DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regarding the drawings objection, the express illustration of features “first pin connectors” and “auxiliary pin connectors” is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter.
Examiner disagrees. As Applicant is their own lexicographer, Applicant has chosen words, which can be defined as something other than one having ordinary skill in the art, as noted here. Expressly, Applicant did not clarify what structure(s) the limitations above are drawn to, nor has Applicant pointed out where in the specification and drawings expressly point out what the structure(s) are. Perhaps Applicant is also unaware of what exactly the structures are. This is apparent as Applicant’s own arguments with regards to the 103 rejections, is that Song is complete silent regarding pin connectors. Applicant has not clarified what pin connectors are, and this is apparent in both the responses to the drawings objection and the 103 rejection.
Applicant argues that Lindberg and Song are silent to pin connectors (without any explanation of what the structures are).
Examiner disagrees, and notes that there is no clarification (from Applicant) of what the limitations structurally are drawn to. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant’s now (more) legible drawings (Fig. 3) are substantially similar to the prior art of record, especially prior art reference Song (Fig. 4-5). The 103 rejections are maintained, as no clarification of what the actual differences in the prior art versus the pending claims have been established (with evidence of what structurally are “pin connectors”).
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the auxiliary pin connectors, first pin connectors must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Actuating device (any structure that actuates due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0093]) in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
Thermal insulation portion (anything that insulates due to lack of structure in the specification, para. [0084]) in claim 19.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190244839 to Lindberg in view of US 20200063975 to Song.
Claims 1, 13: Lindberg discloses a heating apparatus for heating a rotatable wafer susceptor, the wafer susceptor (203 [disc-shaped carrier], Fig. 1-2) having a rotation axis (X [reference point]), the heating apparatus (100 [heating device]) being disposed beneath the wafer susceptor (203) and vertically spaced a distance from the wafer susceptor (Fig. 1c), the heating apparatus comprising: a main heater (120 [second heating unit]) and configured to heat the wafer susceptor (203) above (Fig. 1c); and
a plurality of auxiliary heaters (110 [first heating unit]), wherein the plurality of auxiliary heaters (110) have different distances from the rotation axis (X, para. [0068]), and each of the plurality of auxiliary heaters (110) is configured to independently adjust a local temperature of a zone heated by the main heater (para. [0076]).
However Lindberg does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) the main heater including two first pin connectors, each of the plurality of auxiliary heaters including two auxiliary pin connectors, a cross-section area of each of the first pin connectors is greater than three folds of a cross-section area of each of the auxiliary pin connectors; (claim 13) wherein the main heating segment further includes a connector for connecting different arc-shaped heating segments.
Song teaches that the first and second heaters (30A/30B and 50, Fig. 7) can be connected to the electrode via connectors and the connectors’ widths may be equal, or narrower or wider (para. [0067-0069]) for the purpose of connecting the heaters to power (para. [0038]) and/or changing resistance to reduce local heating (para. [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the connectors to each of the heaters and optimization of connector widths relative to each other as taught by Song with motivation to connect the heaters to power to power the heaters and/or changing resistance to reduce local heating.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song discloses wherein the plurality of auxiliary heaters (110, Fig. 2A, Lindberg) are arranged in a straight line (Fig. 2A-2B).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song discloses wherein a distance from an auxiliary heater (110, Fig. 2B, Lindberg) of the plurality of auxiliary heaters (110) to the wafer susceptor (230) is equal to or different from distance from the main heater (120) to the wafer susceptor (203, Fig. 2A-2C).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song discloses wherein the main heater (120, Fig. 2B, Lindberg) includes a main heating segment (122 [heating element]), the main heating segment (122) including a plurality of arc-shaped heating segments (multiple 122).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song discloses wherein when the wafer susceptor (203, Fig. 2B, Lindberg) is rotating, the plurality of auxiliary heaters are configured to heat the wafer susceptor (203, para. [0067]), forming a plurality of auxiliary ring-shaped heating zones (para. [0070-0072]) having different distances from the rotation axis (X), wherein temperatures of the plurality of auxiliary ring-shaped heating zones are independently controllable to adjust local temperatures of the zone heated by the main heater (para. [0070-0072]).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song discloses wherein when the wafer susceptor (203, Fig. 2B, Lindberg) is rotating, vertical projections of the arc-shaped heating segments onto the wafer susceptor form a first ring-shaped zone, and vertical projection of at least one of the auxiliary heaters onto the wafer susceptor at least partially overlaps the first ring-shaped zone (it is noted that these limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, as the structure is already present, para. [0067-0073]). The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 7-10, 12, 16-17: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song does not explicitly disclose (claim 7) wherein when the wafer susceptor is rotating, vertical projections of intervals between adjacent arc-shaped heating segments onto the wafer susceptor form a second ring-shaped zone, and vertical projection of at least one of the auxiliary heaters onto the wafer susceptor at least partially overlaps the second ring-shaped zone; (claim 8) wherein radial position of at least one of the auxiliary heaters corresponds to that of an interval between adjacent arc-shaped heating segments; (claim 9) wherein radial position of at least one of the auxiliary heaters corresponds to that of the arc-shaped heating segment;
(claim 10) wherein radial positions of a first group of auxiliary heaters of the auxiliary heaters correspond to those of intervals between adjacent arc-shaped heating segments, and radial positions of a second group of auxiliary heaters of the auxiliary heaters correspond to those of the arc-shaped heating segments; (claim 12) wherein radial width of at least one of the auxiliary heaters is greater than a width of an interval between adjacent arc-shaped heating segments; (claim 16) wherein the auxiliary heaters include first auxiliary heaters and second auxiliary heaters, distances from the first auxiliary heaters to the rotation axis are greater than distances from the second auxiliary heaters to the rotation axis, and a number of the first auxiliary heaters is greater than or equal to that of the second auxiliary heaters; (claim 17) wherein the auxiliary heaters include first auxiliary heaters and second auxiliary heaters, distances from the first auxiliary heaters to the rotation axis are greater than distances from the second auxiliary heaters to the rotation axis, and heating power of the first auxiliary heaters is greater than or equal to that of the second auxiliary heaters;
It is noted that these limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, as the structure is already present (para. [0067-0073]). The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Additionally, Song teaches positioning the patterns of the heaters can have multiple ways to be interval spaced and radially or otherwise positioned (as shown in Song in multiple embodiments, Fig. 4-7) or have radial widths that vary (para. [0086]). Song discloses the above optimizations and variables for the purpose of having a pattern or shape for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible (para. [0006]).
Further regarding the placement and positioning of the heaters, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above optimizations and variables as taught by Song with motivation to have a pattern, shape, or arrangement for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song does not explicitly disclose wherein the first group of auxiliary heaters and the second group of auxiliary heaters are located on two sides of the rotation axis, respectively.
However Song discloses wherein the first group of auxiliary heaters (30A [first outer plate heating element], Fig. 7) and the second group of auxiliary heaters (30B [second outer plate heating element]) may be located on two sides of the rotation axis (C [centerline], para. [0156]), respectively, for the purpose of having a pattern or shape for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the
Claims 14-15: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song does not explicitly disclose (claim 14) wherein auxiliary heating zones are provided between a plurality of opposite connectors of the main heating segment, the auxiliary heaters being located within the auxiliary heating zones; (claim 15) wherein an area of the auxiliary heating zones is less than 1/5 of an area of the wafer susceptor.
Song discloses positioning the patterns of the heaters can have multiple ways to be interval spaced and radially or otherwise positioned (as shown in Song in multiple embodiments, Fig. 4-7) or have zone sizes that vary (para. [0086]). Song discloses the above optimizations and variables for the purpose of having a pattern or shape for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible (para. [0006]).
Further regarding the placement and positioning of the heaters relative to each other, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above optimizations and variables as taught by Song with motivation to have a pattern, shape, or arrangement for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg in view of Song as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of US 20200131636 to AuBuchon.
Claim 18: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song does not explicitly disclose wherein heating power of the main heater is over 15 folds of that of the auxiliary heaters.
AuBuchon discloses that any of the heaters can have n-folds and the folds with respect to the other heater(s) can be symmetric or non-symmetric (para. [0053-0055]) for the purpose of having a process condition to form a film having a substantially uniform thickness (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of folds as taught by AuBuchon with motivation to have process condition to form a film having a substantially uniform thickness.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg in view of Song as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of US 20160247690 to Takahashi.
Claim 19: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song does not explicitly disclose further comprising a thermal insulation portion, wherein the thermal insulation portion surrounds the auxiliary heaters to transfer heat of the auxiliary heaters to the wafer susceptor.
However Takahashi discloses a thermal insulation portion (93 [heat insulating member], Fig. 4) which surrounds a heat component (92), for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the surface of the susceptor via the temperature adjustment component (para. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal insulation portion as taught by Takahashi with motivation to control the temperature of the surface of the susceptor via the temperature adjustment component.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg in view of Song as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of US 20130078375 to Krotov.
Claim 21: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song discloses a main power controller (303 [control device], Fig. 5, Lindberg) connected to the main heater (120) and an auxiliary power controller (303) connected to the auxiliary heaters (110), wherein the main power controller and the auxiliary power controller (303) are configured to control heating power of the main heater and heating power of the auxiliary heaters, respectively (para. [0038], [0080-0081]).
However the apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a thermal insulative shielding plate provided beneath the heating apparatus, wherein a plurality of first pin connectors of the main heater and a plurality of auxiliary pin connectors of the auxiliary heaters pass downward through the thermal insulative shielding plate to be electrically connected to the main power controller and auxiliary power controller below.
Krotov discloses thermal insulative shielding plate (9 [heat insulation], Fig. 2) is provided adjacent a plurality of heaters (8 [heaters], para. [0022]), a liquid cooling conduit (15/cooler, para. [0023]) is provided adjacent the thermal insulative shielding plate (9) such that a cooling zone is formed adjacent the thermal insulative shielding plate (9) for the purpose of being controlled to remove sufficient heat from the enclosure to maintain a temperature profile within the enclosure or deposition chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal insulative plate and cooling conduit as taught by Krotov with motivation to be controlled to remove sufficient heat from the enclosure to maintain a temperature profile within the enclosure or deposition chamber.
Claim 22: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 23, 25, 29, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190244839 to Lindberg in view of US 20200063975 to Song, and further in view of US 20210130958 to Wu, US 20130078375 to Krotov.
Claims 23, 25, 29: Lindberg discloses a heating apparatus for heating a rotatable wafer susceptor, the wafer susceptor (203 [disc-shaped carrier], Fig. 1-2) having a rotation axis (X [reference point]), the heating apparatus (100 [heating device]) being disposed beneath the wafer susceptor (203) and vertically spaced a distance from the wafer susceptor (Fig. 1c), the heating apparatus comprising: a main heater (120 [second heating unit]) and configured to heat the wafer susceptor (203) above (Fig. 1c); and
a plurality of auxiliary heaters (110 [first heating unit]), wherein the plurality of auxiliary heaters (110) have different distances from the rotation axis (X, para. [0068]), and each of the plurality of auxiliary heaters (110) is configured to independently adjust a local temperature of a zone heated by the main heater (para. [0076]).
However Lindberg does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) the main heater including two first pin connectors, each of the plurality of auxiliary heaters including two auxiliary pin connectors, a cross-section area of each of the first pin connectors is greater than three folds of a cross-section area of each of the auxiliary pin connectors; (claim 13) wherein the main heating segment further includes a connector for connecting different arc-shaped heating segments.
