DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the reply filed 10/29/2025 and the request for continued examination filed 11/10/2025.
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 and 21 are pending.
Claims 16-20 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2, 9-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-110331439-A, using the previously attached English machine translation) further in view of Nam (US Pub. 2015/0241125), with Wicker (US 6,673,198) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Cao teaches semiconductor processing equipment (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 4, entirety) including: an insulating chamber, a first heating body arranged in the insulating chamber; a second heating body arranged in the insulating chamber at an interval with the first heating body (Figs. 1-4, upper/lower portions #61,#62), a carrier device for carrying a wafer being arranged on the second heating body (Figs. 1-4, structure holding a device upper surface of #62); and (Fig. 4, lower surface of #61), a reaction space (see Fig. 4), an opening being arranged on a side of the structure close to the second heating body and configured to accommodate the carrier device (see Figs. 4-5), and a carrying surface of the carrier device being exposed in the reaction space (see Figs 4-5), wherein: an inlet opening and an outlet opening are arranged on sidewalls on two sides of the insulating chamber (Fig. 4, inlet #6c and outlet #6d); and the inlet opening and the outlet opening communicate with the reaction space (see Fig. 4); and an induction coil for heating the reaction chamber, wound externally around the insulating chamber and configured for inductively heating the first heating body and the second heating body (Figs. 1-2, EM induction coil #1).
Cao does not appear to teach an isolation protection structure arranged in the insulating chamber, located between the first heating body and the second heating body, and isolating the first heating body and the second heating body from the reaction space.
However, Nam teaches an isolating member meeting the above limitations (Nam – [0038]: liner disposed on every surface of the inner walls of the chamber, when placed over the existing bottom, top, and side walls of Cao).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolation protection structure of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Cao does not teach wherein the isolation protection structure includes: a first isolating member arranged at the second heating body, configured to cover a surface of the second heating body neighboring to the reaction space, and including the opening; a second isolating member arranged at the first heating body and configured to cover a surface of the first heating body neighboring to the reaction space; and two third isolating members extending along a gas flow direction from the inlet opening to the outlet opening and arranged on two sides of the carrier device at an interval, and each third isolating member of the two third isolating members connecting between the second isolating member and the second heating body.
However, Nam teaches an isolating member meeting the above limitations (Nam – [0038]: liner disposed on every surface of the inner walls of the chamber, when placed over the existing bottom, top, and side walls of Cao).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolation protection structure of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
While Nam does not explicitly teach multiple discrete members (teaches a unitary conformal liner), the Examiner submits that the difference between the prior art (unitary liner) and the claimed invention (discrete sub-components) is merely a simple substitution of elements to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143. In support of this argument, the Examiner submits that Wicker teaches wherein a conformal liner can comprise either a plurality of coated tiles or a contiguous, unitary element (Wicker – C8, L40-55). As such, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize either a unitary or divided liner structure interchangeably with the expectation of protecting chamber walls from corrosion and reducing down-time of the corresponding apparatus (Wicker – C2, L61-C3, L2).
Regarding claim 9, Cao does not teach wherein the second isolating member includes: a thermally conductive isolating plate made of a thermally conductive material; and an isolating layer covering an entire outer surface of the thermally conductive isolating plate.
However, Nam teaches wherein the isolating member includes: a thermally conductive isolating plate made of a thermally conductive material; and an isolating layer covering an entire outer surface of the thermally conductive isolating plate (Nam – [0038]: liner formed of graphite coated with silicon carbide).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolation protection structure of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Cao does not teach wherein the thermally conductive material is graphite, and a material for forming the isolating layer includes silicon carbide.
However, Nam teaches wherein the thermally conductive material is graphite, and a material for forming the isolating layer includes silicon carbide (Nam – [0038]: liner formed of graphite coated with silicon carbide).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolation protection structure of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Cao does not teach wherein the second isolating member and the third isolating member both include insulating isolating plates made of an insulating material.
However, Nam teaches wherein the second isolating member and the third isolating member both include insulating isolating plates made of an insulating material (Nam – [0038]: liner formed of graphite coated with silicon carbide).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolation protection structure of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Cao teaches wherein: the first heating body and the second heating body are heated in an induction heating method; the first heating body includes a flat member and an arc member; the second heating body includes a flat member and an arc member; the flat member of the first heating body and the flat member of the second heating body are arranged at an interval opposite to each other; the flat member and the arc member form a hollow chamber; and at least one isolating layer is arranged in the hollow chamber to isolate the hollow chamber to form a plurality of sub-hollow chambers and configured to cause heating temperatures at different positions of the first heating body and the second heating body to be consistent (see Figs. 4-5, substantially the same structure as instant Figs. 3A-3B, thus is regarded as meeting the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 13, Cao teaches wherein the insulating chamber is a cylindrical chamber formed by two semi-annular insulating covers and two disk-shaped insulating covers that are joined with each other, and the inlet opening and the outlet opening are arranged at two disk-shaped insulating covers, respectively (Fig. 4, #6c and #6d with end covers #52).
Regarding claim 15, Cao teaches wherein the semiconductor processing equipment is applied to an epitaxial growth process (pg. 3, bottom: epitaxial growth reaction chamber).
Regarding claim 21, Cao teaches wherein the opening is formed by surrounding structures.
Cao does not teach the isolation protection structure, which is distinct from the first heating body, the second heating body, and the carrier device.
However, Nam teaches an isolating member meeting the above limitations (Nam – [0038]: liner disposed on every surface of the inner walls of the chamber, when placed over the existing bottom, top, and side walls of Cao would surround the opening).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolation protection structure of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-110331439-A, using the attached English machine translation) and Nam (US Pub. 2015/0241125), as applied to claims 1-2, 9-15, and 21 above, further in view of Bhat (US 5,226,383).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 9-15, and 21 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Cao does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bhat teaches wherein a carrier device includes: a rotation table located in the opening and rotatably connected to the second heating body through a rotating shaft (Bhat – C3, L5-21 and Fig. 1, disk #12 connected to knob #22) and including: a protrusion table (Bhat – Fig. 1, main body of #12); an edge member protruding relative to an outer peripheral wall of the protrusion table (Bhat – Fig. 1, upper edge protrusion of #12); and a carrier plate for carrying the wafer arranged on the protrusion table of the rotation table (Bhat – Fig. 1, top surface of #12 to carry wafer #16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Cao apparatus to comprise the carrier device of Bhat in order to center the carrier device within the chamber and prevent any rubbing of the carrier device against the edges of the lower member (Bhat – C3, L5-21).
Thus, as a combination, modified Cao would teach wherein: the first isolating member includes a first flange at an edge of the opening; and the first flange partially overlaps with the edge member to shield a gap between the edge member and the first isolating member by virtue of a portion of the chamber-conforming liner (isolating member) as taught by modified Cao (particularly, Nam).
For clarity, the remainder of the limitations of the claim are merely arbitrary sub-divisions of the conforming liner of Nam, which is taught as being formed on all surfaces of the inside of a processing chamber (Nam – [0038]). The arbitrary sub-divisions of the conforming liner into the two first sub-isolating members, a second sub-isolating member, and two third sub-isolating members (portions of the first isolating member on the bottom of the chamber) are regarded as obvious since the courts have held that making a unitary object separable for any purpose is indicative of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Alternatively/additionally, while Nam does not explicitly teach multiple discrete members (teaches a unitary conformal liner), the Examiner submits that the difference between the prior art (unitary liner) and the claimed invention (discrete sub-components) is merely a simple substitution of elements to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143. In support of this argument, the Examiner submits that Wicker teaches wherein a conformal liner can comprise either a plurality of coated tiles or a contiguous, unitary element (Wicker – C8, L40-55). As such, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize either a unitary or divided liner structure interchangeably with the expectation of protecting chamber walls from corrosion and reducing down-time of the corresponding apparatus (Wicker – C2, L61-C3, L2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cao does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bhat teaches wherein: two surfaces of the rotation table and the second heating body that face to each other are a conical concave surface and a conical convex surface and are arranged at an interval; and an inlet channel is arranged in the second heating body for introducing a rotating drive gas into a gap between the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface to drive the rotation table to rotate (Bhat – Fig. 1, conical mating surfaces of #12 and #10 with feed tube #28 extending therebetween).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Cao apparatus to comprise the carrier device of Bhat in order to center the carrier device within the chamber and prevent any rubbing of the carrier device against the edges of the lower member (Bhat – C3, L5-21).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cao teaches the structural limitations of the reaction chamber (see claim 1).
Cao does not teach wherein the first isolating member includes: two first sub-isolating members located on an upstream side of the gas flow direction and symmetrically arranged relative to a radial centerline of the carrier device parallel to the gas flow direction; a second sub-isolating member located on a downstream side of the gas flow direction and in a central area of the reaction space; and two third sub-isolating members located on the downstream side of the gas flow direction on two edge areas on two sides of the central area of the reaction space and symmetrically arranged relative to the radial centerline of the carrier device parallel to the gas flow direction, wherein: the two first sub-isolating members, the one second sub-isolating member, and the two third sub-isolating members cooperate to form the opening; the second sub-isolating member and the second heating body form an intermediate exhaust channel; gaps between the two third sub-isolating members and the second sub-isolating member form edge exhaust channels; an inlet end of the intermediate exhaust channel and inlet ends of the edge exhaust channels communicate with the gap between the conical concave surface and conical convex surface; and an outlet end of the intermediate exhaust channel and outlet ends of the edge exhaust channels are located at one end of the second sub-isolating member away from the carrier device.
However, Nam teaches two first sub-isolating members, a second sub-isolating member, and two third sub-isolating members (Nam – [0038]: liner disposed on every surface of the inner walls of the chamber, when placed over the existing bottom, top, and side walls of Cao).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolating member of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
The remainder of the limitations of the claim are merely arbitrary sub-divisions of the conforming liner of Nam, which is taught as being formed on all surfaces of the inside of a processing chamber (Nam – [0038]). The arbitrary sub-divisions of the conforming liner into the two first sub-isolating members, a second sub-isolating member, and two third sub-isolating members (portions of the first isolating member on the bottom of the chamber) are regarded as obvious since the courts have held that making a unitary object separable for any purpose is indicative of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Alternatively/additionally, while Nam does not explicitly teach multiple discrete members (teaches a unitary conformal liner), the Examiner submits that the difference between the prior art (unitary liner) and the claimed invention (discrete sub-components) is merely a simple substitution of elements to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143. In support of this argument, the Examiner submits that Wicker teaches wherein a conformal liner can comprise either a plurality of coated tiles or a contiguous, unitary element (Wicker – C8, L40-55). As such, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize either a unitary or divided liner structure interchangeably with the expectation of protecting chamber walls from corrosion and reducing down-time of the corresponding apparatus (Wicker – C2, L61-C3, L2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cao does not teach wherein: a second flange is arranged at an edge of the second sub-isolating member neighboring to a third sub-isolating member and partially overlaps with the third sub-isolating member to shield a gap between the second sub-isolating member and the third sub-isolating member.
However, Nam teaches two first sub-isolating members, a second sub-isolating member, and two third sub-isolating members (Nam – [0038]: liner disposed on every surface of the inner walls of the chamber, when placed over the existing bottom, top, and side walls of Cao).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Cao apparatus to comprise the isolating member of Nam in order to absorb contaminants and extend the maintenance period of the apparatus (Nam – [0038]).
The remainder of the limitations of the claim are merely arbitrary sub-divisions of the conforming liner of Nam, which is taught as being formed on all surfaces of the inside of a processing chamber (Nam – [0038]). Particularly, the flanges of the instant claim and claim 3 are but a further sub-division of the first isolating member. The arbitrary sub-divisions of the conforming liner into the two first sub-isolating members, a second sub-isolating member, and two third sub-isolating members (portions of the first isolating member on the bottom of the chamber) are regarded as obvious since the courts have held that making a unitary object separable for any purpose is indicative of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Alternatively/additionally, while Nam does not explicitly teach multiple discrete members (teaches a unitary conformal liner), the Examiner submits that the difference between the prior art (unitary liner) and the claimed invention (discrete sub-components) is merely a simple substitution of elements to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143. In support of this argument, the Examiner submits that Wicker teaches wherein a conformal liner can comprise either a plurality of coated tiles or a contiguous, unitary element (Wicker – C8, L40-55). As such, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize either a unitary or divided liner structure interchangeably with the expectation of protecting chamber walls from corrosion and reducing down-time of the corresponding apparatus (Wicker – C2, L61-C3, L2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-110331439-A, using the attached English machine translation) and Nam (US Pub. 2015/0241125), as applied to claims 1-2, 9-15, and 21 above, further in view of Masumura (US Pub. 2012/0309175).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 9-15, and 21 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Cao does not teach wherein the first isolating member includes: a first inclined surface located upstream of the gas flow direction and joint with a lower end of the inlet opening, and a distance between the first inclined surface and the second isolating member gradually decreasing along the gas flow direction; and a second inclined surface located downstream of the gas flow direction and joint with a lower end of the outlet opening, and a distance between the second inclined surface and the second isolating member gradually increasing along the gas flow direction.
However, Masumura teaches a first and second inclined surface meeting the limitations above (Masumura – [0090]-[0098] and Fig. 4, inclined leading an declined trailing edge of the susceptor #40.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the surfaces at the upstream/downstream side of modified Cao to be inclined as in Masumura in order to vary the epitaxial growth rates near an edge of the substrate (Masumura – [0091]) to uniform layer thickness (Masumura – [0094]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN-110331439-A, using the attached English machine translation), Nam (US Pub. 2015/0241125), and Masumura (US Pub. 2012/0309175), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of DeDontney (US Pub. 2003/0037729).
The limitations of claim 7 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Cao does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, DeDontney teaches wherein: an opening size of the outlet opening gradually increases along the gas flow direction; and a minimum opening size of the outlet opening is equal to an opening size of a conjunction of the reaction space with the outlet opening (DeDontney – [0043]-[0046] and Fig. 1, exhaust channels #136 tapered outwardly as gas moves upward through said channels).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the exhaust of modified Cao to comprise the gradually increasing geometry of DeDontney in order to provide for greater volume for exhausting gases and uniform exhausting (DeDontney – [0045]-[0046]).
Response to Arguments
After further consideration, the Examiner withdraws the §102 rejections of claims 1 and 14 in deference to the Applicant. New §103 rejections are made herein using the previously applied Nam reference.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Nam (Remarks, pgs. 10-11) as applied to various claims have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicant argues that the conformal liner coating of Nam could not be arbitrarily sub-divided to meet the limitations of the claim. Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner wishes to emphasize that the claimed “isolation protection structure” is a collection of sub-components (first/second/third- claim 2; first sub, second sub, third sub- claim 5) that, when present together, form a thermally isolating member that covers and conforms to the chamber structure (see instant Figs. 3B-6).
In that way, since Nam teaches a conformal liner made from the same materials as the instant invention (Nam – [0038]), Cao modified by Nam is regarded as meeting the structural limitations of the overall isolation assembly.
While Nam does not explicitly teach multiple discrete members (teaches a unitary conformal liner), the Examiner submits that the difference between the prior art (unitary liner) and the claimed invention (discrete sub-components) is merely a simple substitution of elements to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
In support of this argument, the Examiner submits that Wicker teaches wherein a conformal liner can comprise either a plurality of coated tiles or a contiguous, unitary element (Wicker – C8, L40-55).
As such, the Examiner submits that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize either a unitary or divided liner structure interchangeably with the expectation of protecting chamber walls from corrosion and reducing down-time of the corresponding apparatus (Wicker – C2, L61-C3, L2).
Applicant alleges that the particular features/geometry of the isolation protection structure are critical (Remarks, pgs. 10-11, citing pars. [0062]-[0065] of the as-filed Specification), but the argued criticality appears to be a function of the chamber structures, not the isolation protection structures.
Particularly, par. [0062] discusses the conical concave surface of the substrate support forming desired flow patterns, not the isolation protection structure.
Pars. [0063]-[0064] discuss how the space underneath the sub-isolating members forms a lower channel for the substrate support drive gas, but such a feature does not appear in the claims.
Par. [0065] discusses the purposes of the flanges that cooperate with the aforementioned channel which, as above, does not appear in the claims.
Even considering the above, Applicant’s arguments concerning the criticality of the geometry of the claimed sub-isolation members would only be sufficient to overcome a rejection under obvious design choice- such a rejection has not been made. As is set forth in the rejection of claim 3 (and others), the Examiner utilizes two distinct and equal rationales for prima facie obviousness:
1) making a unitary object separable for any purpose is indicative of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C), and
2) a simple substitution of elements to obtain predictable results as supported by Wicker; see MPEP 2143.
The Applicant has not offered any particular rebuttal of 1), and 2) has been newly added as set forth in this action- thus the arguments are not persuasive because they do not adequately address the particular obviousness rejection(s) as set forth by the Examiner.
Regarding newly added claim 21, the Examiner utilizes Nam in addition to Cao to teach the limitations of the claim. As Applicant has only argued alleged features of Cao, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not apply to the particular combination of references utilized herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718