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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are pending (claims 1,5,and 6 independent), and have been examined herein on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim reads “ the internal shaft and the vertical shaft part that are arranged eccentric to each other’’. The Examiner suggests amending the word “eccentric’’ to say “ concentric for a proper meaning. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schaller teaches a substrate supporting apparatus (Fig1, support assembly#130 ) comprising : a susceptor configured for a substrate to be place on (Pedestal #108, paragraph {23] said substrate hold object); and a moving mechanism (servo motors# 138) that is connected to the susceptor and configured to rotate the susceptor about a central axis (Fig 2, central axis# 101, rotational arrows around A) of the susceptor, the central axis extending in a vertical direction (Fig2, pedestal #108 moving vertically in direction 131 A and 132 A), wherein the moving mechanism is configured to move the susceptor further in a direction extending in an imaginary horizontal plane (Fig 2, titled axis 201 of the pedestal #108 will induce horizontal motion in the X-Y plane) perpendicular to the central axis #101.
Regarding claim 2, Schaller teaches wherein the susceptor is configured to be stopped at any position within a movement range thereof extending in the direction extending in the horizontal plane (paragraph 0028, the servo motors assemblies # 131 and 132 controlling orientation of the pedestal); a moveable pedestal is designed to be stopped in a controllable way.
Regarding claim 4, Schaller teaches wherein any point on the susceptor traces a trochoidal curved trajectory on the imaginary horizontal plane ( motion of the pedestal#108 as it titled relative to the central axis about a pivot point# 105 is capable of tracing a trochoidal curved trajectory).
Regarding claim 5, Schaller teaches a substrate supporting apparatus (Fig1, support assembly#130 ) comprising : a susceptor configured for a substrate to be place on (Pedestal #108); and a moving mechanism (servo motors# 138) that is connected to the susceptor and configured to rotate the susceptor about a central axis (Fig 2, central axis# 101, rotational arrows around A) of the susceptor, the central axis extending in a vertical direction (Fig2, pedestal #108 moving vertically in direction 131 A and 132 A), wherein the moving mechanism is configured to move the susceptor further in a direction extending in an imaginary horizontal plane (Fig 2, titled axis 201 of the pedestal #108 will induce horizontal motion in the X-Y plane) perpendicular to the central axis #101 and further teaches a chamber housing the susceptor (Fig 1, processing chamber# 30).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Nagai (US Pub 2006/0124062 A1) and Frenier (US patent 1,170,808).
Regarding claim 3, Schaller discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above under 35 USC § 102.
Schaller does not teach wherein the moving mechanism comprises: an external gear, tooth being placed side by side on an inner circumference thereof; and an internal gear connected to the susceptor, tooth being placed side by side on an outer circumference thereof, the internal gear being configured rotate in a state where the tooth and the tooth meshing with each other, wherein a number of teeth of the internal gear is less than a number of teeth of the external gear.
However, Nagai teaches wherein the moving mechanism comprises: an external gear, tooth being placed side by side on an inner circumference thereof (Internal gear# 114; and an internal gear connected to the susceptor, tooth being placed side by side on an outer circumference thereof, the internal gear being configured rotate in a state where the tooth and the tooth meshing with each other (Fig 4, internal gear# 114, pinion gear#113).
Schaller and Nagai both teach a substrate support moving mechanism, and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Schaller reference to include the gear mechanism of Nagai in order to ensure a good uniformity in the thickness of grown film of the wafer through the rotation mechanism to the susceptor. (Paragraph 0006)
Modified Schaller does not teach wherein a number of teeth of the internal gear is less than a number of teeth of the external gear.
While Frenier does not explicitly teach the above limitation, Frenier does teach wherein the number of teeth on meshing gears is adjusted depending on the desired speed of rotation and is therefore considered to be a result effective variable (Frenier-pg3, lines 100-104).
Nagai and FRENIER both teach aspects of gear operation with teeth, and are thus considered to be analogous art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the number of teeth on either gear of a set of gears through routine experimentation in order to change the speed of either shaft (Frenier - pg. 3, lines 100-104). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1) , Nagai (US Pub 2006/0124062 A1) and Frenier (US patent 1,170,808).
Regarding claim 6, Schaller teaches a chamber housing the susceptor (Fig 1, processing chamber# 30) ; a lifting mechanism (Fig1, support assembly #130 for lifting and positioning a substrate) configured to move the susceptor vertically; and a drive source (Fig1, servo motor assemblies 131 and 132) configured to drive the lifting mechanism.
Schaller does not teach wherein the moving mechanism comprises: an external gear, tooth being placed side by side on an inner circumference thereof; and an internal gear connected to the susceptor, tooth being placed side by side on an outer circumference thereof, the internal gear being configured rotate in a state where the tooth and the tooth meshing with each other, wherein a number of teeth of the internal gear is less than a number of teeth of the external gear.
However, Nagai teaches wherein the moving mechanism comprises: an external gear, tooth being placed side by side on an inner circumference thereof (Internal gear# 114; and an internal gear connected to the susceptor, tooth being placed side by side on an outer circumference thereof, the internal gear being configured rotate in a state where the tooth and the tooth meshing with each other (Fig 4, internal gear# 114, pinion gear#113).
Schaller and Nagai both teach a substrate support moving mechanism , and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Schaller reference to include the gear mechanism of Nagai in order to provide the rotation mechanism to the susceptor.
Modified Schaller does not teach wherein a number of teeth of the internal gear is less than a number of teeth of the external gear.
While Frenier does not explicitly teach the above limitation, Frenier does teach wherein the number of teeth on meshing gears is a result effective variable (Frenier – pg 3, lines 100-104).
Nagai and FRENIER both teach aspects of gear operation with teeth, and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the number of teeth on either gear of a set of gears through routine experimentation in order to change the speed of either shaft (Frenier - pg. 3, lines 100-104). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Schaller teaches wherein the movement mechanism is placed outside the chamber.
Schaller does not teach wherein the movement mechanism is an external/internal gear.
However, Nagai teaches wherein the movement mechanism is an external/internal gear (Fig 4, internal gear#114).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to place the external/internal gear outside the chamber.
Therefore, modified Schaller would teach the limitations of the claim as a combination of both references.
Regarding claim 8, Schaller teaches a servo motor assembly configured to rotate a shaft. Schaller does not teach wherein the shaft includes an internal gear.
However, Nagai teaches an internal gear.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use a drive source to rotate the internal gear. Therefore, modified Schaller would teach the limitations of the claim as a combination of both references.
Regarding claim 9, modified Schaller does not teach wherein the internal gear is configured to repeat forward and reverse rotation within an angle range of 1800 or less centered on a central axis of the internal gear in a rotation direction of the internal gear about the central axis.
The claim recites a function of the claimed apparatus, and that your modified Schaller apparatus would be capable of performing that function by virtue of any gear configured to rotate is capable of doing a forward and reverse motion within a set defined angle in view of Nagai (Internal gear #114 on its central axis).
Regarding claim 16 , Schaller further teaches wherein the substrate processing apparatus is a CVD equipment configured to deposit a thin film on the substrate by a CVD method ( In paragraph [0023] processing chamber# 30 represents a CVD chamber).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1) , Nagai (US Pub 2006/0124062 A1) and Frenier (US patent 1,170,808) as applied to claims 6-9, and 16 above and further in view of Carr ( US patent 6,318,957 B1).
The limitations of claims 6-9 and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Schaller does not teach, wherein the gear mechanism comprises: an input shaft configured for the rotational driving force to be input; and a plurality of output shafts configured for the rotational driving force that is input to the input shaft and branched to be output, a plurality of sets of the susceptor and the movement mechanism are provided, and the internal gear of the moving mechanism of each of the sets is connected to each of the input shafts.
However, Carr teaches these limitations (Fig 9 and 9A, a wafer handler 25 with a plurality of arms that lift and rotate a plurality of carriers , an input shaft# 21 connected by a suitable gear and cam mechanism output shaft #11).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Schaller apparatus with the Carr feature (Fig 9 and 9A) since Carr teaches this feature advantageously help in better handling wafer to reduce particles and contamination. (Paragraph 4)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1) , Nagai (US Pub 2006/0124062 A1, Frenier (US patent 1,170,808) and Carr ( US patent 6,318,957 B1) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Goluch (USPub 2015/0068560 A1).
The limitations of claim 10 is set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Schaller does not teach comprising a connecting member connecting the internal gear and the output shafts, wherein the output shaft has a vertical shaft part extending in a vertical direction, and the connecting member connects the internal gear and the vertical shaft part that are arranged eccentric to each other.
However, Goluch teaches these limitations (Fig 6, universal joint provides motion coupling between first shaft #176 and a second shaft #173).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Schaller apparatus with this feature (Fig 6) to couple the internal gear and output shaft since Goluch teaches (Paragraph [0037]) the feature advantageously provides motion coupling and capable of transferring translational, or rotational or both motion types between two coupling shafts to prevent misalignment/deviation form axis alignment.
Claim 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1) , Nagai (US Pub 2006/0124062 A1), Frenier (US patent 1,170,808) and Carr ( US patent 6,318,957 B1) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Shimbara (US Pub. 2004/0159343 A1) and Graham (US patent 1341789 A).
The limitations of claim 10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Schaller does not teach wherein the gear mechanism comprises: an input gear provided to the input shaft; a ring gear configured to mesh with the input gear; a gear housing fixed on the ring gear; a pinion shaft supported by the gear housing; a pair of pinion gears rotatably supported by the pinion shaft; and a pair of side gears configured to mesh with the pair of the pinion gears, and a pair of the output gears that are arranged coaxially with a central axis of the ring gear are provided, and each of the side gears is provided to each of the output gears.
However, Nagai teaches wherein the gear mechanism comprises: an input gear provided to the input shaft (Fig 5, drive gear #17 connect to a shaft of a motor#100) ; a ring gear configured to mesh with the input gear (Fig 5, external gear #18 meshes with a drive gear #17);
a pair of pinion gears rotatably supported by the pinion shaft and a pair of side gears configured to mesh with the pair of the pinion gears ((Fig2, pinion gear #113 meshes with internal gear# 114).
Schaller and Nagai both teach a substrate support moving mechanism , and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Schaller reference to include the gear mechanism of Nagai in order to provide the rotation mechanism to the susceptor.
Modified Schaller does not teach a gear housing fixed on the ring gear; a pinion shaft supported by the gear housing; and a pair of the output gears that are arranged coaxially with a central axis of the ring gear are provided, and each of the side gears is provided to each of the output gears.
However, Shimbara teaches a gear housing fixed on the ring gear (Fig4, gear case# 54) a pinion shaft supported by the gear housing; and a pair of the output gears that are arranged coaxially with a central axis of the ring gear are provided (Paragraph [0173] Fig4, gear#54 and gear#55 are rotatable coaxially) , and each of the side gears is provided to each of the output gears.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application , to further modify the Schaller reference to include the gear housing of Shimbara teachings (Paragraph 0176) motivated by the teaching of Graham housing can be used to protect parts from dust and dirt (Paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 13, modified Schaller does not teach wherein a number of teeth of the ring gears is larger than a number of teeth of the input gear.
While Frenier does not explicitly teach the above limitation, Frenier does teach wherein the number of teeth on meshing gears is a result effective variable (Frenier, page 3, lines 100-104). Nagai and FRENIER both teach aspects of gear operation with teeth, and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the number of teeth on either gear of a set of gears through routine experimentation in order to change the speed of either shaft (Frenier - pg. 3, lines 100-104). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, modified Schaller does not teach wherein a number of teeth of the pinion gears is larger than a number of teeth of the side gears.
While Frenier does not explicitly teach the above limitation, Frenier does teach wherein the number of teeth on meshing gears is a result effective variable (Frenier, page 3, lines 100-104).
Nagai and FRENIER both teach aspects of gear operation with teeth, and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the number of teeth on either gear of a set of gears through routine experimentation in order to change the speed of either shaft (Frenier - pg. 3, lines 100-104). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller (US Pub. 2018/0096874 A1) , Nagai (US Pub 2006/0124062 A1), Frenier (US patent 1,170,808) and Carr ( US patent 6,318,957 B1) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Shuhei (US Pub. 2022/0049768 A1).
The limitations of claim 10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Schaller does not teach a lock mechanism configured to prevent rotation of one of the output shafts.
However, Shuhei teaches this limitation (Fig 2, the lock mechanism#80 restricts the driving of the gear unit#3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use this known technique of the teaching of Shuhei (Paragraph [0005] lock mechanism that restricts transmission) to modified Schaller for preventing rotation of one of the output shafts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SON (US pub 2021/0005419 A1, Figs 1.2,6, and 8) teaches a support unit apparatus , Saito ( US Patent 650356 B1, Figs 1, 2, and 3) teaches a susceptor driving mechanism for rotationally driving a susceptor with a support shaft, Du Bois (US patent 6170433 B1, Figs 1, 2, and 3) teaches a wafer holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00.
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 5712725166. 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.
/OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights