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 .
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 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 21, 22, 26-37, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 212247270) in view of Sumakeris (US 2003/0079689).
Regarding claim 21, Liu teaches a reaction chamber, comprising:
a hollow heating member (300, Fig. 2) comprising an inner cavity;
a rotating platform (600) having multiple sides and being rotatably arranged in the inner cavity of the hollow heating member (300) to bear a wafer (Fig. 2 and 3);
a protection plate (310, 320) assembly arranged on two sides of the rotating platform;
and a separator (310,320)configured to match with the protection plate assembly;
wherein a reaction cavity surrounding the rotating platform is divided in the inner cavity, and an inner surface of the inner cavity (300) is not exposed to the reaction cavity (310, 320; Fig. 2 and 3).
Liu discloses the claimed protection plate and separator as a single integrated unit but it does not teach a separator and protection plate assembly as separate elements.
Sumakeris teaches a protection plate (152, 154) assembly arranged on two sides of the rotating platform (140); and a separator (120, 160, (130, fig. 1 ) configured to match with the protection plate assembly. Because Sumakeris teaches a multi-part protection plate and separator are operable in a SIC reactor housing assembly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the multipart assembly in place of the integrated protection plate and separator of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify to modify the protection plate and separator of Liu by providing a protection plate assembly arranged on two sides of the rotating platform; and a separator configured to match with the protection plate assembly, as taught by Sumakeris, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 22, Liu teaches the separator (310, 320) comprises two oppositely arranged side baffles (curved sides 310, 320, fig. 2) and an upper baffle (top of 310, 320) connecting with the two side baffles (curved sides), wherein the two side baffles are matched (integrated) with the protection plate assembly (bottom portion of 310, 320 surrounding tray 500, fig. 2),
and the two side baffles isolate the rotating platform (500)from a side wall of the inner cavity (300), and the upper baffle (top 310, 320) isolates the rotating platform (500) from a top wall of the inner cavity (Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 26, Liu teaches the two side baffles (curved sides 310, 320) are integrally formed with the upper baffle (top 310 , 320; fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 27, Liu teaches the separator comprises at least two sub-separators (left 310, right 320, fig. 2) along a flow direction of a reaction gas.
Regarding claim 28, Liu teaches the hollow heating member (300) has a single annular structure and has equal thicknesses across respective positions (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 29, Liu teaches a rotating groove (511) is arranged at a side of the rotating platform (500) away from the separator (bottom of pg. 5), a driving cavity is further arranged on the hollow heating member (300), the driving cavity is arranged under a bottom wall of the inner cavity and extends to a middle of the inner cavity along an opening direction of the inner cavity (Fig. 3),
and the rotating groove (511) is in fluid communication with the driving cavity (bottom of page 5).
Regarding claim 30, Liu teach the hollow heating member 300 further comprises a temperature measuring cavity (650, fig. 3), and the temperature measuring cavity is arranged at a bottom wall of the inner cavity and extends to a middle of the inner cavity along an opening direction (cutout for 500/600 of 300, fig. 2) of the inner cavity (300, bottom of page 3- top of pg. 4).
The Examiner takes the position that the temperature measuring cavity arranged at a top wall is a rearrangement of parts of the prior art device of Liu.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the temperature measuring cavity of Liu by providing it is arranged at a top wall of the inner cavity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 31, Liu teaches the reaction chamber further comprises a heat insulation layer (200), and the heat insulation layer covers the hollow heating member (300, fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 32, Liu does not explicitly teach the heat insulation layer is uniformly coated outside the hollow heating member, and the heat insulation layer comprises a plurality of sub-heat insulation members.
Sumakeris teach the heat insulation layer (120, 16, 18) is uniformly coated (127, fig. 8) outside the hollow heating member (160), and the heat insulation layer comprises a plurality of sub-heat insulation members (120, 16, 18, [0036], [0044]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heat insulation layer of Liu by providing the heat insulation layer is uniformly coated outside the hollow heating member, and the heat insulation layer comprises a plurality of sub-heat insulation members, as taught by Sumakeris, because it would reduce thermal radiation losses and prevent or reduce undesirable sublimation (pg. 2,[0032-0036] and provide insulation [0044]).
Regarding claim 33, Liu teaches the reaction chamber further comprises a heat insulation layer (200) and a gas guiding member(400), wherein the gas guiding member is located at a front end of the hollow heating member (300) and is in fluid communication with the reaction cavity of the hollow heating member, and the gas guiding member (400) is configured to guide a reaction gas (121, 122) entering an air inlet of the heat insulation layer (200) to the rotating platform (600) in the reaction cavity (Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 34, Liu teaches the gas guiding member (400) comprises a plurality of structures spliced up and down (Fig. 4).
Liu does not teach the structures are graphite. Nor does it teach a contact surface of each of the plurality of graphite structures comprises an insulation layer or an insulation component.
Sumakeris teaches components of a reactor to be made of graphite cores coated with an insulating layer of TaC to reduce thermal radiation losses (pg. 2, [0031-0036]). Because Sumakeris teaches these materials are operable in a SIC reactor housing assembly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have sued graphite structures with insulating coatings with the gas guide of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gas guide structures of Liu by providing the structures of graphite and a contact surface of each of the plurality of graphite structures comprises an insulation layer or an insulation component, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 35, Liu teaches the gas guiding member (400) has a single annular structure (Fig. 4). Liu teaches its CVD chamber comprises a quartz shell 100 wrapped with an inductive heating coil. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the gas guiding member is made of a non-conductive material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 1126 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 36, Liu does not teach surfaces of the rotating platform, the protection plate assembly and the separator exposed to the reaction chamber further comprise a coating.
Sumakeris teaches surfaces of the rotating platform, the protection plate assembly and the separator (152, 154, 130, 110 120, fig. 1) exposed to the reaction chamber (Fig. 1-3) further comprise a coating ([0032-0052].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the surfaces of the rotating platform, protection plate and separator of Liu by providing the surfaces of the rotating platform, the protection plate assembly and the separator exposed to the reaction chamber further comprise a coating, as taught by Sumakeris, because it would reduce thermal radiation losses and prevent or reduce undesirable sublimation (pg. 2,[0032-0036]; [0052]
Regarding claim 37, Sumakeris teaches the coating is a TaC coating because it would reduce thermal radiation losses and prevent or reduce undesirable sublimation (pg. 2,[0032-0036]; [0052]).
Regarding claim 39, Liu teaches the protection plate assembly has an integral structure (301, 302, fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 40, Liu teaches a reaction device, comprising the reaction chamber comprising:
a hollow heating member (300) comprising an inner cavity;
a rotating platform (600) rotatably arranged in the inner cavity of the hollow heating member (300) to bear a wafer;
a protection plate (310, 320) assembly arranged on two sides of the rotating platform;
and a separator (310, 320) configured to match with the protection plate assembly;
wherein a reaction cavity (Fig. 3) surrounding the rotating platform (600) is separated in the inner cavity (300), and an inner surface of the inner cavity is not exposed to the reaction cavity (310, 320, fig. 3).
Liu discloses the claimed protection plate and separator as a single integrated unit but it does not teach a separator and protection plate assembly as separate elements.
Sumakeris teaches a protection plate (152, 154) assembly arranged on two sides of the rotating platform (140); and a separator (120, 160, (130, fig. 1 ) configured to match with the protection plate assembly. Because Sumakeris teaches a multi-part protection plate and separator are operable in a SIC reactor housing assembly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the multipart assembly in place of the integrated protection plate and separator of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify to modify the protection plate and separator of Liu by providing a protection plate assembly arranged on two sides of the rotating platform; and a separator configured to match with the protection plate assembly, as taught by Sumakeris, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Sumakeris as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 102560431).
Regarding claim 38, Liu does not teach the inner cavity is one of two inner cavities of the hollow heating member, the two inner cavities are arranged up and down, and each of the two inner cavities comprises a rotating platform, a protection plate assembly and a separator.
Liu does not teach the inner cavity is one of two inner cavities of the hollow heating member, the two inner cavities are arranged up and down, and each of the two inner cavities comprises a rotating platform, a protection plate assembly and a separator.
Xu is directed to a deposition apparatus wherein the inner cavity is one of two inner cavities of a heating member (4540, 4640), the two inner cavities are arranged up and down (Fig. 4), and each of the two inner cavities comprises a rotating platform (4520, 4620, [0055], fig. 4). Xu teaches that providing two inner cavities in an inner cavity with two rotating platforms arranged up and down is operable in the deposition arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided an inner cavity is one of two inner cavities of the hollow heating member, the two inner cavities are arranged up and down, and each of the two inner cavities comprises a rotating platform in the inner cavity of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.
Xu does not teach providing each of its inner cavities with a protection plate assembly and separator. However, the Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inner cavity of Liu by providing each of the two inner cavities comprises a protection plate assembly and a separator, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI. B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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.
No prior art teaches the protection plate assembly comprises a front protection plate and a rear protection plate, the front protective plate and the rear protective plate are respectively arranged at two sides of the rotating platform, the front protection plate comprises two bearing surfaces at two side thereof, the rear protection plate comprises two supporting surfaces at two side thereof, each of the two side baffles comprises a matching surface at a side thereof facing the front protection plate and the rear protection plate, and the matching surface is opposite to a respective one of the two bearing surfaces and a respective one of the two supporting surfaces, the matching surface is matched with the respective one of the two bearing surfaces and the respective one of the two supporting surfaces to support a respective one of the two side baffles on the front protection plate and the rear protection plate as required by claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights