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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-17, 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the body out of a resin, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2016/0289835 to Kuh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0226272 to Kasai et al and United States Patent Application No. 2008/0264072 to Miyoshi et al is presented below.
The amendments to the independent claims have changed the scope of the dependent claims, such that further search and consideration was deemed necessary. As such, the rejection below is made FINAL.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, does not expressly teach the material of the reflector in claim 21, which includes a first and second polymer that is combined with a filler that improves thermal conductivity of the polymer, the filler includes one or more of boron nitride, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, carbon- based structures, diamond, or metal powder; and a gold or aluminum coating. The Applicant’s arguments against using the teachings of Lin (which teaches these limitations but for non-analogous art/reflective plastic consumer products) have been considered persuasive and incorporated herein.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0289835 to Kuh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0226272 to Kasai et al and United States Patent Application No. 2008/0264072 to Miyoshi et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Kuh teaches a light reflector 140 Fig. 14, 15, 18 for use in a semiconductor processing chamber 110 Fig. 2 [0047], the reflector 140 comprising: a cylindrical body 142 having an upper surface (top of 142) and a lower surface (bottom of 142), the lower surface having a plurality of concave reflector structures 142a, 142b, 142c disposed around a centerline of the cylindrical body (as it is on the ring bottom surface of 142) [0038-0112].
Kuh does not expressly teach a cooling channel disposed in or on the cylindrical body or a reflective coating disposed on the plurality of concave reflector structures.
Kasai teaches a reflector 64, 70 [0081-0083] that is made out of a polished aluminum material coated with magnesium fluoride film or gold [0081-0083], such that it has a reflectivity of 80-90% [0126] and higher than 90% (as shown in Fig. 11 [0072-0130]. Kasai teaches the material is suitable for reflector use as it has a high reflectivity [0124-0126].
Kasai further teaches that cooling channels 84 throughout the reflector body (body of 64) that has a cooling inlet 84A and a cooling outlet 84B in the side surface of the body of the reflector 64 that is cycled through the reflector to minimize radiant heat from the reflector that is created from the lamps from heating the substrates after the lamps are turned off to rapidly cool the LED elements and thus rapidly cool the wafer and realize high speed cooldown [0102-0107].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have added cooling channels to the reflector of Kuh, as per the teachings of Kasai. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to rapidly cool down the wafer by reducing radiant heat from the lamps. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Kuh in view of Kasai does not expressly teach the cylindrical body is made from a polymer or that the coating is made out of gold/aluminum.
Miyoshi teaches a heating lamp 3a Fig. 1 with a reflector (not shown) for lamp 3a, the reflector being made out of a resin, i.e., a polymer, that has a high reflective coating such as gold or aluminum [0035; 0025-0035], which produces a reflector that reflects visible and infrared rays and is highly reflective for heating [0035].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Kuh in view of Kasai, to make the body of the reflector out of a resin/polymer coated with gold or aluminum, as per the teachings of Miyoshi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating a reflector that is highly reflective for visible and infrared rays. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi teaches the plurality of concave structures are radially aligned outward of a centerline of the cylindrical body (as shown in the structures of 142b, 142c in a ring around the cylinder of 144).
In regards to Claim 4, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi do not expressly teach the plurality of concave structures are arranged in polar array in a common diameter.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the arrangement of the concave structures that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a polar array vs a radial alignment, as shown in the three embodiments of concave reflector shapes in Fig. 2A, 5 and 6 of the instant application. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. As such, modification of the shapes are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, and modification to a polar array (i.e., duplicating the ring of the concave structures for a differing shape) would result in the claimed shape.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 5, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi teaches the cooling channel is embedded in the body having an inlet and an outlet port disposed through the upper surface or a side surface of the cylindrical body, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 6, Kuh teaches a shell 144 extending through the cylindrical body and projecting below the lower surface to a distal end, as shown in Fig. 14 and 15 and 18
In regards to Claim 8, Kuh does not expressly teach the shell further comprise a cooling channel, but does expressly teach that the shell 144 is another reflection ring [0086].
Kasai teaches that cooling channels 84 throughout the reflector body (body of 64) that has a cooling inlet 84A and a cooling outlet 84B in the side surface of the body of the reflector 64 that is cycled through the reflector to minimize radiant heat from the reflector that is created from the lamps from heating the substrates after the lamps are turned off to rapidly cool the LED elements and thus rapidly cool the wafer and realize high speed cooldown [0102-0107].
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have added cooling channels to the reflector of Kuh, including an inner reflection ring, as per the teachings of Kasai, as 144 of Kuh is adjacent to the lamps 120e and would also reflect radiant heat from the lamps without the cooling channels and would thus benefit from having a cooling channel present therein. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to rapidly cool down the wafer by reducing radiant heat from the lamps. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 9, Kuh teaches a shell 144 extending through the cylindrical body and projecting below the lower surface to a distal end (as shown in Fig. 14 and 15 and 18 and Kuh); and a baffle (control ring 184 Fig. 18) coupled to the distal end of the shell (as shown in Fig. 18, where 184 is coupled to the bottom of 144 to reflect light as needed).
In regards to Claim 12, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi teaches the reflective coating comprises a coating thickness selected to provide reflectance of 90% or more, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above and the teachings of Kasai therein.
In regards to Claim 13, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi teaches the reflective coating is gold or aluminum, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above and the teachings of Miyoshi therein.
In regards to Claim 14, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi does not expressly teach a protective magnesium fluoride layer disposed on top of the aluminum reflective coating.
Kasai teaches a reflector 64, 70 [0081-0083] that is made out of a polished aluminum material coated with magnesium fluoride film or gold [0081-0083], such that is has a reflectivity of 80-90% [0126] and higher than 90% (as shown in Fig. 11 [0072-0130]. Kasai teaches the material is suitable for reflector use as it has a high reflectivity [0124-0126]. Thus, Kasai teaches a protective magnesium fluoride layer disposed on top of the aluminum reflective coating.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the combined teachings of Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi, with the added layer of magnesium fluoride, as a suitable material for the reflector. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 17, Kuh teaches a processing chamber 110 Fig. 2 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0003], comprising: a chamber body (body of 11) having an internal volume (space between 112 and 114); a plurality of lamps 120e; a substrate support 115, 118 disposed in the internal volume, the substrate support comprising a support surface (top of 118) [0049-0051]; a window 114 disposed over the substrate support and at least partially bounding the internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2); a reflector 142 Fig. 14, 15 18 positioned to reflect light emitted from the lamps 120e through the window and into the internal volume [0086-0089], t the reflector 140 comprising: a cylindrical body 142 having an upper surface (top of 142) and a lower surface (bottom of 142), the lower surface having a plurality of concave reflector structures 142a, 142b, 142c disposed around a centerline of the cylindrical body (as it is on the ring bottom surface of 142) [0038-0112].
Kuh does not expressly teach a cooling channel disposed in or on the cylindrical body or a reflective coating disposed on the plurality of concave reflector structures.
Kasai teaches a reflector 64, 70 [0081-0083] that is made out of a polished aluminum material coated with magnesium fluoride film or gold [0081-0083], such that is has a reflectivity of 80-90% [0126] and higher than 90% (as shown in Fig. 11 [0072-0130]. Kasai teaches the material is suitable for reflector use as it has a high reflectivity [0124-0126].
Kasai further teaches that cooling channels 84 throughout the reflector body (body of 64) that has a cooling inlet 84A and a cooling outlet 84B in the side surface of the body of the reflector 64 that is cycled through the reflector to minimize radiant heat from the reflector that is created from the lamps from heating the substrates after the lamps are turned off to rapidly cool the LED elements and thus rapidly cool the wafer and realize high speed cooldown [0102-0107].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have added cooling channels to the reflector of Kuh, as per the teachings of Kasai. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to rapidly cool down the wafer by reducing radiant heat from the lamps. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Kuh in view of Kasai does not expressly teach the cylindrical body is made from a polymer or that the coating is made out of gold/aluminum.
Miyoshi teaches a heating lamp 3a Fig. 1 with a reflector (not shown) for lamp 3a, the reflector being made out of a resin, i.e., a polymer, that has a high reflective coating such as gold or aluminum [0035; 0025-0035], which produces a reflector that reflects visible and infrared rays and is highly reflective for heating [0035].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Kuh in view of Kasai, to make the body of the reflector out of a resin/polymer coated with gold or aluminum, as per the teachings of Miyoshi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating a reflector that is highly reflective for visible and infrared rays. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 19, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi does not expressly teach a protective magnesium fluoride layer disposed on top of the aluminum reflective coating.
Kasai teaches a reflector 64, 70 [0081-0083] that is made out of a polished aluminum material coated with magnesium fluoride film or gold [0081-0083], such that is has a reflectivity of 80-90% [0126] and higher than 90% (as shown in Fig. 11 [0072-0130]. Kasai teaches the material is suitable for reflector use as it has a high reflectivity [0124-0126]. Thus, Kasai teaches a protective magnesium fluoride layer disposed on top of the aluminum reflective coating.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the combined teachings of Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi, with the added layer of magnesium fluoride, as a suitable material for the reflector. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 20, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi teaches a cooling channel disposed within the cylindrical body, as per the rejection of Claim 17 above.
Claim(s) 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0289835 to Kuh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0226272 to Kasai et al and United States Patent Application No. 2008/0264072 to Miyoshi et al, as per the rejection of claims 6 and 9 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2015/0184313 to Yoshitake et al.
The teachings of Kuh in view of Kasai are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 7 and 10, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi do not expressly teach the shell and the cylindrical body are formed from a single mass of material or the shell and the baffle are formed from a single mass of material.
Yoshitake teaches a reflector 26, 26a is made of a single mass material of gold covered aluminum (as shown in Fig. 1), there being a cylinder and a shell and a baffle are made integral with each other [0030-0062], as generally shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
362
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have made the cylindrical body, shell and baffle of Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi out of a single mass of material, as generally shown in Yoshitake as a known reflector body. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified these are known analogous structures. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Additionally, it is known to make parts integral, as per the teachings of In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 11, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi do not expressly teach a gap is defined between the distal end of the shell and the baffle.
Yoshitake teaches a baffle in the form of an additional reflection member 27 that is placed near the distal end of the shell 26 but spaced apart to create a gap between the distal end of the shell, the baffle being provided to close the opening of the reflection member to create an even in-plane temperature distribution of the wafer [0043-0049].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the apparatus of Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi and removed the baffle therein to create a baffle in the central portion, as per the teachings of Yoshitake. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating an even in-plane temperature distribution of the wafer. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, with a baffle at the distal end of the shell but creating a gap between the distal end of the shell with the baffle.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0289835 to Kuh et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0226272 to Kasai et al and United States Patent Application No. 2008/0264072 to Miyoshi et al, as per the rejection of claims 6 and 9 above, and in further view of United States Patent No. 4838629 to Maruyama et al.
The teachings of Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 2, 15, 16 and 18, Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi do not expressly teach the cylindrical body or the reflector is made out of polymer such as PEEK or polyimide.
Maruyama teaches a reflector body made out of a resin that is polyimide/PEEK based (Claim 1-2, Col. 3-4).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a reflective coating analogous to that of Kuh in view of Kasai and Miyoshi out of a polymer such as polyimide or PEEK with a carbon and gold filler, as taught by Maruyama, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claims 15-16.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716