DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “of” is missing between “plurality” and “support plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7 and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim arc is identified as a cutout in claim 1, in claims 7 and 16 the midpoint of the arc would be in the middle of the open space at the open end. Yet in applicant’s disclosure, the 10 mm appears to be measured at 487 in fig. 12.
With this in mind, it is not clear if applicant is claiming the distance from the flat end to the midpoint of the open end or the minimal thickness of a section of a support plate. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim et al. (US 2023/0117184) in view of Maraschin et al. (US 2016/0118282).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, 19, Karim discloses a wafer cassette (rack 80) configured to support a batch of wafers at 32 during deposition of a film on the batch of wafers in a vapor deposition processing chamber with a reaction chamber at 200, fig. 3A, and an opening in a bottom wall, [0020], fig. 3A, the reaction chamber having, as seen in fig. 4C, a top wall, and sidewalls at 210 and 230 with an inlet and an outlet end, as seen in fig. 4B, the flow follows a path directly across the wafer/substrates,
the wafer cassette comprising:
a base plate 202; and
two support uprights 84 spaced apart on a top surface of the base plate, the two support uprights having a plurality of support plates 86 spaced apart and extending from the two support uprights, fig. 2A and 2B,
Karim does not teach the claimed shape of the support plates.
However, Maraschin teaches, fig. 6 and 7, a wafer (118) cassette with two support uprights at 102, fig. 6 and a plurality of spaced support plates with a flat inlet end at 104, and a circular shape defined by a substrate support at 1616 and an open outlet end opposite the flat inlet end, and a segment cutout (cutout throat 144) along an arc, as seen in fig. 16, and discussed at para [0064], the cutout may vary in size, and as seen in fig. 16, is cut out of approximately a 180 degree arc such that the wafer is supported just over 50% of the outer perimeter of the wafer in order to allow an effector of a wafer handling robot to enter into the cassette for inserting and removing wafers [0078]. In addition, as seen in fig. 6, Maraschin teaches a uniform flow over the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape and structure of the support plates of Karim with the shape and support structure of the support plates of Maraschin in order to allow wide effectors to enter into the cassette in order to place or remove wafers as per the teaching of Maraschin.
The straight profile of the shape of the support plates of Karim as modified above by Maraschin extends between the support uprights of the cassette of Karim, and as seen in fig. 4B of Karim and fig. 6 of Maraschin, the flow of gas is straight. As such, Karim as modified above results in the flat end oriented perpendicularly to the gas flow.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 11, 12, Karim as modified above by Maraschin teaches each of the support plates is configured to hold an edge of a wafer via support region 1616 and allow a flow of gas to pass across a top surface of the wafer during processing in the vapor deposition processing chamber [0064] such that the cutouts are concentric with the wafers, fig. 16.
Regarding claim 4, 13 as seen in fig. 2A, 2B and 3A of Karim and also fig 3 and 7 of Maraschin, the supports are equally spaced.
Regarding claim 5, 14 Karim discloses between 1 and 200 substrates [0017], Maraschin teaches 25 substrates [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of support plates to any number required based on the desired number of wafers/substrates being processed and to have a smaller batch size of 5-25 for quality control purposes since the claimed range has been taught and further since the simple duplication of parts is obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, 15, Karim discloses that the two support uprights are opposing vertical columns along a sidewall of the support plates, fig 2A and 2B.
Regarding claim 7 and 16, the references applied above teach all of claims 1 and 10, as applied above. As applied above, the support plate shape and structure of Karim is modified to have the known shape taught by Maraschin.
The distance of the flat inlet end of Maraschin can be seen in fig. 16, and Maraschin discloses that the distance of the support structure be short distance beyond the wafers/substrates [0005], [0080]. Applicant’s disclosure, see para [0080] cites no particular reason for the claimed dimension of less than or equal to 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to be 10 mm or less in order to minimize dimensions of the support plates of Karim as modified by Maraschin in order to use the least amount of material while still providing sufficient rigidity to support the substrates without sag. In addition, a minimal distance will reduce the drag on the flow of the gas before the gas arrives at the semiconductor.
Regarding claim 20, because Karim as modified above teaches all structure of claim 20, it follows that the gas flow uniformity is greater than with a different processing chamber.
Claim(s) 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim and Maraschin as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bufano et al. (US 8272827).
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 18, the references applied above teach all of claims 1 and 10, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a mesa/recessed edge on the base plate.
Bufano is analogous art in regard to substrate/wafer cassettes for processing chambers:
Bufano teaches, fig. 16A and 16B, a wafer cassette 300G with wafers positioned on a raised portion of the base at 350G (mesa), the raised portion of the base is inserted into the opening 6402G of a chamber, col. 17: 35-end.
Bufano also teaches, fig. 3C, a base 2214 with a mesa 216’ that forms a recessed outer edge of the base plate for a seal 224’, fig. 3B.
Bufano teaches that multiple seal faces provide the benefit of not releasing contaminants into the space opened upon opening of the seal interface, col. 10: 1-30 and providing at least four seal locations, fig. 59A-D.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Karim to have a raised portion in order to provide multiple seal surfaces to provide the benefit of not releasing contaminants into the space being opened as per the teaching of Bufano.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 11 May 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights