Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Claim 1 recites:
“A chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor for the deposition of an SiC layer on a substrate (10)”.
It would be a better form if amended to be:
“A chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor for depositing a SiC layer on a substrate (10)”.
(2) Based on the prior cited “a first lower face (12') located opposite to the first upper face” of Claim 1,
The “a second upper face located opposite the second lower face”,
“a third lower face (30') located opposite the third upper face” of Claim 1 should be:
“a second upper face located opposite to the second lower face”,
“a third lower face (30') located opposite to the third upper face”
It is respectfully requested to amend the other “opposite” across the claim list.
(3) Claim 1 recites:
“wherein the supporting ring (20) has a radially inner region (22) with a second lower face (22") that rests on the supporting flank (13), and a second upper face located opposite the second lower face (22") that forms a seating face (23) for seating an edge (10') of the substrate (10), wherein the supporting ring (20) has a radially outer region (21) with a third upper face (26) and a third lower face (30') located opposite the third upper face (26), the third lower face (30') adjoining an outer wall (36) extending along a second cylindrical surface, and wherein the seating face (23) is bounded by a contact surface (24) with a first diameter (D1)”.
It would be a better form if amended to be:
“wherein the supporting ring (20) comprises:
a radially inner region (22) comprising a second lower face (22") resting on the supporting flank (13), and a second upper face located opposite the second lower face (22") and forming a seating face (23) for seating an edge (10') of the substrate (10); and
a radially outer region (21) comprising a third upper face (26) and a third lower face (30') located opposite the third upper face (26), the third lower face (30') adjoining an outer wall (36) extending along a second cylindrical surface;
and wherein the seating face (23) is bounded by a contact surface (24) with a first diameter (D1)”.
(4) Claim 1 recites:
“an annular web (33) with an inner wall (34) extending along a third cylindrical surface with a second diameter (D2), wherein the annular web (33) extends along the peripheral wall (19), wherein the first diameter (D1) is greater than the second diameter (D2) only by a magnitude of a diametric tolerance of the substrate (10), and wherein a height (d) of the annular web (33) measured between the second lower face (22") of the radially inner region (22) and a lower edge (37) of the annular web (33) is less than a distance (b) between the supporting flank (13) and the first lower face (12')”.
It would be a better form if amended to be:
“an annular web (33) with an inner wall (34) extending along a third cylindrical surface with a second diameter (D2),
wherein:
the annular web (33) extends along the peripheral wall (19),
the first diameter (D1) is greater than the second diameter (D2) only by a magnitude of a diametric tolerance of the substrate (10), and
a height (d) of the annular web (33) measured between the second lower face (22") of the radially inner region (22) and a lower edge (37) of the annular web (33) is less than a distance (b) between the supporting flank (13) and the first lower face (12')”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-a. The “heating device” in claim 1, because of the term “device”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Claim 11 has a new matter, because it contradicts to the applicants’ disclosure. The applicants’ Fig. 7 shows the wall 34 has a lower height than the wall 36, but the claim requires apposite feature.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) Claim 1 recites “for mounting a substrate (10)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation will be examined inclusive of “for mounting the substrate (10)”.
(2) Claim 1 recites:
“wherein the susceptor arrangement (3) comprises:
a bearing device for mounting a substrate (10) to be treated in the process chamber (2);
a circular disc-shaped substrate holder…;
a peripheral wall…
a supporting ring…”
Based on the form of the limitation above, the current claim is constructed such that the susceptor arrangement has the bearing device, the circular disc-shaped substrate holder, the peripheral wall, the supporting ring, and other components.
However, the applicants’ disclosures appear that the susceptor arrangement has a bearing device comprising the components (circular disc-shaped substrate holder, peripheral wall, supporting ring or etc.).
In other words, the current claim form is not constructed based on the disclosures, thus it is not clear what structural difference in the current claim form is required between the bearing device and one of the other components (circular disc-shaped substrate holder, peripheral wall, supporting ring or etc.).
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined as:
“wherein the susceptor arrangement (3) comprises a bearing device for mounting a substrate (10) to be treated in the process chamber (2);
the bearing device comprising:
a circular disc-shaped substrate holder…;
a peripheral wall…
a supporting ring…”
(3) The “a magnitude of a diametric tolerance of the substrate” of Claim 1 and the similar limitations of other claims are not clear, because the “magnitude” appears to have a meaning of “diametric tolerance of the substrate”.
(4) The “the supporting ring (20), which is essentially T-shaped in cross-section” of Claim 8 is not clear, because the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
(5) Claim 13 is not clear, because it is not clear what the “a thickness corresponds to a thickness” means. The term “corresponds” is not clearly defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollberg et al. (DE 102013012082, filed in IDS, hereafter ‘082).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘082 teaches:
a reactor housing of a CVD reactor (middle portion of page 4 of English translation, note the CVD reactor is capable of depositing an SiC layer on a substrate, the SiC film does not add a patentable weight to the CVD reactor, see the MPEP citations above, the claimed “A chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor for the deposition of an SiC layer on a substrate (10), the CVD reactor comprising: a housing (1)”);
susceptor 3 (Fig. 1, middle portion of page 4, the claimed “a susceptor arrangement (3) arranged within the housing (1)”);
heater 3 (middle portion of page 4, the claimed “a heating device (6) for heating the susceptor arrangement (3)”);
a process chamber ceiling 31, which forms a gas inlet member through which process gases into the process chamber 1 be initiated (middle portion of page 4, the claimed “a process chamber ceiling (4); a process chamber (2) arranged between the process chamber ceiling (4) and the susceptor arrangement (3); and a gas inlet element (5) for feeding a process gas into the process chamber (2)”);
The substrate 15 can on the top 13 the plate 12 rest (Figs. 1-2, middle portion of page 5, the claimed “wherein the susceptor arrangement (3) comprises: a bearing device for mounting a substrate (10) to be treated in the process chamber (2); a circular disc-shaped substrate holder (12) having a first upper face (32), and a first lower face (12') located opposite to the first upper face (32); a peripheral wall (19) extending along a first cylindrical surface”);
transport ring 6 (top portion of page 6, note Fig. 7 shows different shape of transporting ring 6 having all the features as recited, see the illustration below, the claimed “a supporting ring (20) carried by a supporting flank (13) of the substrate holder (12), wherein the supporting ring (20) has a radially inner region (22) with a second lower face (22") that rests on the supporting flank (13), and a second upper face located opposite the second lower face (22") that forms a seating face (23) for seating an edge (10') of the substrate (10), wherein the supporting ring (20) has a radially outer region (21) with a third upper face (26) and a third lower face (30') located opposite the third upper face (26), the third lower face (30') adjoining an outer wall (36) extending along a second cylindrical surface, and wherein the seating face (23) is bounded by a contact surface (24) with a first diameter (D1)”);
PNG
media_image1.png
265
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See the annular web portion in the illustration above (the claimed “and an annular web (33) with an inner wall (34) extending along a third cylindrical surface with a second diameter (D2), wherein the annular web (33) extends along the peripheral wall (19)”).
Further, the illustration above clearly teaches:
“wherein the first diameter (D1) is greater than the second diameter (D2)”,
“wherein a height (d) of the annular web (33) measured between the second lower face (22") of the radially inner region (22) and a lower edge (37) of the annular web (33)”, and
“a distance (b) between the supporting flank (13) and the first lower face (12')”).
Thus, ‘082 merely silent about the other limitations “only by a magnitude of a diametric tolerance of the substrate (10)” and “is less than”.
In regards to the “only by a magnitude of a diametric tolerance of the substrate (10)”,
Figs. 3-6 of ‘082 clearly shows various size adjustments of the plate 12 and the transport ring 6, thus the diameter is considered being a mere controllable parameter, in other words, result effective parameter.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the size variation by a diametric tolerance of the substrate, as recited, for the purpose of controlling substrate edge holding capability, and/or further since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04. Further MPEP also clearly guides changes in Size is a mere obvious matter.
In regards to the “is less than”,
Fig. 7 of ‘082 or the illustration above shows the height and distance appear same. However, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘082 such that the height is little less than the distance, for the purpose of preventing the web from being floated by longer web, which results in the ring not being seated on the plate. It is obvious to properly seating on the plate, the length of the web portion should be at least equal or less than the distance.
Regarding to Claim 3,
Claim 3 has mere similar limitations for the “Supporting ring” of Claim 1, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding to Claim 4,
Claim 4 has mere similar limitations for the “bearing arrangement” having the “Supporting ring” of Claim 1, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding to Claims 2 and 5,
Fig. 7 of ‘082 or the illustration above shows the height and distance appear same. Further if the web does not bother the seating of the transport ring on the plate, the web would be almost same (the claimed “wherein the height (d) is at least 50 % of the distance (b) of Claim 2 and “a height (d) of the annular web (33), measured from the first lower face (22") of the radially inner region (22) to a lower edge (37) of the annular web (33) is less than 100 %, but is at least 50 % of a distance (b) between the supporting flank (13) and the first lower face (12') of the substrate holder (12)” of Claim 5).
Regarding to Claim 6,
Fig. 7 of ‘082 or the illustration above shows the same contact surface (the claimed “wherein the contact surface (23) extending along a third cylindrical surface extends radially inside the outer wall (36), and radially outside the inner wall (34)”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
Fig. 7 of ‘082 or the illustration above shows the inclined flank that reduces a thickness of the web (the claimed “wherein the inner wall (34), with rounding or inclined flank (35) that reduces a material thickness of the annular web (33), merges into a lower edge (37) of the annular web (33), and wherein the lower edge (37) of the annular web (33) adjoins the outer wall (36)”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
Fig. 7 of ‘082 or the illustration above shows a T shape (the claimed “the supporting ring (20), which is essentially T-shaped in cross-section”).
Further, ‘082 teaches a susceptor consisting of, for example, graphite, molybdenum, quartz, or other suitable material 2 educated (middle portion of page 3), and is silent about the “is made of SiC”.
However, SiC is well-known material for susceptor, and used as a substituting material for graphite or quartz.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a SiC material, for the purpose of providing thermal resistance, and/or for its suitability as known material with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 9,
Fig. 7 of ‘082 or the illustration above shows the radially outer region (the claimed “wherein the radially outer region (21) forms an outer surface (30) extending along a third cylindrical shell surface, and the radially inner region (22) has an inner surface (22') extending radially inside the inner wall (34) along a fourth cylindrical surface”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
Fig. 2 shows concentric inner and outer surfaces of the transport ring. Further, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 3-6 of ‘082 clearly shows various size adjustments of the plate 12 and the transport ring 6, thus the diameter is considered being a mere controllable parameter, in other words, result effective parameter. Therefore, it is obvious to find the recited size, because when the thickness of the web is changed, the relation between the thickness of the web and the height of the web would be changed (the claimed “wherein the first cylindrical surface is concentric with the second cylindrical surface, wherein a distance between the first and second cylindrical surfaces is at most 50 % of a height (d) between the first lower face (22") of the radially inner region (22) and a lower surface (37) of the annular web (33)”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights