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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/9/25 and 1/13/have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 20 and 26 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.
The claims both describe the susceptor as comprising a smooth section “through which” the gas mixture flows. However, the specification and drawings do not show a vented susceptor. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 14-15, 20-21, 26-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0079084 (BAE ET AL) in view of JP 2005-197275 (FUTASE ET AL).
Regarding claim 14: The BAE reference discloses a method of depositing a film on a substrate including atomizing a raw material solution into a mist, mixing the mist with a carrier gas, placing the substrate on a susceptor, supplying the gas mixture to the substrate to form a film by thermal reaction and discharging the gas mixture through an exhaust. See Figure 1 and Reference list for 11 (carrier gas),13 (mist generator), 110/120 (susceptor and substrate), 14 (mist supply), 20/21 (heater). It is recognized that the reference does not specify the surface roughness of the susceptor. However, the FUTASE reference discloses that the inside surfaces of a ceramic CVD reaction chamber have a surface roughness of less than 200um. See claim 1 for surface roughness of less than 5um. The surface roughness is small so that foreign material particles do not form on the substrate during film forming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the surface of the ceramic susceptor of the BAE deposition chamber to have a low surface roughness as described in the FUTASE reference. One would expect the prevention of foreign particles on the deposition surface, i.e. low defects.
Regarding claim 15: The FUTASR reference discloses a surface roughness of less than 150um. See claim 1.
Regarding claim 20: The BAE reference discloses an apparatus for depositing a film on a substrate including atomizing a raw material solution into a mist, mixing the mist with a carrier gas, placing the substrate on a susceptor, supplying the gas mixture to the substrate to form a film by thermal reaction and discharging the gas mixture through an exhaust. See Figure 1 and Reference list for 11 (carrier gas),13 (mist generator), 110/120 (susceptor and substrate), 14 (mist supply), 20/21 (heater). It is recognized that the reference does not specify the surface roughness of the susceptor. However, the FUTASE reference discloses that the inside surfaces of a ceramic CVD reaction chamber have a surface roughness of less than 200um. See claim 1 for surface roughness of less than 5um. The surface roughness is small so that foreign material particles do not form on the substrate during film forming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the surface of the ceramic susceptor of the BAE deposition chamber to have a low surface roughness as described in the FUTASE reference. One would expect the prevention of foreign particles on the deposition surface, i.e. low defects.
Regarding claim 21: The FUTASR reference discloses a surface roughness of less than 150um. See claim 1.
Regarding claim 26: The BAE reference discloses a susceptor for use in depositing a film on a substrate including atomizing a raw material solution into a mist, mixing the mist with a carrier gas, placing the substrate on a susceptor, supplying the gas mixture to the substrate to form a film by thermal reaction and discharging the gas mixture through an exhaust. See Figure 1 and Reference list for 11 (carrier gas),13 (mist generator), 110/120 (susceptor and substrate), 14 (mist supply), 20/21 (heater). It is recognized that the reference does not specify the surface roughness of the susceptor. However, the FUTASE reference discloses that the inside surfaces of a ceramic CVD reaction chamber have a surface roughness of less than 200um. See claim 1 for surface roughness of less than 5um. The surface roughness is small so that foreign material particles do not form on the substrate during film forming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the surface of the ceramic susceptor of the BAE deposition chamber to have a low surface roughness as described in the FUTASE reference. One would expect the prevention of foreign particles on the deposition surface, i.e. low defects.
Regarding claim 27: The FUTASE reference discloses a surface roughness of less than 150um. See claim 1.
Regarding claims 29 and 30: The BAE reference discloses a method of depositing a gallium oxide film on a c-plane sapphire substrate including atomizing a raw material solution into a mist, mixing the mist with a carrier gas, placing the substrate on a susceptor, supplying the gas mixture to the substrate to form a film by thermal reaction and discharging the gas mixture through an exhaust. See Figure 1 and Reference list for 11 (carrier gas),13 (mist generator), 110/120 (susceptor and substrate), 14 (mist supply), 20/21 (heater). It is recognized that the reference does not specify the surface roughness of the susceptor. However, the FUTASE reference discloses that the inside surfaces of a ceramic CVD reaction chamber have a surface roughness of less than 200um. See claim 1 for surface roughness of less than 5um. The surface roughness is small so that foreign material particles do not form on the substrate during film forming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the surface of the ceramic susceptor of the BAE deposition chamber to have a low surface roughness as described in the FUTASE reference. One would expect the prevention of foreign particles on the deposition surface, i.e. low defects. While the specific rocking curve peak, foreign substance density and film thickness distribution are not disclosed, adjusting the film forming method (gas flow rate, gas flow angle, temperature, etc.) are known ways to optimize the deposition film.
Claims 16-19, 22-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020-0079084 (BAE ET AL) in view of JP 2005-197275 (FUTASE ET AL) further in view of JP 2016-027636 (ODA ET AL).
Regarding claims 16-17, 22-23 and 28: The BAE/FUTASE combination discloses the method/apparatus as disclosed in the above 103 rejections. It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the difference height of the susceptor and substrate surfaces. However, the ODA reference shows that it is known to provide recesses in the susceptor surface. The size and shape of the recess is adjustable, i.e. shaped to the substrate, deep enough so the substrate is embedded, etc. See description of Figures 9 and 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the depth of a recess in the susceptor. One would be motivated by the expectation of securing the substrate on the susceptor as described.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 24-25: The BAE/FUTASE combination discloses the method/apparatus as disclosed in the above 103 rejections. It is recognized that the reference does not specify the angle of the susceptor surface and gas flow. However, the ODA reference shows that it is known to adjust the susceptor angle for deposition to optimize uniformity of the film. See claim 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the susceptor angle in the BAE method/apparatus. One would be motivated by the expectation of adjusting the uniformity of the film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785