Song teaches that the first and second heaters (30A/30B and 50, Fig. 7) can be connected to the electrode via connectors and the connectors’ widths may be equal, or narrower or wider (para. [0067-0069]) for the purpose of connecting the heaters to power (para. [0038]) and/or changing resistance to reduce local heating (para. [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the connectors to each of the heaters and optimization of connector widths relative to each other as taught by Song with motivation to connect the heaters to power to power the heaters and/or changing resistance to reduce local heating.
Wu discloses a chemical vapor deposition equipment, comprising: an airtight reaction chamber (50, Fig. 2); a wafer susceptor (110 [rotating stage]) disposed in the airtight reaction chamber (50) for the purpose of having favorable film uniformity (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the chamber as taught by Wu with motivation to have favorable film uniformity.
However the apparatus of Lindberg, Song, Wu does not disclose (claims 25, 29) a thermal insulative shielding plate is provided beneath the main heater and the auxiliary heater, a liquid cooling conduit is provided beneath the thermal insulative shielding plate such that a cooling zone is formed beneath the thermal insulative shielding plate.
Krotov discloses thermal insulative shielding plate (9 [heat insulation], Fig. 2) is provided adjacent a plurality of heaters (8 [heaters], para. [0022]), a liquid cooling conduit (15/cooler, para. [0023]) is provided adjacent the thermal insulative shielding plate (9) such that a cooling zone is formed adjacent the thermal insulative shielding plate (9) for the purpose of being controlled to remove sufficient heat from the enclosure to maintain a temperature profile within the enclosure or deposition chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal insulative plate and cooling conduit as taught by Krotov with motivation to be controlled to remove sufficient heat from the enclosure to maintain a temperature profile within the enclosure or deposition chamber.
Claim 24: (Cancelled).
Claims 26 – 28: (Cancelled).
Claim 30: (Cancelled).
Claim 31: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song, Wu, Krotov discloses wherein when the wafer susceptor (203, Fig. 2B, Lindberg) is rotating, vertical projections of the arc-shaped heating segments onto the wafer susceptor form a first ring-shaped zone, and vertical projection of at least one of the auxiliary heaters onto the wafer susceptor at least partially overlaps the first ring-shaped zone (it is noted that these limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, as the structure is already present, para. [0067-0073]). The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 32-33: The apparatus of Lindberg in view of Song, Wu, Krotov does not explicitly disclose (claim 32) wherein when the wafer susceptor is rotating, vertical projections of intervals between adjacent arc-shaped heating segments onto the wafer susceptor form a second ring-shaped zone, and vertical projection of at least one of the auxiliary heaters onto the wafer susceptor at least partially overlaps the second ring-shaped zone; (claim 33) wherein when the wafer susceptor is rotating, vertical projections of intervals between adjacent arc-shaped heating segments onto the wafer susceptor form a second ring-shaped zone, and vertical projection of at least one of the auxiliary heaters onto the wafer susceptor at least partially overlaps the second ring-shaped zone.
It is noted that these limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, as the structure is already present (para. [0067-0073]). The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Additionally, Song teaches positioning the patterns of the heaters can have multiple ways to be interval spaced and radially or otherwise positioned (as shown in Song in multiple embodiments, Fig. 4-7) or have intervals that vary (para. [0086]). Song discloses the above optimizations and variables for the purpose of having a pattern or shape for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible (para. [0006]).
Further regarding the placement and positioning of the heaters, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above optimizations and variables as taught by Song with motivation to have a pattern, shape, or arrangement for heating the heating object uniformly as much as possible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11672376 (Fig. 6, 8), US 20180254204 (Fig. 3A-3C, 6A), US 8193473 (Fig. 3-5), US 8143557 (Fig. 1), US 7417206 (Fig. 4-5), US 20060157472 (Fig. 2), US 20030183616 (Fig. 1-2), US 20030062359 (Fig. 14, 16, 20), US 6080970 (Fig. 2, 5, 7) all disclose heaters with connectors.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718