DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on January 12, 2026 was received. No claim was amended. Claims 7 and 19 were canceled. Claim 20 was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued September 18, 2025.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on January 12, 2026 has been entered.
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 8-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-11 depending on claim 7 which has been canceled, thus, it is unclear which claims are they supposed to depend on. Particularly, claims 8-10 recites the limitation "the beam". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, claims 8-11 are considered to depend on claim 1, “the beam” is interpreted as “a beam”. However, applicant should clarify what intended, without add new matter.
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 claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940) on claims 1-6 and 12-15 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940) in view of Brezoczky (US6241477).
Regarding claim 1, Powell teaches a method for depositing a film on a substrate by transporting the substrate through vapor in a chamber (abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0004 and 0012) (vapor transport deposition). Powell teaches to vaporize a semiconductor powder into a semiconductor vapor (paragraphs 0047, 0005, 0025, figure 8). Powell teaches to heat a manifold 114 using extremal heaters 117A and 118A (paragraphs 0050, figure 8). Powell teaches the manifold is heated to a temperature sufficient to maintain the vapor in a vapor state, which indicates the heating reduces condensation of the semiconductor vapor on the manifold, including the distribution holes 116 and the lip around the distribution holes (paragraph 0050). Powell teaches to control the temperature of the vaporization to vaporize the powder (paragraph 0037) and to control the heating at a temperature sufficient to maintain the vapor in a vapor state (paragraphs 0050). Powell teaches to depositing the semiconductor vapor onto ta substrate (paragraph 0048 and 0051). Powell does not explicitly control of the temperature of vaporizing and heating are conducted separately. However, it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E.). In this case, there is only two possible solutions: the controlling of the temperature of the vaporizing and heating conducted together or separately; both of the scenarios result in the same solution of achieving desired temperature of the process. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to control the temperature of vaporizing and heating separately in light of the teaching of Powell, especially Powell teaches the vaporizing and heating are conducted by two separate heaters (paragraphs 0047 and 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Powell teaches the vaporizing the semiconductor powder into the vapor using a vaporizer111/112 (paragraph 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 3, Powell teaches to heat the manifold using a heater tube 117A (paragraph 0050, figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Powell teaches to deposit the vapor ono the substrate though the distribution hole 116 (nozzle) on the manifold 114 (paragraph 0050, figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Powell teaches to manifold comprises a channel bounded by an inner surface of the manifold 114, and the distribution hole 116 (nozzle) extends through the inner surface and an outer surface of the manifold (see figure 8, paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 6, Powell teaches the manifold 114 channel receives the semiconductor vapor from the vaporizer111/112 (paragraphs 0048-0049) and the vapor flows from the channel and through the nozzle 116 to the substrate (paragraphs 0050-0051, figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Powell teaches the nozzle extends through eh oute34r surface of the manifold a substate facing portion of the manifold 114, and wherein the vaporizer 111/1112 is disposed above at an opposite side of the manifold from the substrate facing portion of the manifold (see figure 8)
Regarding claim 13, Powell teaches heating the manifold 114, including the lip, to a temperature sufficient to maintain the vapor in a vapor state (paragraph 0050), for example of 500 to 1200 degree C, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the heating temperature in the process sufficient enough to maintain the vapor in the vapor state for the deposition of the vapor (paragraph 0050). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 14, Powell teaches heating the manifold 114, including the lip, to a temperature sufficient to maintain the vapor in a vapor state (paragraph 0050), for example of 500 to 1200 degree C, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the heating temperature in the process sufficient enough to maintain the vapor in the vapor state for the deposition of the vapor (paragraph 0050). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 15, Powell teaches to heat the vaporizer to the powder (paragraph 0037), for example of 500 to 1200 degree C, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Powell also teaches the temperature govern the speed of vaporization of the powder (paragraph 0037) Thus, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the heating temperature of the vaporizer in the process to sufficiently vaporize the powder at a desired speed (paragraph 0037). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940) as applied to claims 1-6 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Brezoczky (US6241477).
Regarding claim 8, Powell teaches in an alternate embedment that a pair of cradle105 is used to support the manifold 102, wherein the manifold 102 surround a tubular sheath 101 (a beam) which covers the heater tube 100 (heater) (paragraph 0044, figure 7), wherein the a pair of cradles 105 supports the beam along with the manifold 102 (see figure 7) and the cradles forms a gap 109 (see figure 7) and the heater tube 100 is expected to heat the beam during the vaporization; thus Powell teaches a beam that spans across a gap formed between cradles, the beam having an inner cavity with a heater disposed within the inner cavity, and the heater heats the beam. Powell teaches a second beam 118B (second beam) disposed across from the beam 118A, and are proximate to the flow of the uniform vapor/carrier gas composition directed out of nozzle 116 (paragraph 0050, figure 8), the space between the two beams reads on the limitation of a flux exit slot, wherein the semiconductor vapor flows through the flux exit slot to the substrate (paragraphs 0050-0051, figure 8).
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the manifold nozzles 116 are arranged in a line parallel to the length of the external heating tube sheaths 118A (a beam), wherein the external heating tube sheath 118A covers the external heater tubes 117A, which conducts heat to manifold 114 through the external heating tube sheath 118A (paragraph 0050, figure 8), which reads on the limitations of the beam having an inner cavity with a heater disposed within the inner cavity, and the heater heats the beam. Thus, Powell teaches all the limitation of these claims, except the beam spans across a gap formed between cradles. However, Brezoczky teaches a chemical vapor deposition substrate processing chamber (abstract, column 1 lines 10-25). Brezoczky teaches a heating element ring is secured by one or more fasteners to the chamber sidewall to heat the component inside of the chamber (see figure 1, column 6 lines 30-60). Since Powell teaches the candles (position a component across a gap of cradles) are known to support and fasteners structure for the structural component inside of the chamber (see paragraph 0044). It would be obvious to use cradles to support the beams (span across a gap formed between cradles) to the chamber sidewall, including the external heating beams (118A/B) and tubular heater beams (101 or 112) (see figures 7 and 8). The selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the heating element by one or more fasteners to the chamber sidewall as suggested by Brezoczky in the method of Powell because Brezoczky teaches such heating element configuration facilitate heating the component inside of the process chamber (column 6 lines 30-60).
Regarding claim 9, Powell teaches the beam contacts the manifold 114 (paragraph 0050, figure 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940) as applied to claims 1-6 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Brezoczky (US6241477) and Probst (US20120122276).
Regarding claim 10, Powell teaches in an alternate embedment that a pair of cradle105 is used to support the manifold 102, wherein the manifold 102 surround a tubular sheath 101 (a beam) which covers the heater tube 100 (heater) (paragraph 0044, figure 7), wherein the a pair of cradles 105 supports the beam along with the manifold 102 (see figure 7) and the cradles forms a gap 109 (see figure 7) and the heater tube 100 is expected to heat the beam during the vaporization; thus Powell teaches a beam that spans across a gap formed between cradles, the beam having an inner cavity with a heater disposed within the inner cavity, and the heater heats the beam. Powell teaches a second beam 118B (second beam) disposed across from the beam 118A, and are proximate to the flow of the uniform vapor/carrier gas composition directed out of nozzle 116 (paragraph 0050, figure 8), the space between the two beams reads on the limitation of a flux exit slot, wherein the semiconductor vapor flows through the flux exit slot to the substrate (paragraphs 0050-0051, figure 8).
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the manifold nozzles 116 are arranged in a line parallel to the length of the external heating tube sheaths 118A (a beam), wherein the external heating tube sheath 118A covers the external heater tubes 117A, which conducts heat to manifold 114 through the external heating tube sheath 118A (paragraph 0050, figure 8), which reads on the limitations of the beam having an inner cavity with a heater disposed within the inner cavity, and the heater heats the beam. Thus, Powell teaches all the limitation of these claims, except the beam spans across a gap formed between cradles. However, Brezoczky teaches a chemical vapor deposition substrate processing chamber (abstract, column 1 lines 10-25). Brezoczky teaches a heating element ring is secured by one or more fasteners to the chamber sidewall to heat the component inside of the chamber (see figure 1, column 6 lines 30-60). Since Powell teaches the candles (position a component across a gap of cradles) are known to support and fasteners structure for the structural component inside of the chamber (see paragraph 0044). It would be obvious to use cradles to support the beams (span across a gap formed between cradles) to the chamber sidewall, including the external heating beams (118A/B) and tubular heater beams (101 or 112) (see figures 7 and 8). The selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the heating element by one or more fasteners to the chamber sidewall as suggested by Brezoczky in the method of Powell because Brezoczky teaches such heating element configuration facilitate heating the component inside of the process chamber (column 6 lines 30-60).
Powell in view of Brezoczky teaches all the limitations of this claim, except the outer surface of the beam is coated with a low emissivity coating. Probst teaches a method of thermal evaporation for depositing a material on a substrate (abstract). Probst teaches that emission reducing means are arranged such that an external surface of the vapor outlet means directed to said substrate exhibits low emission (abstract). Probst teaches that suitably the emissivity of the emission reducing means is 0.6 or less, preferably 0.5 or less, more preferably 0.3 or less. Of particular relevance is the emission and emissivity in the direction of the substrate during normal operation (paragraph 0020). Probst teaches the emission reducing layer 6 is provided only on a portion of the surface of the vapor receiving pipe 4 such that the surface portion of the vapor outlet means 3 facing the substrate 5 is covered by the emission reducing layer 6 (paragraph 0066, figure 6; same as Applicant’s low emissivity coating 408 facing the substrate, see Figs. 2-4 for coating entire surface), for the purpose of that the substrate will not be heated above the maximum temperature during thermal evaporation of the material (paragraph 0031). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply low emissivity coating 6 to the substrate facing surface (a portion of the beams 118A) as suggested by Probst in the method of Powell in view of Brezoczky because Probst teaches such coating can avoid the substrate being heated above the maximum temperature during thermal evaporation of the material (paragraph 0031)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940) in view of Brezoczky (US6241477) and Probst (US20120122276) as applied to claims 1-6, 10 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Luks (US3291619)
Regarding claim 11, Powell in view of Brezoczky and Probst teaches all the limitations of this claim, except the outer surface of the beam is coated with the specific a low emissivity coating. However, Luks is solving similar problem of ceramic (and emissivity (column 1 lines 1-11). Luks teaches that a white alumina body has an emissivity of about 0.2 (col. 1, lines 29-30). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted white alumina ceramic as suggested by Luks as the material for the imported low emissivity coating in the method of Powell in view of Brezoczky and Probst for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940)) as applied to claims 1-6 and 12-15, and further in view of Beck (US20160281212).
Regarding claim 16, Powell teaches the vaporizer comprises a permeable wall vaporizer (paragraphs 0047-0048), Thus, Powell teaches all limitations of the claim, except the power supplied level. However, Beck teaches a deposition method using evaporation sources having disposed therearound an insulation material (abstract). Beck teaches that conventional systems with high thermal mass have the added advantage that control of the thermal evaporation process is simplified as temperature fluctuations based on power fluctuations to the heaters are typically negligible. Highly effective thermal insulation further reduces sensitivity to incoming power fluctuations. Such thermal insulation also reduces heat losses to the surroundings, i.e., it increases thermal coupling efficiency of the electrical heater power to the material to be evaporated, leading to lower operating costs. In summary, high thermal mass and highly effective thermal insulation are important aspects of conventional industrial thermal evaporation processes (paragraph 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided effective fiber blanket insulation 104 in Powell as suggested by Beck in the method of Powell because Beck teaches such insulation increase power efficiency and lower operating cost (paragraph 0005). The combination of Powell in view of Beck discloses the claimed invention except for power efficiency at 70% or more. However, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the power efficiency in the process to yield desired lower operation cost. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Powell teaches the vaporizer comprises a permeable wall vaporizer (paragraphs 0047-0048), Thus, Powell teaches all limitations of the claim, except the power supplied level. Powell teaches the vaporizer comprises a permeable wall vaporizer (paragraphs 0047-0048), Thus, Powell teaches all limitations of the claim, except the power supplied level. However, Beck teaches a deposition method using evaporation sources having disposed therearound an insulation material (abstract). Beck teaches that conventional systems with high thermal mass have the added advantage that control of the thermal evaporation process is simplified as temperature fluctuations based on power fluctuations to the heaters are typically negligible. Highly effective thermal insulation further reduces sensitivity to incoming power fluctuations. Such thermal insulation also reduces heat losses to the surroundings, i.e., it increases thermal coupling efficiency of the electrical heater power to the material to be evaporated, leading to lower operating costs. In summary, high thermal mass and highly effective thermal insulation are important aspects of conventional industrial thermal evaporation processes (paragraph 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided effective fiber blanket insulation 104 in Powell as suggested by Beck in the method of Powell because Beck teaches such insulation increase power efficiency and lower operating cost (paragraph 0005). The combination of Powell in view of Beck discloses the claimed invention except for power efficiency at 80% or more. However, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the power efficiency in the process to yield desired lower operation cost. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Powell teaches the vaporizer comprises a permeable wall vaporizer (paragraphs 0047-0048), Thus, Powell teaches all limitations of the claim, except the power supplied level. Powell teaches the vaporizer comprises a permeable wall vaporizer (paragraphs 0047-0048), Thus, Powell teaches all limitations of the claim, except the power supplied level. However, Beck teaches a deposition method using evaporation sources having disposed therearound an insulation material (abstract). Beck teaches that conventional systems with high thermal mass have the added advantage that control of the thermal evaporation process is simplified as temperature fluctuations based on power fluctuations to the heaters are typically negligible. Highly effective thermal insulation further reduces sensitivity to incoming power fluctuations. Such thermal insulation also reduces heat losses to the surroundings, i.e., it increases thermal coupling efficiency of the electrical heater power to the material to be evaporated, leading to lower operating costs. In summary, high thermal mass and highly effective thermal insulation are important aspects of conventional industrial thermal evaporation processes (paragraph 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided effective fiber blanket insulation 104 in Powell as suggested by Beck in the method of Powell because Beck teaches such insulation increase power efficiency and lower operating cost (paragraph 0005). The combination of Powell in view of Beck discloses the claimed invention except for power efficiency at 90% or more. However, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the power efficiency in the process to yield desired lower operation cost. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (US20060236940) in view of Brezoczky (US6241477).
Regarding claim 20, Powell teaches a method for depositing a film on a substrate by transporting the substrate through vapor in a chamber (abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0004 and 0012) (vapor transport deposition). Powell teaches to vaporize a semiconductor powder into a semiconductor vapor (paragraphs 0047, 0005, 0025, figure 8). Powell teaches to heat a manifold 114 using extremal heaters 117A and 118A (paragraphs 0050, figure 8). Powell teaches the manifold is heated to a temperature sufficient to maintain the vapor in a vapor state, which indicates the heating reduces condensation of the semiconductor vapor on the manifold, including the distribution holes 116 and the lip around the distribution holes (paragraph 0050). Powell teaches to control the temperature of the vaporization to vaporize the powder (paragraph 0037) and to control the heating at a temperature sufficient to maintain the vapor in a vapor state (paragraphs 0050). Powell teaches to depositing the semiconductor vapor onto the substrate (paragraph 0048 and 0051). Powell does not explicitly control of the temperature of vaporizing and heating are conducted separately. However, it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E.). In this case, there is only two possible solutions: the controlling of the temperature of the vaporizing and heating conducted together or separately; both of the scenarios result in the same solution of achieving desired temperature of the process. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to control the temperature of vaporizing and heating separately in light of the teaching of Powell, especially Powell teaches the vaporizing and heating are conducted by two separate heaters (paragraphs 0047 and 0050). Powell further teaches in an alternate embedment that a pair of cradle105 is used to support the manifold 102, wherein the manifold 102 surround a tubular sheath 101 (a beam) which covers the heater tube 100 (heater) (paragraph 0044, figure 7), wherein the a pair of cradles 105 supports the beam along with the manifold 102 (see figure 7) and the cradles forms a nozzle 109 (a gap) (see figure 7) and the heater tube 100 is expected to heat the beam during the vaporization; thus Powell teaches a beam that spans across a gap formed between cradles, the beam having an inner cavity with a heater disposed within the inner cavity, and the heater heats the beam. The cradle 105 reads on the limitations of cradles as duplication of parts or rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (See MPEP 2144.01 VI). In this case, there is no new or unexpected result to change the single cradle into two cradles.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the manifold nozzles 116 are arranged in a line parallel to the length of the external heating tube sheaths 118A (a beam), wherein the external heating tube sheath 118A covers the external heater tubes 117A, which conducts heat to manifold 114 through the external heating tube sheath 118A (paragraph 0050, figure 8), which reads on the limitations of the beam having an inner cavity with a heater disposed within the inner cavity, and the heater heats the beam. Thus, Powell teaches all the limitation of these claims, except the beam spans across a gap formed between cradles. However, Brezoczky teaches a chemical vapor deposition substrate processing chamber (abstract, column 1 lines 10-25). Brezoczky teaches a heating element ring is secured by one or more fasteners to the chamber sidewall to heat the component inside of the chamber (see figure 1, column 6 lines 30-60). Since Powell teaches the candles (position a component across a gap of cradles) are known to support and fasteners structure for the structural component inside of the chamber (see paragraph 0044). It would be obvious to use cradles to support the beams (span across a gap formed between cradles) to the chamber sidewall, including the external heating beams (118A/B) and tubular heater beams (101 or 112) (see figures 7 and 8). The selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the heating element by one or more fasteners to the chamber sidewall as suggested by Brezoczky in the method of Powell because Brezoczky teaches such heating element configuration facilitate heating the component inside of the process chamber (column 6 lines 30-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Claimed invention requires controlling a temperature of each of the vaporizing and heating separately for the advantages as described in paragraphs 34, 37and 38 (claim 1).
Feature 109 in figure. 7 (Powell) is not a gap between cradles, but a nozzle 109 formed in the singular cradle 105. Brezoczky discloses a physical vapor deposition chamber which is different from the vapor transport deposition (claim 20).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
The rejection includes reasons and analysis on how the it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose either separately control the temperature, as it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E.). Thus, there is only two possible solutions: the controlling of the temperature of the vaporizing and heating conducted together or separately; both of the scenarios result in the same solution of achieving desired temperature of the process as needed in the claim. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to control the temperature of vaporizing and heating separately in light of the teaching of Powell, especially Powell teaches the vaporizing and heating are conducted by two separate heaters (paragraphs 0047 and 0050). Specifically, claim 1 rejection relies on figure 8 on Powell’s teaching, which shows that the vaporizing is conducted by a tube 111 and the manifold 114 is heated using extremal heaters 117A and 118A (paragraphs 0050, figure 8), which indicates the different heating elements are being used for the vaporization and heating, and it would be obvious for these different heating elements to be controlled separately. While applicant point to the potential advantages of separately controlling the temperature of the vaporizing and heating in the specifications, those features (resulting from the separation of temperature control) are not part of the claim limitations. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the advantages for controlling the temperature of each of the vaporizing and heating separately) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Powell teaches “the uniform vapor/carrier gas composition is directed to a plurality of distribution holes 108 located at a position in distribution manifold 102 substantially opposite the position on tubular sheath 101 at which outlet 103 is located. The plurality of distribution holes 108 can be aligned along at least a portion of the length of distribution manifold 102. The uniform vapor/carrier gas composition is directed through distribution holes 108 toward a portion of graphite cradle 105, dispersing streams of uniform vapor/carrier gas composition directed through distribution holes 108 and further increasing the uniformity of the vapor/carrier gas with respect to composition, pressure, and velocity. In addition to heating graphite cradle 105, external heater tubes 106A and 106B are also proximate to nozzle 109 through which the uniform vapor/carrier gas composition is directed out of distributor assembly 300” (paragraph 0045) Thus, the single nozzle 109 would be expected to be along the length of the cradle 105 (to achieve the uniformity of the gas with respect to composition, pressure and velocity), which reads on the limitation of the gap. It is also noted that the claim does not specify that gap is required to be along the length of the beam or cradles. With respect to the limitation of single cradles, duplication of parts or rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (See MPEP 2144.01 VI). With respect to argument about Brezoczky teaches PVD chamber, it is noted that they are directed to an heating element in a chamber and Brezoczky merely provides a solution to secure such heating elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize such technique of securing heating element is a process chamber as disclosed by Brezoczky is applicable to other processing chamber involving heating element, such as Powell’s.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Li (US5835677).
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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights