “four walls” or to different walls.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein the four walls surrounding the cavity form walls of the chamber”.
(7) The “a lower wall of said cavity” of Claim 5 raises the same issue as the item (2) above.
(8) Claims 6, 10 and 13 recite the “the form of a flat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “a form of a flat”.
(9) The “in particular” of Claims 8, 15, and further “preferably” of Claims 10, 13 are not clear, because it is not clear how degree of the terms should be determined.
An appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
(10) Claim 9 recites “the passage of a rotation shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “a passage of a rotation shaft”.
(11) The “and/or” of Claim 17 is not clear, because “A or B” includes A or B or AB, thus it is not clear what is intended by use of the term.
An appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
(12) The “Inner covering element for a reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor, said element being configured so as to be a component of the covering system of the reaction chamber according to any claim 1” of Claim 18 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what is intended by the “any”. The “any” should be followed by plural things, such as any claims 1-20.
Second, the structural relationship and scope of the claimed subject matter are unclear. The “configured so as to be a component of the covering system of the reaction chamber” fails to define the specific structural limitations of how the inner covering element is adapted to or integrated with the covering system.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“An inner covering element adapted for use in the covering system of the claim 1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HARASHIMA (US 20170321346, hereafter ‘346).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘346 teaches:
In the film-forming apparatus 10, when epitaxially growing SiC on each of the wafers W (Fig. 3, [0051]), and film formation space S1 (see FIG. 3) of the space S provided by the container 12 ([0032], the claimed “Reaction chamber for an epitaxial reactor, the chamber being provided with a cavity wherein reaction and deposition processes of semiconductor material on substrates occur”);
The container 12 is a box-shaped container having a substantially rectangular parallelepiped outer shape and provides therein a depressurizable space S ([0028]), and the holding member 42 provides a space for accommodating the rotary stage 30, the susceptor 32 and the first heat insulating material 34 ([0045], the claimed “and comprising a covering system located within said cavity, wherein said cavity is surrounded by four walls”);
the first heat insulating material 34 has a substantially box-like shape extending along the outer surface of the susceptor 32 ([0044]), the film formation space S1 provided by the susceptor 32… The susceptor 32 is a substantially rectangular tubular member ([0041]), and The space S2 described above is defined between the holding member 42 and the container 12 ([0045], the claimed “wherein said covering system comprises: - a lower covering element resting on a lower wall of said cavity, and - an upper covering element resting on said lower covering element; wherein said lower covering element and said upper covering element define an inner space included in said cavity and an outer space included in said cavity, and create four walls surrounding said inner space, wherein the walls of said inner space are spaced from the walls of said cavity through an empty space”);
The rotary stage 30 is accommodated in the internal space of the susceptor 32, namely in the film formation space S1 provided by the susceptor 32 ([0041]), and the wafers W are placed on the holder 40 ([0037], the claimed “wherein said inner space is adapted to accommodate at least one substrate subject to deposition of semiconductor material”);
Fig. 3 shows the space S2 is isolated from the space S1 (the claimed “wherein said inner space is isolated from said outer space”).
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 1-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarlagadda et al. (US 20120027646, hereafter ‘646) in view of ‘346.
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘646 teaches:
a reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor, and the cavity (2) comprises a reaction and deposition zone (3) of the epitaxial reactor (Fig. 2, abstract), Epitaxial reactors are machines used to deposit smooth and uniform monocrystalline or polycrystalline layers of materials on substrates ([0003]), and The materials deposited are typically conductor and semiconductor materials ([0005], the claimed “Reaction chamber for an epitaxial reactor, the chamber being provided with a cavity wherein reaction and deposition processes of semiconductor material on substrates occur”);
a quartz component (5) (abstract, the claimed “and comprising a covering system located within said cavity”);
an internal cavity (2) defined by walls (1A, 1B, 1C, 1D) (Fig. 1c, abstract, the claimed “wherein said cavity is surrounded by four walls”);
the component 5… for the two lateral walls and for the upper wall ([0062], the claimed “wherein said covering system comprises: - a lower covering element resting on a lower wall of said cavity, and - an upper covering element resting on said lower covering element”);
the component 5 is arranged in such a manner as to produce a counterwall for three walls of the cavity 2, in particular for the two lateral walls and for the upper wall. An interspace 6 is defined between the component 5 and the walls of the cavity 2 ([0062], note Fig. 2C shows the walls of the component 5 is spaced apart from the walls surrounding the cavity by a gap, the claimed “wherein said lower covering element and said upper covering element define an inner space included in said cavity and an outer space included in said cavity, and create walls surrounding said inner space, wherein the walls of said inner space are spaced from the walls of said cavity through an empty space”);
the zone (3) is adapted to house a susceptor (4) (Figs. 2B-2C, abstract), and the susceptor serves to support and often also to heat the substrates ([0008], the claimed “wherein said inner space is adapted to accommodate at least one substrate subject to deposition of semiconductor material”);
the interspace 6 (and therefore its portions 6B, 6C, 6D) is isolated more or less hermetically from the reaction and deposition zone 3 ([0062], the claimed “wherein said inner space is isolated from said outer space”).
Due to the three walls of the cavity 2, ‘646 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: create four walls surrounding said inner space.
‘346 is analogous art in the field of processing a substrate ([0002]). ‘346 teaches The container 12 is a box-shaped container having a substantially rectangular parallelepiped outer shape ([0028]), and the susceptor 32 is a substantially rectangular tubular member… the susceptor 32 includes a pair of wall portions 32a and 32b and a pair of wall portions 32c and 32d (Fig. 5, [0041-0042], note ‘346 clearly teaches an outer reactor has a rectangular tube shape and an inner chamber housed in the outer reactor also has a rectangular tube shape).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the component 5 of Fig. 2C of ‘646 having the three walls, so to have four walls forming a rectangular tubular shaped component, for the purpose of providing improved directional process gas flow on the upper surface of the substrate to be processed, by reducing volume of the gas flowing under the susceptor of Fig. 2C of ‘646.
Regarding to Claim 2, ‘646 teaches:
a reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor that essentially consists of a quartz piece (abstract, the claimed “wherein the walls of the chamber are made entirely of quartz”);
A quartz component (5) (abstract, the claimed “and wherein the covering system is made entirely of quartz”).
Regarding to Claim 3, ‘646 teaches:
the susceptor serves to support and often also to heat the substrates ([0008]), and a disk-shaped susceptor 4, mounted on a vertical shaft 8 to support it and make it rotate ([0059], the claimed “wherein said covering system is configured so as to house at least one rotating disc of a substrate support susceptor”);
In epitaxial reactors where the susceptor is the main element that heats the substrates (for example, in epitaxial reactors with induction heating) ([0013], the claimed “said disc being made of, and adapted to be heated by induction”).
‘646 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 3: said disc being made of graphite and adapted to be heated by induction.
‘346 further teaches The rotary stage 30 may be, for example, a graphite-made member ([0036]), and the holder 40 is a member having a substantially disk-like shape and may be, for example, a graphite-made member ([0038]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the disk-shaped susceptor 4 of ‘646, with a graphite, for the purpose of providing improved thermal resistance at high temperatures, and/or further for its suitability as known material for the substrate stage with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 4,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the component 5 has fours wall by adding a bottom wall to the component (the claimed “wherein said covering system further comprises a base covering element, which rests directly on a lower wall of said cavity, and wherein said lower covering element rests on said base covering element”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the component 5 has fours wall by adding a bottom wall to the component. Further, ‘346 teaches The holding member 42 is supported on the inner surface of the container 12 via a columnar support portion 44 ([0045]), therefore, when the bottom wall is added, the columnar support portion would have been also added to the bottom wall, for the purpose of supporting the bottom wall (the claimed “wherein said base covering element rests directly on said lower wall of said cavity only through feet”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
Fig. 5 of ‘346 shows the bottom wall 32b is a form of flat rectangular slab, thus the imported bottom wall of the component 5 of ‘646 also would have a form of flat rectangular slab (the claimed “wherein said base covering element is in the form of a flat rectangular slab”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
‘646 further teaches the component 5 is made of transparent quartz ([0065]), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the imported bottom wall is made of the transparent quartz, for the purpose of matching with other walls of the component 5 (the claimed “wherein said base covering element is made of transparent quartz”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
‘646 teaches the shaft 8 passes through a circular hole produced in the lower wall of the chamber ([0059]), and further ‘346 also teaches Through-holes through which the rotary shaft 36 passes are formed in the susceptor 32 ([0047]).
Consequently, when the bottom wall is imported to the component 5 of ‘646, the bottom wall also would have required a through-hole, for the purpose of passing the shaft 8 of ‘646 (the claimed “wherein said base covering element has a central hole adapted for the passage of a rotation shaft of a substrate supporting susceptor”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
Fig. 2C of ‘646 shows the top wall of the component 5 is a form of flat rectangular slab, and the edge connections coupled to the lateral walls are curved, thus the curved portions are shoulders (the claimed “wherein said upper covering element is in the form of a flat rectangular slab preferably with two shoulders at two opposite edges of the flat slab”).
Regarding to Claim 11,
‘646 further teaches the component 5 is made of transparent quartz ([0065], the claimed “wherein said upper covering element is made of transparent quartz”).
Regarding to Claim 12,
Fig. 2C of ‘646 shows the top wall of the component 5 is a single piece (the claimed “wherein said upper covering element consists of a single piece”).
Further emphasized again, making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces) OR forming one piece which has formerly been formed in two pieces, merely involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding to Claims 13 and 17,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the component 5 has fours wall by adding a bottom wall to the component.
Claim 13 does not require a base covering element. Therefore, in the combination of Claims 1 and 13, either the later walls or the imported bottom wall can be interpreted as the “lower covering element”.
Consequently, as shown in the bottom wall 32b of Fig. 5 of ‘346, the imported bottom wall of the component 5 of ‘646 also would have a form of flat rectangular slab. Further, Fig. 2C of ‘646 shows the edge connections coupled to the lateral walls are curved portions, which can be interpreted as shoulders, thus the bottom wall edge connection would have also curved portion (the claimed “wherein said lower covering element is in the form of a flat rectangular slab preferably with shoulders in correspondence of at least some edges of the flat slab” of Claim 13 and “wherein said lower covering element has shoulders at two opposite edges of the flat slab and/or shoulders at said central hole” of Claim 17).
Regarding to Claim 14,
‘646 further teaches the quartz of the component 5 can be transparent, opaque or reflective ([0063], the claimed “wherein said lower covering element is made of opaque quartz”).
Regarding to Claim 16,
‘646 teaches the shaft 8 passes through a circular hole produced in the lower wall of the chamber ([0059]), and further ‘346 also teaches Through-holes through which the rotary shaft 36 passes are formed in the susceptor 32 ([0047]).
Consequently, when the bottom wall is imported to the component 5 of ‘646, the bottom wall also would have required a through-hole, for the purpose of passing the shaft 8 of ‘646. Further, receiving the shaft or the disc through the through-hoe is mere different use. Depending on the desired application, differently configuring the size of hole merely involves only routine skill in the art (the claimed “wherein said lower covering element has a central hole adapted to receive a disc of a substrate supporting susceptor”).
Regarding to Claim 18,
The teaching of the covering system of Claim 1 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above (the claimed “Inner covering element for a reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor, said element being configured so as to be a component of the covering system of the reaction chamber according to any claim 1”).
Regarding to Claim 19,
‘646 teaches the component 5 is made of transparent quartz ([0065], the claimed “said element being entirely made of quartz”.
Regarding to Claim 20,
The teaching of the reaction chamber having the covering system of Claim 1 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above (the claimed “Epitaxial reactor comprising at least one reaction chamber according to claim 1”).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘646 and ‘346, as being applied to Claim 4 rejection above, further in view of Sumakeris et al. (US 20030079689, hereafter ‘689).
Regarding to Claims 8 and 15,
‘646 and ‘346 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 8: wherein said base covering element consists of two pieces which mechanically couple to each other, in particular wherein a first one of the two pieces is located upstream and a second one of the two pieces is located downstream in relation to a reaction gas flow direction.
Claim 15: wherein said lower covering element consists of two pieces which mechanically couple to each other, in particular wherein a first one of the two pieces is located upstream and a second one of the two pieces is located downstream considering a reaction gas flow direction.
‘689 is analogous art in the field of processing a substrate ([0003]). ‘689 teaches the bottom liner 150 includes a front liner member 154 and a rear liner member 152 which are separable from one another ([0030], note Fig. 1 shows the two pieces are coupled to each other, and further, based on Fig. 2, one piece is located input of gas flow, see “IG”, and the other piece is located output of the gas flow, see “OG”. Lastly, the two pieces are mechanically coupled).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the walls of the component 5 of ‘646, so to be formed by single piece or multiple pieces, depending on a desired application, for instance, for the maintenance purpose.
Further, MPEP clearly guides that making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces) OR forming one piece which has formerly been formed in two pieces, merely involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights