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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 20, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marutani et al. (JP 2881217) in view of Campbell et al. (US 4547004).
As to claims 1, 20 and 24, Marutani et al. discloses chemical vapor deposition equipment (see Background, 0002), comprising a reaction chamber (10 of Fig. 1), having a gas inlet (13 of Fig. 1) and a gas outlet (near14 of Fig. 1), a susceptor being provided in the reaction chamber for carrying the substrate (15 of Fig. 1); an outer housing, provided outside of the reaction chamber (see 20 of Fig. 1), an accommodation space being formed between the inner wall of the outer housing and an outer wall of the reaction chamber; a heating source (11 of Fig. 1; lamps) used to heat the substrate through the outer wall of the reaction chamber; and pressure adjusting devices (62, 64 – pressure regulators) used to adjust the temperature of the reaction chamber an accommodation space. The reaction space is between the gas inlet and outlet; the pressure regulator is connected to the accommodating space.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marutani et al. fails to teach a plurality of radiant heating sources as required by claims 1 and 20.
Campbell et al. discloses a chemical vapor deposition device which is capable of uniformly distribute heat around a reaction chamber. Campbell et al. discloses radiant heaters spaced evenly around the housing in order to provide precise control over the temperature of the reaction chamber (see col. 8,lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marutani et al. to include the heating devices of Campbell. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to chemical vapor deposition chambers having an inner and outer chamber where the inner chamber is heated via lamp while Campbell further teaches multiple heaters to provide more control over the temperature of the inner/reaction chamber.
As to claims 7 and 22, the bottom of the reaction chamber comprises an extension tube extending downwards, a rotating shaft is provided in the extension tube and a top of the rotating shaft is used for supporting and drying the susceptor thereby rotating the substrate (See 16 of Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marutani et al. (JP 2881217) in view of Campbell et al. (US 4547004). as applied to claims 1, and further in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 6326597).
The teachings of Marutani et al. and Campbell et al. as applied to claim 1 and 20 are as stated above.
Marutani et al. and Campbell et al. fail to teach gas driving devices to enhance gas flow in the accommodation space as required by claims 2 and 25.
Lubomirsky et al. discloses a temperature control system for an epitaxial CVD reactor (see col. 7, lines 23-25) . There is a reaction chamber (below ceiling 45 of Fig. 2) holding a substrate, and an outer chamber (inside wall 110). Lubomirsky et al. teaches using a fan (see 145 of Fig. 2) in the outer housing (accommodating space) that recirculates air around the process chamber, with the air flowing between the chamber outer surface and the housing inner wall and passing through a heat exchanger (see Fig. 2). Lubomirsky et al. states the forced air circulation allows for a stable, uniform temperature environment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equipment of Marutani et al. and Campbell et al. to include the forced air system in the accommodation space as taught by Lubomirsky et al. in order to form a stable, and uniform temperature environment reducing film non-uniformity and degradation of the equipment.
As to claim 3, Lubomirsky et al. teaches the gas driving device is provided in the accommodation space (outer chamber area) to drive gas to flow around the outer wall of the reaction chamber (see Fig. 2).
As to claims 4 and 21, the chamber has an inlet and outlet area where there are reinforcing ribs on the outer wall of the reaction chamber where the density is smaller than that of the gas inlet and outlet area (see Fig. 2 of Lubomirsky et al.).
As to claims 6 and 27, the reinforcing ribs and chamber are formed of quartz (see col. 4 lines 34-50 of Lubomirsky et al.
As to claim 8, the reaction chamber comprises a domed shaped top wall (see Fig. 2 of Lubomirsky et al.) where the height from the edge of the substrate to the top of the wall is less than the height from the center of the substrate to the top of the wall.
As to claims 13 and 23, the equipment comprises a temperature control loop where the gas driving devices and a second heat exchange device is used to cool the gas (see Fig. 2 of Lubomirsky et al.).
As to claim 14, the gas flows into the space from the top and flows from both sides (195/165 of Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, the gas is air (see abstract).
As to claim 18, the substrate is provided on the susceptor and the pressure is regulated using the regulation device of Marutani and the process is formed while the driving gas flows using the fans of Lubomirsky et al.
As to claim 19, the pressure is at atmospheric pressure (see background of Marutani).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-12, 16 and 17 are 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.
Claim 26 is allowed.
As to claim 5, Toyoda et al. (US 7033937) discloses a chamber used for manufacturing semiconductor devices. The reaction chamber has reinforcing ribs around the chamber but fails to teach or suggest a single reinforcing rib that has a downward projection that passes through the center of the substrate and where ribs are located at the inlet and outlet areas as required by claim 5.
As to claims 9-12,17, and 26 the prior art Lin (US 2020/0135509) teaches a chamber having ports that can be sealed with vacuum flanges with knife edges or O-rings to ensure maintenance of vacuum pressure levels within the chamber (see 0024). The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed chamber-to-outer-housing attachment scheme wherein first and second chamber end flanges are attached to first and second fasteners on an outer housing, and further fails to teach cooling fluid channels formed in the outer housing fasteners.
As to claim 16, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest a secondary temperature loop comprising a first container maintained at a first pressure higher than the accommodation space and a second container maintained at a pressure lower than the accommodation space as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1715
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715