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 § 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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what is being claimed by “sleeved the periphery”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Pub App 2011/0065288) in view of Fukinishi (JP 2020/136538).
Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a high-temperature tube furnace, comprising:
a process tube (203), with a top cover arranged on the top end (Fig.2), the top cover having a plurality of through holes (Fig.2);
a gas supply pipe (233), connecting to the through holes of the top cover of the process tube for introducing process gas into the process tube through the gas supply pipe and the through holes of the top cover of the process tube (Fig.2);
a wafer boat (217), arranged in the process tube and comprising a supporting frame (Fig.1).
Harada does not further specifically disclose supporting plates that are distributed in a plurality of layers along the length direction of the supporting frame to support multiple substrates, and each substrate is placed on each layer of supporting plate and each layer of supporting plate supports the entire bottom of each substrate.
Fukinishi teaches a substrate support device which places substrates (100) on susceptors (14) in a wafer boat to support the substrates during processing and prevent deformation of the substrates (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Harada in view of Fukinishi to include supporting plates that are distributed in a plurality of layers along the length direction of the supporting frame to support multiple substrates, and each substrate is placed on each layer of supporting plate and each layer of supporting plate supports the entire bottom of each substrate in order to substrates during processing for the purpose of preventing deformation of the substrates.
Regarding claim 6, Harada further teaches wherein at least two slots are provided at the periphery of each layer of supporting plate, the supporting frame is provided with at least two blocks at the position corresponding to each layer of supporting plate, at least two blocks correspond to at least two slots one-to-one, and each layer of supporting plate is stuck to the blocks of the supporting frame through the slots (Fukinishi, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, Harada, as modified above, further teaches wherein the number of the slots is three, the three slots are uniformly distributed on the periphery of each supporting plate, and the angle between the two adjacent slots is 120 the number of the blocks is three, which correspond to the three slots one-to-one (Fukinishi, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 9, Harada, as modified above, further teaches wherein the supporting plate and the supporting frame are made of different materials (Fukinishi, Para.35).
Regarding claim 10, Harada further teaches wherein the supporting plate and the supporting frame are made of same material and formed in one (Fukinishi, Para.35).
Regarding claim 11, Harada, as modified above, further teaches wherein the material of the supporting plate is any one of quartz, silicon carbide, diamond, graphite, and graphene (Fukinishi, Para.35).
Regarding claim 12, Harada further teaches wherein the material of the supporting frame is any one of quartz, silicon carbide, and silicon (Fukinishi, Para.35).
Regarding claim 14, Harada, as modified above, further discloses wherein the top cover of the process tube is a double-layers structure including a top layer and a bottom layer, the top layer and the bottom layer of the top cover are arched structures (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 15, Harada, as modified above, further discloses wherein stiffeners are provided between the top layer and the bottom layer of the top cover to connect the top layer and the bottom layer of the top cover (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 17, Harada, as modified above, further discloses wherein the material of the process tube is quartz or silicon carbide (Para.32-32).
Regarding claim 18, Harada, as modified above, further discloses a liner tube, sleeved the periphery of the process pipe; and heating elements (Para.32-32), sleeved the periphery of the liner tube (see 112 rejection).
Regarding claim 19, Harada, as modified above, further discloses wherein the material of the liner tube is quartz or silicon carbide (Para.32-32).
Claims 2-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Pub App 2011/0065288) in view of Fukinishi (JP 2020/136538), as applied above, and further in view of Optoelectronic Tech (CN 102717185), cited by Applicant, see translation attached.
Regarding claim 2, Harada, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose wherein three guide grooves are provided on each layer of supporting plate, three suckers are provided on a manipulator for taking and placing the substrates, the three guide grooves correspond to the three suckers on the manipulator, the three suckers are inserted in the three guide grooves to take the substrate from the supporting plate or place the substrate on the supporting plate.
Optoelectronic Tech teaches a full-automatic semiconductor wafer laser processing device and a processing method wherein rotation platform 4 is arranged on support platform 31 rotating suction disc 43 comprises that two are placed station board and are connected two connectors of placing station board, connector is connected with oscillating cylinder, and is provided with groove 44 on each placement station board (Page 4, Para.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Harada in view of Optoelectronic Tech to have a manipulator for taking and placing the substrates in order to allow to securely handle substrates.
Regarding claim 3, Harada, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose wherein two guide grooves are provided on each layer of supporting plate, three suckers are provided on a manipulator for taking and placing the substrates, two suckers correspond to one guide groove, the remaining one sucker corresponds to the other guide groove, the three suckers are inserted in the two guide grooves to take the substrate from the supporting plate or place the substrate on the supporting plate.
Optoelectronic Tech teaches a full-automatic semiconductor wafer laser processing device and a processing method wherein rotation platform 4 is arranged on support platform 31 rotating suction disc 43 comprises that two are placed station board and are connected two connectors of placing station board, connector is connected with oscillating cylinder, and is provided with groove 44 on each placement station board (Page 4, Para.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Harada in view of Optoelectronic Tech to have a manipulator for taking and placing the substrates in order to allow to securely handle substrates.
Regarding claim 4, Harada, as modified above, further teaches wherein the three suckers on the manipulator are vacuum suckers for sucking the substrate (Optoelectronic Tech Abstract, Figs.1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Harada, as modified above, further teaches wherein the three suckers on the manipulator are all solid suckers and each of them is provided with a sealing ring, the solid suckers support the substrate through the friction of the sealing ring (Optoelectronic Tech Figs.1-6).
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Pub App 2011/0065288) in view of Fukinishi (JP 2020/136538), as applied above, and further in view of Adachi (JP 10-284429).
Regarding claim 7, Harada, as modified above, further discloses, wherein the number of the slots is four, the number of the blocks is four, and the four blocks are symmetrically arranged on both sides of the circumferential direction of each layer of supporting plate.
Adachi teaches a wafer support device used as a boat for heat treatment of a wafer, and prevents generation of a slip by preventing a wafer from being damaged during high-temperature processing having 4 slots with corresponding blocks (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Harada in view of Adachi to have 4 slots with corresponding blocks in order to increase support of the system.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Pub App 2011/0065288) in view of Fukinishi (JP 2020/136538), as applied above, and further in view of Kawamura (EP 1253631).
Regarding claim 13, Harada, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose wherein a plurality of protrusions or grooves are provided on the side of the supporting plate in contact with the bottom of the substrate.
Kawamura teaches a wafer holder, a wafer support member, a wafer holding device, and a heat-treating furnace wherein a supporting plate comprises a plurality of grooves (Figs.1-20, Para.24-82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Harada in view of Kawamura to have a plurality of protrusions or grooves to improve weight distribution.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Pub App 2011/0065288) in view of Fukinishi (JP 2020/136538), as applied above, and further in view of Ono (JP 2003/031514), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 16, Harada, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose wherein the top cover is a double-layers structure including a top layer and a bottom layer, the top layer of the top cover is an arched structure, and the bottom layer of the top cover is a planar structure, stiffeners are arranged between the top layer and the bottom layer of the top cover to connect the top layer and the bottom layer of the top cover.
Ono teaches a quartz process tube built in a vertical heating furnace for processing a semiconductor wafer including a process tube comprising a double-layer structure (Abstract, Fig.5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Harada in view of Ono in order to prevent deformation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakao, Hyun, Okada, Lee, Tanaka, Miyashita, Inokuchi, Lindeboom, Wada, De Ridder, Shima, Toshida, Tani, Asai, Kaneko, Tanaka, Toyodo and Saido further disclose elements of a high-temperature tube furnace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY K ROMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights