DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/2/2026 and the RCE filed 3/3/2026.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following paragraphs have been copied from the Response to Arguments section of Final Office Action dated 12/16/2025 as they maintain relevance for the amended claims:
The limitation in question: “wherein the control system is configured to control pixels of radiation of the grid-like pattern by adjusting the one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors” is construed by the Examiner in the following ways:
First, the structurally limiting elements of the claim are construed as: “wherein the control system is configured to control radiation by adjusting the one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors”.
The limitation: “pixels of radiation” is merely an identifying label for the reflected radiation and not structurally limiting of the claim. The Examiner respectfully submits that all reflected visible/infrared radiation can be viewed as a collection of “pixels”- such a view does not structurally change the radiation itself.
Second, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant is not construing the limitation in question as commensurate in scope with the disclosure. The Examiner notes that, in pars. [0016] and [0041] (cited by Applicant in the Remarks pgs. 9-10), the disclosure appears to support the Examiner’s assertion that “pixels” is merely an analogy to understand the invention as denoted by the quotations around the word pixel (par. [0016]).
The disclosure goes on to state that the “pixels” are formed from a combination of radiation from the radiative heat sources and the reflectors creating a grid-like pattern (par. [0016]). As such, nowhere in the disclosure is it described that the control system carries any additional programming to form said “pixels” or to do anything other than adjusting the reflectors to tailor the heating profile (par. [0041]).
In accordance, the Examiner respectfully submits that if the prior art teaches a controller programmed to control positions of reflectors, it meets the limitation of the claim.
As an additional note, the limitation: “control pixels of radiation of the grid-like pattern” is further construed as an intended result of a process step positively recited (“control system… configured to adjust the one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors”). The courts have held that little to no patentable weight is to be assigned to the result of a positively recited process step- see MPEP 2111.04(I) and Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
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.
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 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2006/0249695) in view of Qin (US 2015/0226487), Liu (US 2004/0060917), and Ducret (US 2004/0052511).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a workpiece processing apparatus for processing a workpiece ([0025] and Fig. 1, entirety), the workpiece processing apparatus comprising: a processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, chamber #20), having a first side and a second side opposite from the first side of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, top and bottom); a gas delivery system configured to deliver one or more process gases to the processing chamber ([0026] and Fig. 1, gas port #23); one or more exhaust ports for removing gas from the processing chamber such that a vacuum pressure can be maintained ([0026] and Fig. 1, exhaust #24); a workpiece support disposed within the processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, support #10), the workpiece support configured to support a workpiece ([0025]: substrate), wherein a back side of the workpiece faces the workpiece support (see Fig. 1); one or more radiative heating sources configured on the second side of the processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, heaters #30 below #10), the one or more radiative heating sources configured at a first distance from the back side of the workpiece (see Fig. 1), the one or more radiative heating sources configured to heat the workpiece from the back side of the workpiece ([0025]); a dielectric window disposed between the workpiece support and the one or more radiative heating sources ([0025] and Fig. 1, lower walls #20 comprise quartz); a plurality of reflectors configured on the second side of the processing chamber at a second distance from the back side of the workpiece ([0029] and Fig. 1, reflectors #40 below #10), the second distance being greater than the first distance (see Fig. 1).
Choi does not teach a control system configured to control one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors, wherein the control system is configured to detect whether one portion of the workpiece is at a higher temperature relative to another portion of the workpiece and control pixels of radiation.
However, Qin teaches a control system configured to control one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors (Qin – [0042]: calculation device receives data from #70 and sends correction signal to rotation controllers #60 for reflectors #50; a PHOSITA would recognize the resulting thermal radiation could be viewed in terms of “pixels”, if so desired), wherein the control system is configured to detect whether one portion of the workpiece is at a higher temperature relative to another portion of the workpiece and control pixels of radiation (Qin – [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Modified Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to reduce the amount of radiation directed onto the portion having a higher temperature (Qin teaches increasing the amount of radiation onto a portion having a lower temperature – see par. [0042]).
However, Liu teaches wherein thermal radiation can be utilized in either mode: increasing the amount of radiation onto a cooler portion or decreasing the amount of radiation onto a hotter portion (Liu – [0066]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to perform the temperature control scheme of modified Choi (Qin) in either heating or cooling mode to improve temperature uniformity (Liu – [0066]).
The Examiner notes that even absent the teachings of Liu, performing a cooling process opposite to the heating process of Qin would be obvious to a PHOSITA. Particularly, the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breath of experience spanning multiple technical disciplines. As such, a person having this high level of skill could easily envision using the teachings of Qin to perform a cooling process using the same techniques with at least a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Choi does not teach wherein the plurality of reflectors are within 20 degrees of a perpendicular relationship to the one or more radiative heating sources to create a grid-like pattern.
However, Ducret teaches this limitation (Ducret – claim 1, as shown in Fig. 4, lamps #24/#26 are perpendicular to strips #40/#42, respectively, of reflector #36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the arrangement of lamps/reflectors of modified Choi to the “within 20 degrees of a perpendicular relationship” as claimed in order to control power ratios of the thermal energy between different zones to compensate for thermal differences (Ducret – [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Qin teaches wherein the control system is configured to obtain data indicative of a temperature profile associated with the workpiece (Qin – Fig. 3, S21, via temperature measurement controllers #70); and control the one or more positions of at least one of the plurality of reflectors based, at least in part, on the data indicative of the temperature profile associated with the workpiece (Qin – Fig. 3, S22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Qin teaches one or more sensors configured to obtain the data indicative of the temperature profile associated with the workpiece (Qin – [0041] and Fig. 1, temperature measurement controllers #70).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches wherein the workpiece support is stationary (no mention of substrate rotation in the entire document, see also claim 18).
Regarding claim 7, Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Qin teaches wherein when the data indicates a first portion of the workpiece is at a higher temperature relative to a second portion of the workpiece, the control system is configured to control the one or more positions of at least one reflector of the plurality of reflectors to adjust from a first position to a second position such that the second position reduces an amount of radiation the at least one reflector directs from the one or more heat sources onto the first portion of the workpiece (Qin – Fig. 3, S21-S23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Qin teaches wherein when the data indicates a first portion of the workpiece is at a lower temperature relative to a second portion of the workpiece, the control system is configured to control the one or more positions of at least one reflector of the plurality of reflectors to adjust from a first position to a second position such that the second position increases an amount of radiation the at least one reflector directs from the one or more radiative heating sources onto the first portion of the workpiece (Qin – Fig. 3, S21-S23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2006/0249695), Qin (US 2015/0226487), Liu (US 2004/0060917), and Ducret (US 2004/0052511), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 above, and further in view of Shrinivasan (US 8,137,465).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While Shrinivasan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more radiative heating sources are disposed in a generally perpendicular relationship to the plurality of reflectors, the one or more radiative heating sources extend in a first direction and the plurality of reflectors extend in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, Shrinivasan teaches wherein the angle between reflectors and lamps is a result effective variable. Particularly, Shrinivasan teaches wherein said angle/orientation may be optimized to maximize radiation intensity on a substrate to optimize illumination uniformity (Shrinivasan – C11, L45-50).
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 relative orientation between the radiative heating sources and the plurality of reflectors of modified Choi through routine experimentation in order to maximize radiation intensity on a substrate to optimize illumination uniformity (Shrinivasan – C11, L45-50). 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2006/0249695), Qin (US 2015/0226487), Liu (US 2004/0060917), and Ducret (US 2004/0052511), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 above, and further in view of Jadhav (US 2018/0047643).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim (Qin teaches some device for measuring substrate temperature, but is silent as to its nature).
However, Jadhav teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a thermal camera, and wherein the data comprises thermal image data (Jadhav – [0007],[0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the thermal camaras of Jadhav as the sensors of modified Choi (Qin) as a mere substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as evidenced by Jadhav ([0007], [0036]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2006/0249695), Qin (US 2015/0226487), Liu (US 2004/0060917), and Ducret (US 2004/0052511), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 above, and further in view of Akiyoshi (US 2019/0267261).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches wherein the one or more radiative heating sources comprises one or more heat lamps ([0027]), and the dielectric window comprises quartz ([0025]).
Modified Choi does not teach wherein the workpiece support comprises quartz.
However, Akiyoshi teaches wherein the workpiece support comprises quartz (Akiyoshi – [0096]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the workpiece support of modified Choi from quartz (as in Akiyoshi) as the courts have held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose was indicative of obviousness. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2006/0249695) in view of Anderson (US 5,108,792), Qin (US 2015/0226487), Liu (US 2004/0060917), “Basics of non contact temperature measurement” (Micro-Epsilon publication dated 11-Nov-2020; hereinafter- “Micro-Epsilon pub.”), and Ducret (US 2004/0052511).
Regarding claim 18, Choi teaches a workpiece processing apparatus for processing a workpiece ([0025] and Fig. 1, entirety), the workpiece processing apparatus comprising: a processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, chamber #20), having a first side and a second side opposite from the first side of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, top and bottom); a gas delivery system configured to deliver one or more process gases to the processing chamber ([0026] and Fig. 1, gas port #23); one or more exhaust port for removing gas from the processing chamber such that a vacuum pressure can be maintained ([0026] and Fig. 1, exhaust #24); a workpiece support disposed within the processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, support #10), the workpiece support configured to support a workpiece ([0025]: substrate), wherein a back side of the workpiece faces the workpiece support (see Fig. 1); one or more radiative heating sources configured on the second side of the processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, heaters #30 below #10), the one or more radiative heating sources configured at a first distance from the back side of the workpiece (see Fig. 1), the one or more radiative heating sources configured to heat the workpiece from the back side of the workpiece ([0025]); a dielectric window disposed between the workpiece support and the one or more radiative heating sources ([0025] and Fig. 1, lower walls #20 comprise quartz); a plurality of reflectors configured on the second side of the processing chamber at a second distance from the back side of the workpiece ([0029] and Fig. 1, reflectors #40 below #10), the second distance being greater than the first distance (see Fig. 1), the plurality of reflectors disposed in a generally parallel relationship to the one or more radiative heating sources (see Figs. 2 and 6).
Choi does not teach a rotation system configured to rotate the workpiece support.
However, Anderson teaches a rotation system configured to rotate the workpiece support (Anderson – C4, L46-49 and Fig. 1, rotating shaft #140 for susceptor #114).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide the workpiece support rotation system of Anderson for the Choi apparatus in order to enhance process uniformity (Anderson – C4, L46-49).
Choi modified by Anderson does not teach one or more sensors configured to obtain data indicative of a temperature profile associated with the workpiece; and a control system configured to control one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors, wherein the control system is configured to detect whether one portion of the workpiece is at a higher temperature relative to another portion of the workpiece and control pixels of radiation.
However, Qin teaches one or more sensors configured to obtain data indicative of a temperature profile associated with the workpiece (Qin – [0041] and Fig. 1, temperature measurement controllers #70); and a control system configured to control one or more positions of the plurality of reflectors (Qin – [0042]: calculation device receives data from #70 and sends correction signal to rotation controllers #60 for reflectors #50; a PHOSITA would recognize the resulting thermal radiation could be viewed in terms of “pixels”, if so desired), wherein the control system is configured to detect whether one portion of the workpiece is at a higher temperature relative to another portion of the workpiece and control pixels of radiation (Qin – [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Modified Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to reduce the amount of radiation directed onto the portion having a higher temperature (Qin teaches increasing the amount of radiation onto a portion having a lower temperature – see par. [0042]).
However, Liu teaches wherein thermal radiation can be utilized in either mode: increasing the amount of radiation onto a cooler portion or decreasing the amount of radiation onto a hotter portion (Liu – [0066]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to perform the temperature control scheme of modified Choi (Qin) in either heating or cooling mode to improve temperature uniformity (Liu – [0066]).
The Examiner notes that even absent the teachings of Liu, performing a cooling process opposite to the heating process of Qin would be obvious to a PHOSITA. Particularly, the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breath of experience spanning multiple technical disciplines. As such, a person having this high level of skill could easily envision using the teachings of Qin to perform a cooling process using the same techniques with at least a reasonable expectation of success.
Choi modified by Anderson, Qin, and Liu does not teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more pyrometers, one or more emitters, and one or more receivers, nor wherein the control system is configured to control the reflectors based, at least in part, on a difference between one or more parameters of a signal emitted by the one or more emitters and a reflected signal received via the one or more receivers (Qin is silent as to the nature of the temperature sensors).
However, the Micro-Epsilon pub. teaches wherein a sensor comprises a pyrometer, an emitter, and a receiver (Micro-Epsilon pub. pgs. 8-9, details a non-contact temperature sensor with laser emitter sight configured to receive thermal radiation from a target object).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a non-contact temperature sensor for the sensors of modified Choi in order to support temperature measurements of objects in hazardous surroundings with fast response/exposure times in a non-destructive way (Micro-Epsilon pub. pg. 2, end of col. 1).
Thus, as a combination, modified Choi would teach wherein the control system is configured to control the reflectors based, at least in part, on a difference between one or more parameters of a signal emitted by the one or more emitters and a reflected signal received via the one or more receivers based on the detection/control procedure of Choi (using an unknown/generic temperature sensor) and the specific sensor of the Micro-Epsilon pub. reference.
Modified Choi does not teach wherein the plurality of reflectors are within 20 degrees of a perpendicular relationship to the one or more radiative heating sources to create a grid-like pattern.
However, Ducret teaches this limitation (Ducret – claim 1, as shown in Fig. 4, lamps #24/#26 are perpendicular to strips #40/#42, respectively, of reflector #36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the arrangement of lamps/reflectors of modified Choi to the “within 20 degrees of a perpendicular relationship” as claimed in order to control power ratios of the thermal energy between different zones to compensate for thermal differences (Ducret – [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Choi modified by Anderson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Qin teaches wherein the data obtained from the one or more sensors comprises a plurality of temperature measurements (Qin – Fig. 3, S21), each temperature measurement associated with a different location on a surface of the workpiece (Qin – [0005]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Choi modified by Anderson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Qin teaches wherein the control system is configured to: control the one or more positions of at least one of the plurality of reflectors based, at least in part, on the data indicative of the temperature profile associated with the workpiece (Qin – Fig. 3, S22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the temperature sensing/feedback devices of Qin into the modified Choi apparatus in order to enhance substrate temperature uniformity (Qin – [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Liu remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights