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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no proper antecedent basis for the “remote controller”. The specification discloses for a remoter computer, and for purposes of examination, the remoter controller is interpreted to be a remote computer.
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 remote controller as recited in claim 1 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2016/0345384).
Zhang discloses the system claimed including a substrate support assembly (200), an application program/routine that is stored, a control board (250) disposed in the substrate support assembly wherein the control board includes a controller (160) includes an optical communication interface board (256), a pulse width modification PWM heater controller (216) wherein the controller is connected with the stored application routine/applications when in operation (para 0036), a heating element having a plurality of spatially tunable heaters (214) that are individually tunable by the pulse width modification heater controller (para 0047-0048).
Zhang does not explicitly show the optical communication interface (256) that is wireless and the controller (160) being a processor with connected to a memory that stores the application program/routine wherein the process is configured to communicate with a remote controller.
But, Zhang discloses that the communication can be transmitted via an optical or wireline as well as in wireless transmission (para 0025), and Zhang further discloses that the controller (160) has a similar architecture with a system controller (400; para 0059-0060) which is known to include a process/CPU as well as a memory (404) that is connected to the processor for reading and accessing the application program/routine, and Zhang further shows a remote controller shown by a remote controller (shown by the system controller 400; also, see Figure 4) that is in wireless communication (para 0064) with a process equipment (470 which includes the processing chamber 120 having the substrate support assembly; para 0034-0036 and 0066), and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Zhang having the control board comprising the controller (160) with a processor, which is known to run software routines as known in the art, connected to a memory having a wireless interface for reading and accessing the application program/routine, including a remote controller/computer, as another known arrangement to not only individually control the tunable heaters as desired but also wirelessly via a remote controller as a more convenient means to control the system as desired.
With respect to claim 2, Zhang discloses that a logic, which would include a program regulating power settings, can be placed directly in the PWM heating controller (216) or the controller (160; para 0047), and as such program would have been stored in the memory, the memory would also have been located in the control board that includes the PWM heating controller (216).
With respect to claim 3, Zhang discloses the controller (160) that is provided remote from the substrate support assembly wherein the controller (160) having a memory (as that of the system controller 400), the memory would also be located remote from the control board in the substrate support assembly.
With respect to claims 4-6, Zhang discloses an external controller (180; para 0059) coupled to the control board wherein the external controller further includes a first power supply (222) which is configured to provide power to the heating element (para 0040).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang disclose that the external controller (180) includes a database (182) and a computing platform (184) but does not disclose that the external controller comprises a programming processor.
With respect to claim 8, Zhang discloses the external controller comprises or is connected with a second power supply (206) via the controller (160).
With respect to claim 10, Zhang discloses for communication that can be transmitted wirelessly (para 0025) wherein the processer would can be controllable wirelessly as the control system can communicate wireless (also, see para 0025 and 0064).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang discloses the controller/processor (160) that is operable automatically as the controller receives inputs from heating operations and makes adjustments necessary to meet the heating temperature/profile/data that is stored in the memory (also, see para 0059 and 0060) wherein the heating operation would include application of power above a predetermined threshold or any suitable power to reduce variations in the temperature within the desired temperature profile range (also, see para 0049).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1-8, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Nero Jr (US 2010/0013457).
Zhang shows the system claimed except for the external controller having a single current clamp.
Nero shows it is known to provide a processor (84) with a current clamp (86) that reads and regulates current supplied to a power source (or power takeoff PTO) and used to prevent damage to the electronic components (also, see para 0077).
In view of Nero, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Zhang with the external controller having a single current clamp that reads and regulates current to provides a protection against over current or that exceeds a threshold current for the protection of the external controller including its electronic components as known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zhang does not show a prima facie showing of a control board having a processor. This argument is not deemed persuasive as Zhang shows the control board 250 that comprises a controller 160 wherein Zhang further discloses that the controller 160 has a similar architecture with that of a system 400 which includes a processor (also, see para 0059 and 0060). Thus, Zhang is deemed to meet the claimed invention for the control board that comprise a process as the control board (250) is connected with the controller (160) that can be provided with a processor as taught in para 0059-0060.
Conclusion
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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights