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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 14-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 20, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Support plate and supporting tool for supporting a temporary substrate on a plurality of grooves
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 recites “support tool of Claim 6, configured to accommodate . . .” which is grammatically incorrect. It is assumed applicants intended to recite, for example, the “support tool of claim 6, wherein the support plates are configured to . . .”.
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 1-13 and 26-37 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 “a plurality of grooves formed in an edge of the plurality of grooves.” It is unclear how grooves can be formed in an edge of itself. It is assumed applicants intended to recite, for example, that the plurality of grooves (3a) are formed in an edge of the support plate (3) as shown in Fig. 1 of the instant application. Dependent claims 2-13 and 26-37 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 28-29, and 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0216743 to Itoh, et al. (hereinafter “Itoh”).
Regarding claim 1, Itoh teaches a support plate for supporting a temporary substrate (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-19, and entire reference which teach, inter alia, a wafer boat (30) which includes a plurality of support columns (31a)-(31c) for supporting temporary substrates),
wherein a SiC polycrystalline growth layer can be formed on a semiconductor substrate supported on a main surface of the temporary substrate (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach an embodiment of a wafer boat (30) which includes wafer holders (100) which support substrates (14) on a main surface thereof), the support plate comprising:
a plurality of grooves formed in an edge of the plurality of grooves (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the boat columns (31a)-(31c) includes a plurality of holder supports (HS)),
wherein the plurality of grooves include a groove configured to support the temporary substrate inserted in a direction that the main surface is perpendicular to an extending direction of the edge (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the holders (100) are inserted into and supported by the holder supports (HS) such that the plane of the main surface of the holder supports (HS) is perpendicular to the vertically extending direction of the edges of the boat columns (31a)-(31c)) .
Regarding claim 2, Itoh teaches that the support plate is made of graphite (see ¶[0044] which teaches that the boat may be made of a heat-resistant material such as graphite).
Regarding claim 3, Itoh teaches that the edge extends along a longitudinal direction and is formed in a comb shape by the plurality of grooves (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the plurality of holder supports (HS) form a comb shape along a longitudinal direction of the boat columns (31a)-(31c)).
Regarding claim 6, Itoh teaches a support tool, for the temporary substrate using the support plate of Claim 1 (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-19, and entire reference which teach, inter alia, a wafer boat (30) which includes a plurality of support columns (31a)-(31c) for supporting temporary substrates), comprising:
a first dummy substrate and a second dummy substrate (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that a wafer holder (100) is provided at a top and a bottom of the boat (30) and may be considered as first and second dummy substrates as claimed); and
a support, supporting the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate, and including at least three of the support plates (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the wafer holders (100) are supported by three support columns (31a)-(31c)),
wherein the support plate is fitted with the first dummy substrate through a first groove of the plurality of grooves, and fitted with the second dummy substrate through a second groove of the plurality of grooves (see Figs. 5 & 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the first and second wafer holders (100) are fitted into first and second holder supports (HS) at a top and bottom of the wafer boat (30); see also Fig. 5 which specifically shows that the top and bottom holdedr supports (HS) are fitted with first and second wafer holders (100) when the wafer boat (30) is completely filled), and
the support is configured to support the temporary substrate inserted into a third groove of the plurality of grooves of the support plate excluding the first groove and the second groove (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that wafer holders (100) inserted into holder supports (HS) in the boat (30) between the top and bottom may be equated with the temporary substrate inserted into a third groove as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Itoh teaches that the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate are fixed in parallel to each other by the support (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the top and bottom wafer holders (100) are fixed in parallel to each other by the boat columns (31a)-(31c)).
Regarding claim 8, Itoh teaches that the support is arranged along peripheries of the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate such that the extending direction of the edge of the support plate are parallel to each other (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that that boat columns (31a)-(31c) are arranged around the periphery of the wafer holders (100) such that the longitudinal axes of the boat columns (31a)-(31c) are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 9, Itoh teaches that the first groove is a groove at one end of the plurality of grooves along the extending direction of the edge, and the second groove is a groove at the other end along the extending direction (see Figs. 5 & 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that there are first and second holder supports (HS) at a top and bottom of the boat columns (31a)-(31c)).
Regarding claim 11, Itoh teaches that at least one of the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate is made of SiC (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶[0099] Itoh which specifically teaches that the wafer holders (100) may be made of a heat resistant material and provides SiC).
Regarding claim 12, Itoh teaches that the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate have a disk shape or a rectangular plate shape (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the wafer holders (100) have a disk shape).
Regarding claim 13, Itoh teaches that a pair of support plates face each other with the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate interposed therebetween, and the remaining of the support plates are on one side with respect to a plane including the pair of opposing support plates (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that boat columns (31b) and (31c) face each other with the wafer holders (100) positioned therebetween; moreover, boat column (31a) is on one side of the plane formed by boat columns (31b) and (31c)).
Regarding claim 28, Itoh teaches that a depth of each groove of the plurality of grooves corresponds to a radius of the temporary substrate having a disk-like shape (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the depth of each of the holder supports (HS) extends along and, hence, corresponds to a radius of the wafer holders (100) which have a disk-like shape).
Regarding claim 29, Itoh teaches that configured to accommodate a plurality of temporary substrates inserted into respective third grooves of the at least three support plates at specified intervals along the extending direction of the edge (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that a plurality of wafer holders (100) are inserted into the holder supports (HS) at specific intervals).
Regarding claim 31, Itoh teaches that the at least three support plates are also made of graphite such that the support tool is composed entirely of graphite components (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶[0044] which teaches that the boat (30) and, consequently, the boat columns (31a)-(31c) may all be made of graphite).
Regarding claim 32, Itoh teaches that the temporary substrate has a disk-like shape, and the main surface of the temporary substrate is oriented orthogonally to a long side of the at least three support plates when inserted into the third groove (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the wafer holders (100) have a disk-like shape with a main surface being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the boat columns (31a)-(31c)).
Regarding claim 33, Itoh teaches that the support is open in an in-plane direction of the main surface of the temporary substrate inserted into the third groove, except in directions blocked by the at least three support plates constituting the support, so that a uniform atmosphere is provided to the temporary substrate during chemical vapor deposition (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the boat (30) is open in an in-plane direction of the wafer holders (100) which are inserted into the holder supports (HS) except where it is blocked by the boat columns (31a)-(31c) so that a uniform atmosphere is provided during CVD).
Regarding claim 34, Itoh teaches that the first dummy substrate has a size that is the same as the temporary substrate (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the top wafer holder (100) has the same size as the bottom wafer holder (100)).
Regarding claim 35, Itoh teaches that the third groove is located between the first groove and the second groove along the extending direction of the edge, and a width of the third groove is set based on a thickness of the temporary substrate (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that a plurality of holder supports (HS) are located between the top and bottom supports and the width of the holder support (HS) is set such that it can accommodate each wafer holder (100)).
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.
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 10 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh.
Regarding claim 10, Itoh does not explicitly teach that at least one of the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate is made of graphite. However, in Figs. 7-8 and ¶[0099] Itoh specifically teaches that the wafer holders (100) are made of a heat resistant material and provides SiC as an example. Then in ¶[0044] Itoh further teaches that the boat (30) may be formed of a heat resistant material such as graphite. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the wafer holders (100) utilized in Figs. 7-8 of Itoh may be made of a heat-resistant material such as graphite as this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 30, Itoh does not explicitly teach that the first dummy substrate and the second dummy substrate are both made of graphite. However, in Figs. 7-8 and ¶[0099] Itoh specifically teaches that the wafer holders (100) are made of a heat resistant material and provides SiC as an example. Then in ¶[0044] Itoh further teaches that the boat (30) may be formed of a heat resistant material such as graphite. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the wafer holders (100) utilized in Figs. 7-8 of Itoh may be made of a heat-resistant material such as graphite as this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,168 to Gupta, et al. (“Gupta”).
Regarding claim 4, Itoh does not explicitly teach that the support plate has a rectangular plate shape, and the edge is a long side of the rectangular plate shape. However, in Fig. 18 and ¶[0172] Itoh teaches an example where top and bottom plate-shaped members (701) and (702) which are used in an attachment (700) may have a disc shape, but are not so limited and may have a rectangular shape. In this regard the shape of the boat columns (31a)-(31c) is considered to be a simple matter of design choice and it therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize boat columns (31a)-(31c) which have a rectangular instead of circular cross-section and, consequently, a rectangular shape with an edge of a long side being vertically oriented with the motivation for doing so being, for example, to simplify the design of the boat columns (31a)-(31c) and reduce fabrication costs. Absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration is significant, a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Even if it is assumed arguendo that Itoh does not teach using a rectangular shape for the boat columns (31a)-(31c), this would have been obvious in view of Gupta. In Figs. 1-2 and col. 3, l. 62 to col. 4, l. 44 Gupta teaches an analogous embodiment of a semiconductor wafer boat (1) which includes spaced apart support rods (3) that are affixed to a top (5) and base (7). As shown specifically in Figs. 1-2 the support rods (3) have what may be considered as a rectangular shape along a side thereof with an edge adjacent to the wafers being a long side thereof. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Gupta and would recognize that the boat columns (31a)-(31c) of Itoh may be provided with a rectangular shape with an edge of a long side being vertically oriented with the motivation for doing so being, for example, to simplify the design of the boat columns (31a)-(31c) and reduce fabrication costs.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0283944 to Yoshimoto, et al. (“Yoshimoto”).
Regarding claim 5, Itoh does not teach that an expanded graphite sheet is attached to at least a portion of the edge where the plurality of comb-shaped grooves are formed. However, in Figs. 2-3, 6-7, & 17, ¶¶[0052]-[0055], and ¶¶[0065]-[0066] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Yoshimoto teaches an analogous embodiment of a tongue-in-groove in which the tongue at the top of a main portion (7) is inserted into the groove formed by a contact portion (8) as part of a supporting member (6). In Fig. 17 and ¶[0065] Yoshimoto specifically teaches that the interior groove formed by the contact portion (8) may be comprised of or covered with an expanded graphite sheet (26) which has flexibility. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Yoshimoto and would be motivated to attach an expanded graphite sheet to interior surfaces of the holder supports (HS) in order to provide a flexible cushion which more closely conforms to the peripheral shape of the wafer holders (100) such that the wafer holders (100) are better secured in place without being scratched or damaged.
Claims 26 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,584,936 to Pickering, et al. (“Pickering”).
Regarding claim 26, Itoh teaches that the support plate includes a SiC coating formed on a surface of the support plate by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (see ¶¶[0125]-[0140] which teach that a SiC epitaxial film is deposited onto the wafers (14) by CVD which will necessarily also form a SiC coating on surfaces of the boat columns (31a)-(31c) as the boat (30) itself is also exposed to the Si- and C-containing precursor gases). Even if it is assumed arguendo that Itoh does not teach a SiC coating on a surface of the support plate, this would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pickering. In Figs. 1-2 and col. 2, l. 41 to col. 5, l. 13 Pickering teaches an analogous embodiment of a susceptor (10) for film growth from the vapor phase which includes an annular-shaped ring (14) and a blocker (16). In col. 3, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 3 Pickering specifically teaches that the susceptor (10) may be made from materials such as SiC or graphite coated with SiC. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pickering and would recognize that the boat (30), including columns (31a)-(31c), may be made from SiC-coated graphite which has been deposited by CVD as taught by Itoh in order to, for example, minimize the propensity for contamination arising from the graphite itself. Moreover, in this case the use of SiC-coated graphite as the susceptor in Itoh would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use.
Regarding claim 36, Itoh teaches that each of the plurality of temporary substrates supports a second semiconductor substrate on a top surface thereof (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the wafer holders (100) support a semiconductor substrate (14) on a top surface), but do not explicitly teach that the wafer holders also support a first semiconductor substrate on a bottom surface. However, in Figs. 1-2 and col. 2, l. 41 to col. 5, l. 13 Pickering teaches an analogous embodiment of a susceptor (10) for film growth from the vapor phase which includes an annular-shaped ring (14) and a blocker (16). The wafer includes an upper shoulder (26) upon which a semiconductor substrate (12) rests and a lower shoulder (28) which supports the blocker (16). In col. 3, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 3 Pickering specifically teaches that film deposition occurs on the the blocker (16) and that it may be made of a semiconductor such as silicon or silicon carbide. The inclusion of a blocker helps to alleviate thermal stresses that build up within the susceptor and permits the use of lower cost materials for a large fraction of the susceptor (10) itself. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a susceptor in the apparatus of Itoh which includes a plurality of temporary substrates, including a first semiconductor substrate (12) on an upper shoulder and a second semiconductor substrate (16) on a lower shoulder in order to permit simultaneous deposition on multiple substrates and to manage thermal stresses within the susceptor itself such that the propensity for cracking is minimized.
Regarding claim 37, Itoh teaches that a SiC coating is formed on the first dummy substrate by chemical vapor deposition (see ¶¶[0125]-[0140] which teach that a SiC epitaxial film is deposited onto the wafers (14) by CVD which will necessarily also form a SiC coating on surfaces of the wafer holders (100) as the wafer holder (100) itself is also exposed to the Si- and C-containing precursor gases). Even if it is assumed arguendo that Itoh does not teach a SiC coating on a surface of the support plate, this would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pickering. In Figs. 1-2 and col. 2, l. 41 to col. 5, l. 13 Pickering teaches an analogous embodiment of a susceptor (10) for film growth from the vapor phase which includes an annular-shaped ring (14) and a blocker (16). In col. 3, l. 61 to col. 4, l. 3 Pickering specifically teaches that the susceptor (10) may be made from materials such as SiC or graphite coated with SiC. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pickering and would recognize that the boat (30), including columns (31a)-(31c), may be made from SiC-coated graphite which has been deposited by CVD as taught by Itoh in order to, for example, minimize the propensity for contamination arising from the graphite itself. Moreover, in this case the use of SiC-coated graphite as the susceptor in Itoh would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use.
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2006/0060145 to Van Den Berg, et al. (“Van Den Berg”).
Regarding claim 27, Itoh teaches that a width of each groove of the plurality of grooves is set to accommodate the temporary substrate inserted in a direction with the main surface oriented orthogonally to the extending direction of the edge (see Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶[0094]-[0105] which teach that the vertical width of each holder support (HS) is set to accommodate each wafer holder (100) which is inserted in a direction with the main surface of the wafer holder (100) being perpendicular to a direction of the edge of the holder support (HS)), but does not teach that the temporary substrate has a thickness of 2 mm. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0026]-[0031] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Van Den Berg teaches an analogous embodiment of a wafer boat (10) which includes a plurality of susceptors (100) for supporting one or more substrates. In ¶[0027] Van Den Berg specifically teaches that the susceptor is preferably less than 4 mm thick, more preferably less than 3 mm thick, and even more preferably, less than about 2 mm thick so that the susceptor may heat up and cool down in a suitable time frame and is similar in thickness to the thickness of the substrates. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize wafer holders (100) in the apparatus of Itoh which have a thickness of approximately 2 mm so that the susceptor may heat up and cool down in a reasonable time frame while still having sufficient rigidity to support the substrate.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights