DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action regarding application number 17/531850, filed on 11/22/2021, which claims benefit of JP2021-001651, filed on 01/07/2021.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1,3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 04/28/2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: step in claims 8, 10, 12, 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 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 term “hardly” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hardly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear if the LED lamps located nearest a peripheral edge part of the substrate are parallel to the substrate or inclined to the substrate.
Claims 3, 5, 6 and 10, 12, 13 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and 8 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., US 20220013377 (hereafter Nakamura), and further in view of Vopat et al., US 20160379854 (hereafter Vopat) and Kim, US 20190318946 (hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1,
“ A heat treatment apparatus heating a substrate by irradiating the substrate with light, comprising:” (Fig. 1A)
PNG
media_image1.png
550
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1a of Nakamura teaches a heater
“a chamber housing the substrate;” (Fig. 1A)
“a holder holding the substrate in the chamber in a horizontal plane, the substrate having a central axis;” (Fig. 1A)
PNG
media_image2.png
370
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1a of Nakamura teaches central axis
“a plurality of LED lamps provided on one side of the chamber to irradiate the substrate held by the holder” (Fig. 1A)
“with light having a wavelength of 900 nm or less;” (Fig. 9 teaches wavelength of LED light is around 400nm.
PNG
media_image3.png
323
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Nakamura teaches LED wavelength is less than 900nm
The range of around 400nm taught in prior art is within the claimed range of less than 900nm, and thus anticipated. MPEP 2131.03-I teaches “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”.)
….“a flash lamp provided on another side of the chamber to irradiate the substate held by the holder with a flash of light;” (Fig. 1A)
“and a … window provided in the chamber and disposed between the holder and the plurality of LED lamps.” (Fig. 1A)
Nakamura is silent about “a quartz window”, “the plurality of LED lamps being concentrically disposed relative to the central axis of the substrate,” “ so that a central axis of the LED lamps coincides with the central axis of the substrate,” “ and the closer the LED lamps are to a central axis of the LED lamps the more the LED lamps are inclined relative to the horizontal plane, as compared to said LED lamps that are located further away from the central axis of the LED lamps,” “ and the LED lamps located nearest a peripheral edge part of the substrate being hardly inclined;”.
Vopat teaches “a quartz window”. (Vopat teaches an LED substrate heater with a quartz window 140 in paragraph [29].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the glass window in Nakamura with the quartz window as taught in Vopat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because quartz “is transparent at the wavelengths emitted by the LEDs 130” as taught in paragraph [29] in Vopat.)
“the plurality of LED lamps being concentrically disposed relative to the central axis of the substrate,” (Vopat teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [10] “a plurality of LEDs arranged as a pattern of concentric circles”.)
“ so that a central axis of the LED lamps coincides with the central axis of the substrate,” (Fig. 6 in Vopat teaches when LED lamps are arranged in the pattern of Fig. 5, the central axis of the lamps coincides with central axis of substrate 10.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the LED lamps in Nakamura concentrically as taught in Vopat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the LEDs 130 may be spaced in a non-uniform manner to optimize the heating of the substrate” as taught in paragraph [27] in Vopat.
Primary combination of references is silent about “ and the closer the LED lamps are to a central axis of the LED lamps the more the LED lamps are inclined relative to the horizontal plane, as compared to said LED lamps that are located further away from the central axis of the LED lamps,” “ and the LED lamps located nearest a peripheral edge part of the substrate being hardly inclined;”.
Kim teaches “ and the closer the LED lamps are to a central axis of the LED lamps the more the LED lamps are inclined relative to the horizontal plane, as compared to said LED lamps that are located further away from the central axis of the LED lamps,” ( Fig. 7 of Kim teaches an inclined center with LEDs. This inclination results in lamps positioned at the center to direct light at an angle towards the edge of the substrate.)
PNG
media_image4.png
285
515
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Kim
“ and the LED lamps located nearest a peripheral edge part of the substrate being hardly inclined;” (Kim teaches in paragraph [12] “The heating modules may be parallel or oblique to the substrate, or may be curved with respect to the substrate.” Paragraph [129] teaches “The heating unit 900h according to the eighth modified example is characterized in that the heating unit 900h has a polygonal shape with non-curved edges for convenience in manufacturing heating modules 920-1, 920-2, and 920-3.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the LED lamps in Nakamura inclined at the center as taught in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heating light sources may emit light for heating the substrate, in different directions according to the heating zones for an improvement in heating uniformity of the substrate. The heating modules may be parallel or oblique to the substrate, or may be curved with respect to the substrate” as taught in paragraphs [11-12] in Kim.
Regarding claim 3,
“The heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of LED lamps are disposed so that an outer periphery of the concentric circle is closer to the substrate.” ( Fig. 5 teaches that the outer periphery of the LED heating plate is curved upwards and hence closer to the substrate.
PNG
media_image5.png
481
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Kim
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the LED lamps in Nakamura concentrically with curving upwards at the periphery as taught in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heating unit 900 may be divided into heating zones in various ways, based on regions of the substrate W where a temperature deviation is more likely to occur theoretically, experimentally, or probabilistically. The heating zones may preferably be provided such that light of the LEDs 932 for heating is concentrated on an edge region and a central region of the substrate W that have a relatively low temperature deviation. That is, heating zones for heating specific regions (the edge region and the central region) of the substrate W may be inclined or curved” as taught in paragraph [94] in Kim.)
Regarding claim 5,
“ The heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of LED lamps have higher emission intensity at an outer periphery of the concentric circle.” (Vopat teaches in paragraph [27] “Specifically, in outermost band 510e, which is furthest from the center of the pattern, each concentric circle 500 may have about 308 LEDs. There may be about 9 concentric circles 500 in outermost band 510e. In contrast, in innermost band 510a, which is closest to the center, the concentric circles 500 may each have only 44 LEDs. There may be about 3 concentric circles 500 in the innermost band 510a.” Thus, the emission intensity of LED lamps is higher at the outer periphery compared to center.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the LED lamps in Nakamura so that there are higher numbers of lamps at the periphery compared to center as taught in Vopat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the LEDs 130 may be spaced in a non-uniform manner to optimize the heating of the substrate” as taught in paragraph [27] in Vopat.)
Regarding claim 8,
“A heat treatment method of heating a substrate by irradiating the substrate with light, comprising steps of:” (Fig. 1A in Nakamura)
PNG
media_image1.png
550
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1a of Nakamura teaches a heater
“ (a) irradiating the substrate” (Fig. 1A)
“ held by a holder in a chamber” (Fig. 1A)
“ with light having a wavelength of 900 nm or less” (Fig. 9 teaches wavelength of LED light is around 400nm.
PNG
media_image3.png
323
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Nakamura teaches LED wavelength is less than 900nm
The range of around 400nm taught in prior art is within the claimed range of less than 900nm, and thus anticipated. MPEP 2131.03-I teaches “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”.)
“ from a plurality of LED lamps provided on one side of the chamber to heat the substrate;” (Fig. 1A)
“and (b) irradiating the substrate held by the holder” (Fig. 1A)
“with a flash of light from a flash lamp provided on another side of the chamber to heat the substrate,” (Fig. 1A)
Nakamura is silent about “wherein the plurality of LED lamps are concentrically disposed so that a central axis of the LED lamps coincides with a central axis of the substrate held by the holder, and” “the plurality of LED lamps are disposed so that the closer to a center of a concentric circle the LED lamps are, the more the LED lamps are inclined with respect to a horizontal plane to be directed to a peripheral edge part of the substrate” “ and the LED lamps are hardly inclined in the outer periphery of the concentric circle.”
Vopat teaches “wherein the plurality of LED lamps are concentrically disposed” (Vopat teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [10] “a plurality of LEDs arranged as a pattern of concentric circles”.)
“so that a central axis of the LED lamps coincides with a central axis of the substrate held by the holder, and” (Fig. 6 in Vopat teaches when LED lamps are arranged in the pattern of Fig. 5, the central axis of the lamps coincides with central axis of substrate 10.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the LED lamps in Nakamura concentrically as taught in Vopat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the LEDs 130 may be spaced in a non-uniform manner to optimize the heating of the substrate” as taught in paragraph [27] in Vopat.)
Primary combination of references is silent about “the plurality of LED lamps are disposed so that the closer to a center of a concentric circle the LED lamps are, the more the LED lamps are inclined with respect to a horizontal plane to be directed to a peripheral edge part of the substrate and the LED lamps are hardly inclined in the outer periphery of the concentric circle.”
Kim teaches “the plurality of LED lamps are disposed so that the closer to a center of a concentric circle the LED lamps are, the more the LED lamps are inclined with respect to a horizontal plane to be directed to a peripheral edge part of the substrate” (Fig. 7 of Kim teaches an inclined center with LEDs. This inclination results in lamps positioned at the center to direct light at an angle towards the edge of the substrate.)
“ and the LED lamps are hardly inclined in the outer periphery of the concentric circle.” (Kim teaches in paragraph [12] “The heating modules may be parallel or oblique to the substrate, or may be curved with respect to the substrate.” Paragraph [129] teaches “The heating unit 900h according to the eighth modified example is characterized in that the heating unit 900h has a polygonal shape with non-curved edges for convenience in manufacturing heating modules 920-1, 920-2, and 920-3.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the LED lamps in Nakamura inclined at the center as taught in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heating light sources may emit light for heating the substrate, in different directions according to the heating zones for an improvement in heating uniformity of the substrate. The heating modules may be parallel or oblique to the substrate, or may be curved with respect to the substrate” as taught in paragraphs [11-12] in Kim.
Regarding claim 10,
“ The heat treatment method according to claim 8, further comprising a step of adjusting a height position of the plurality of LED lamps so that an outer periphery of the concentric circle is closer to the substrate.” (Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 in Kim teach that the outer periphery of the LED heating plate is inclined upwards and hence closer to the substrate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of arranging the LED lamps in Nakamura concentrically with inclining upwards at the periphery as taught in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heating unit 900 may be divided into heating zones in various ways, based on regions of the substrate W where a temperature deviation is more likely to occur theoretically, experimentally, or probabilistically. The heating zones may preferably be provided such that light of the LEDs 932 for heating is concentrated on an edge region and a central region of the substrate W that have a relatively low temperature deviation. That is, heating zones for heating specific regions (the edge region and the central region) of the substrate W may be inclined or curved” as taught in paragraph [94] in Kim.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The heat treatment method according to claim 8, further comprising a step of adjusting emission intensity of the plurality of LED lamps so that emission intensity is higher at an outer periphery of the concentric circle.” (Vopat teaches in paragraph [27] “Specifically, in outermost band 510e, which is furthest from the center of the pattern, each concentric circle 500 may have about 308 LEDs. There may be about 9 concentric circles 500 in outermost band 510e. In contrast, in innermost band 510a, which is closest to the center, the concentric circles 500 may each have only 44 LEDs. There may be about 3 concentric circles 500 in the innermost band 510a.” Thus, the emission intensity of LED lamps is higher at the outer periphery compared to center.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of arranging the LED lamps in Nakamura so that there are higher numbers of lamps at the periphery compared to center as taught in Vopat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the LEDs 130 may be spaced in a non-uniform manner to optimize the heating of the substrate” as taught in paragraph [27] in Vopat.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Vopat, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ptak, US 7173216 (hereafter Ptak) and Fuse, US 20160336195 (hereafter Fuse).
“The heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the emission time of the plurality of LED lamps is increased as it is located closer to an outer periphery of the concentric circle.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation. The claim is interpreted as LED lamps are time controlled so that the lamps at outer periphery have a longer emission time compared to center lamps.
Ptak teaches time controlling of LED lamps. Ptak teaches in column 12, lines 53-60 “the heater control module 252 sends control signals to each LED lamp 180 or groups of LED lamps. The control signals allow the heater control module 252 to dynamically control the output of the LED lamps. In this way, the heater control module 252 can, for example, compensate for a failed LED, vary the output of the LED lamps over time based on a program, and adjust the output of the LED lamps based on feedback from the chamber.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of controlling each LED lamp as taught in Ptak to the LED heat lamp in Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The LED heat lamps forming the top and bottom arrays are individually or controllable in groups such that power output along each array of LED heat lamps can dynamically differ.”
Primary combination of references is silent about lamps having a longer emission time at an outer periphery of a concentric circle.
Fuse teaches in abstract “During flash light irradiation, an emission time of a flash lamp belonging to the peripheral zone is set to be longer than an emission time of a flash lamp belonging to the central zone.”
Even though Fuse teaches achieving uniform temperature distribution during flash annealing, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to add the step of setting a longer emission time for lamps at periphery to achieve uniform temperature distribution as taught in Fuse during LED annealing in Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a greater amount of flash light is applied to the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer, where a temperature drop is relatively likely to occur, than to the central portion thereof, thus preventing a relative temperature drop in the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer during flash heating” as taught in abstract in Fuse.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Vopat, and Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ptak and Fuse.
“The heat treatment method according to claim 8, further comprising a step of adjusting an emission time of the plurality of LED lamps so that the emission time of the plurality of LED lamps is increased as it is located closer to an outer periphery of the concentric circle.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation. The claim is interpreted as LED lamps are time controlled so that the lamps at outer periphery have a longer emission time compared to center lamps.
Ptak teaches time controlling of LED lamps. Ptak teaches in column 12, lines 53-60 “the heater control module 252 sends control signals to each LED lamp 180 or groups of LED lamps. The control signals allow the heater control module 252 to dynamically control the output of the LED lamps. In this way, the heater control module 252 can, for example, compensate for a failed LED, vary the output of the LED lamps over time based on a program, and adjust the output of the LED lamps based on feedback from the chamber.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of controlling each LED lamp as taught in Ptak to the LED heat lamp in Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The LED heat lamps forming the top and bottom arrays are individually or controllable in groups such that power output along each array of LED heat lamps can dynamically differ.”
Primary combination of references is silent about lamps having a longer emission time at an outer periphery of a concentric circle.
Fuse teaches in abstract “During flash light irradiation, an emission time of a flash lamp belonging to the peripheral zone is set to be longer than an emission time of a flash lamp belonging to the central zone.”
Even though Fuse teaches achieving uniform temperature distribution during flash annealing, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to add the step of setting a longer emission time for lamps at periphery to achieve uniform temperature distribution as taught in Fuse during LED annealing in Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a greater amount of flash light is applied to the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer, where a temperature drop is relatively likely to occur, than to the central portion thereof, thus preventing a relative temperature drop in the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer during flash heating” as taught in abstract in Fuse.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/21/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1,2,5,6,8,10,12,13 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7102141, Fig. 2A
US 20120325795, paragraph [4]
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761