DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/21/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 5 have been amended; claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1, 3-5, and 7-9 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “the integral control is performed based on an time-integrated value of the temperature offset, wherein the temperature offset is the deviation between the target temperature and the temperature of the substrate to be treated measured in the step (B) ”, the aforementioned limitation is unclear with regard to the result and/or modification that is performed by the integral control (and additionally the proportional control), and neither the claim nor the written description provides a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the claimed aforementioned limitation, and it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As an example, does the proportional control result in a reduction in output power as the substrate approaches the target temperature to thereby avoid heat spikes, or does the integral control correct small deviations with the temperature offset over time to lock the substrate precisely at the target temperature? Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 5, the claim recites “the integral control is performed based on an time-integrated value of the temperature offset, wherein the temperature offset is the deviation between the target temperature and the temperature of the substrate to be treated measured in the step (B) ”, the aforementioned limitation is unclear with regard to the result and/or modification that is performed by the integral control (and additionally the proportional control), and neither the claim nor the written description provides a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the claimed aforementioned limitation, and it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/26 have been fully considered and are addressed hereafter. The rejection(s) have been adapted as appropriate in view of the newly presented claim amendment(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 would be allowed assuming the above rejection(s) were overcome.
The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the structural and functional limitations as recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a temperature control method of controlling a temperature of a substrate to be treated with heat using light emitted from a light source part including a plurality of solid-state light sources including the steps of a step (A) of repeated switching between a light-on and light-off state, a step (B) of measuring the temperature of the substrate by observing infrared light radiated from the substrate while the light source part is in a light-off state in step (A), a step (C) of controlling the level of electricity supplied to the light source part in the next round of the light-on state by a proportional control and an integral control, in which the proportional control is based on a difference between the temperature of the substrate in the step (B) and the target temperature, and the integral control is based on a change in the temperature of the substrate measured in the step (B) over time as recited in Claim 1. Claim 5 is directed to a temperature control device for controlling a temperature of a substrate to be treated with heat and includes the same limitations to those of claim 1 which is directed to a method, whereas claim 5 is directed toward a device. Accordingly, the comments presented over claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 5.
The closest prior art references of record are Kubo (JP 2006066452) and Gouda (US 20200013645). While Kubo does disclose a rapid heat treatment apparatus and method which includes performing a PID control of lamp power during the “continuous irradiation mode” (S7), a period when the lamp intensity is continuously on. In PID control, the substrate temperature is measured in comparison with the target temperature, this substrate temperature is the measured temperature during the period when the continuous irradiation mod is performed. Further, Kubo at para. [0026]-[0027] that intermittent irradiation mode, lamp power control is not performed using only PID control, and even the output signal from the temperature sensor is not used for this purpose. Accordingly, Kubo does not disclose the claimed proportional control and integral control as claimed in the independent claims of the instant patent application. While Gouda does teach an LED lamp for heating and wafer heating device including the same, Gouda does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of the primary prior art citation. Since none of the prior art references of record alone or in combination disclose all the limitations of the applicant's independent claims, and since the prior art of record does not teach and render obvious of having the aforementioned limitations, thus the independent claims read over the prior art of record and are considered to have allowable subject matter.
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights