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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 7/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 110752159, hereinafter all citations to this document are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Evans et al. (US 9287148).
With regard to claim 1, Long teaches an optical heating method comprising: a process (a) in which an object to be treated containing a wide band gap semiconductor is irradiated with ultraviolet light having a peak wavelength in a range of 175 nm to 370 nm to heat the object to be treated (page 5, Example 4, paragraphs 12-15 of the page).
Long does not explicitly teach that the light is emitted from a UV-LED light source through a window member.
Evans teaches, in Fig 5, that the light (shown, but unlabeled as emitting from 520) is emitted from a UV-LED light source (520) through a window member (530), “for dynamically heating portions of the workpiece during workpiece processing that allowed the desired amount of temperature and spatial control,” (column 1, lines 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective filing date to combine the method of Long with the light source configuration of Evans to allow for the desired amount of temperature and spatial control.
With regard to claim 3, Long teaches that the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength in a range of 190 nm to 370 nm (page 5, Example 4, paragraphs 12-15 of the page).
With regard to claim 5, Long teaches that the wide band gap semiconductor is made of Ga2O3 and the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength of 300 nm or less (page 5, Example 4, paragraphs 12-15 of the page).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 110752159, hereinafter all citations to this document are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Evans et al. (US 9287148) and JP-H04247637 (hereinafter all citations to this document are made to the attached machine translation, this document is referred to as ‘637 hereinafter).
With regard to claim 2, Long/Evans teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Long/Evans do not explicitly teach a process (b) in which a radiation thermometer having a sensitivity wavelength range in a predetermined wavelength range of 0.5 μm to 5 μm measures a temperature of the object to be treated by receiving light emitted from the object to be treated during execution of the process (a).
‘637 teaches a process (b) in which a radiation thermometer having a sensitivity wavelength range in a predetermined wavelength range of 0.5 μm to 5 μm measures a temperature of the object to be treated by receiving light emitted from the object to be treated during execution of the process (a) ([0030]) to, “detects temperature,” ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Long/Evans with the radiation thermometer of ‘637 to detect temperature.
With regard to claim 4, Long teaches that the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength in a range of 190 nm to 370 nm (page 5, Example 4, paragraphs 12-15 of the page).
With regard to claim 6, Long teaches that the wide band gap semiconductor is made of Ga2O3 and the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength of 300 nm or less (page 5, Example 4, paragraphs 12-15 of the page).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 110752159, hereinafter all citations to this document are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Evans et al. (US 9287148) and Iguchi et al. (US 2020/0066528).
With regard to claim 7, Long/Evans teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 3.
Long/Evans does not explicitly teach that the wide band gap semiconductor is made of GaN or SiC and the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength of 360 nm or less.
Iguchi teaches, in Fig 3B, that the wide band gap semiconductor is made of GaN or SiC and the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength of 360 nm or less ([0047]), “to keep the high-temperature heat treatment process confined,” ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Long/Evans with the conditions of Iguchi to keep the high-temperature heat treatment process confined.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 110752159, hereinafter all citations to this document are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Evans et al. (US 9287148), JP-H04247637 (hereinafter all citations to this document are made to the attached machine translation, this document is referred to as ‘637 hereinafter), and Iguchi et al. (US 2020/0066528).
With regard to claim 8, Long/Evans/’637 teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 4.
Long/Evans/’637 does not explicitly teach that the wide band gap semiconductor is made of GaN or SiC and the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength of 360 nm or less.
Iguchi teaches, in Fig 3B, that the wide band gap semiconductor is made of GaN or SiC and the ultraviolet light has a peak wavelength of 360 nm or less ([0047]), “to keep the high-temperature heat treatment process confined,” ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Long/Evans/’637 with the conditions of Iguchi to keep the high-temperature heat treatment process confined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights