Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/975,720

LIGHT IRRADIATION TYPE HEAT TREATMENT METHOD AND HEAT TREATMENT APPARATUS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 28, 2022
Examiner
WILCZEWSKI, MARY A
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Screen Holdings Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
703 granted / 828 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
862
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 828 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 23 October 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 are pending in the application. Claims 3 and 5 have been cancelled. Claims 7 and 8 are newly submitted. This application is a divisional of application Serial No. 16/894,997, filed on 08 June 2020, now US Patent 11,551,946. 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 7, and 8 are allowable over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Kitazawa et al., US 2018/0254224. In the heat treatment apparatus of Kitagawa et al., temperature of the front surface of the semiconductor wafer is measured at predetermined intervals after the irradiation of a flash of light, and is sequentially accumulated to acquire a temperature profile. After acquiring the temperature profile by measuring the temperature of the front surface of the substrate, a crack can be determined by analyzing the temperature profile. FIG. 11 of Kitagawa et al. is a graph for explaining crack determination based on an average value of a temperature profile. In the heat treatment apparatus of Kitagawa et al., the determination part determines that the substrate is cracked when a front surface temperature integrated value obtained by integrating the front surface temperatures of the substrate deviates from a preset range between an upper limit value U1 and a lower limit value L1, see Fig. 11 and paragraphs [0100]-[0102]. However, Kitazawa et al. fail to teach or suggest “said determination part determines that said substrate W is cracked when a front surface temperature integrated value obtained by integrating the front surface temperatures of said substrate W deviates from a preset range between an upper limit value and a lower limit value and a back surface temperature integrated value obtained by integrating the back surface temperatures of said substrate W deviates from a preset range between an upper limit value and a lower limit value” (emphasis added), as required in independent claim 4. 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kitazawa et al., US 2018/0254224, of record. Alternately, claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being by Kitazawa et al., US 2018/0254224, of record. With respect to claim 1, Kitazawa et al. disclose a heat treatment apparatus for heating a substrate by irradiating the substrate with a flash of light, shown in Fig. 1, comprising: a chamber 6 for receiving a substrate W therein; a susceptor 7 for holding the substrate in said chamber 6; a continuous lighting lamp 4 (HL) for irradiating said substrate W held by said susceptor 7 with light to heat said substrate W to a preheating temperature; a flash lamp 5 (FL) for irradiating a front surface of said substrate W with a flash of light to heat the front surface; a radiation thermometer 20/25 (90 is a high-speed radiation thermometer, shown in Fig. 8) for measuring a temperature of said substrate W; a calculation part 90/3/31 for integrating temperatures of said substrate measured by said radiation thermometer during a period from a start of said flash irradiation to an end of the heating of said substrate to calculate a temperature integrated value, see Figs. 8-9 and paragraphs [0075], [0076], [0078], [0099], and [0100]-[0102]; and a determination part 3/31 for determining that said substrate is cracked when said temperature integrated value deviates from a preset range between an upper limit value and a lower limit value, see paragraphs [0078], [0100]-[0102], [0105]-[0108], and [0123] and Fig. 11, wherein said radiation thermometer 20/25 includes a front surface radiation thermometer 25 for measuring a front surface temperature of said substrate W, and a back surface radiation thermometer 20 for measuring a back surface temperature of said substrate W, see paragraph [0073] and [0088]; said calculation part 3/31 integrates front surface temperatures of said substrate and back surface temperatures of said substrate, see paragraphs [0088]-[0089] and Figs. 9-11 (The upper radiation thermometer 25 measures temperature of the front surface of the substrate, as disclosed in paragraph [0096]. The lower radiation thermometer 20 measures temperature of a semiconductor wafer W when the halogen lamps HL perform preliminary heating, see paragraph [0088]. Since the controller 3 effects feedback control of the output from the halogen lamps HL so that the temperature of the semiconductor wafer W is equal to the preliminary heating temperature T1 based on the value measured with the lower radiation thermometer, said calculation part 3/31 “integrates” the front surface temperatures of said substrate and back surface temperatures of said substrate.); said determination part 3/31 determines that said substrate W is cracked when a front surface temperature integrated value obtained by integrating the front surface temperatures of said substrate W deviates from a preset range between an upper limit value U1 and a lower limit value U2 or a back surface temperature integrated value obtained by integrating the back surface temperatures of said substrate W deviates from a preset range between an upper limit value and a lower limit value, see Fig. 11 and paragraphs [0100]-[0102]. With respect to claim 2, in the heat treatment apparatus of Kitazawa, said calculation part 3/31 integrates temperatures of said substrate measured during a period from the start of said flash irradiation to an end of the heating of said substrate with said continuous lighting lamp 4 (HL), see paragraphs [0098]-[0109] and Figs. 9-.11 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazawa et al., US 2018/0254224, of record. Kitazawa et al. is applied as above. In paragraph [0107], Kitazawa et al. disclose that if the substrate W is cracked, the determination part 3/31 interrupts the treatment in the heat treatment apparatus 1, and also stops operation of a transfer system for transferring a semiconductor wafer W to and from the chamber 6. Since treatment in the heat treatment apparatus 1 includes supplying a gas through gas supply opening 84 and exhausting the gas through valves 89 and 192, see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0082]-[0084]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that interrupting the treatment in the heat treatment apparatus 1 would include stopping the supply and exhaust of gas into and out of said chamber 6. Therefore, with respect to claim 6, in the heat treatment apparatus of Kitazawa et al., when said determination part 3/31 determines that said substrate W is cracked, supply and exhaust of gas into and out of said chamber are stopped. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 23 October 2025 with respect to claims 1, 2, and 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Kitagawa et al. discloses determining that the substrate is cracked when an average value of a temperature profile or a standard deviation of the temperature profile deviates from a predetermined range. Admittedly, independent claim 1 has been amended to require “said calculation part integrates front surface temperatures of the substrate and back surface temperatures of the substrate. “Integrate” is defined as to combine or unite. As noted in the rejection above, in the heating apparatus of Kitagawa et al., the upper radiation thermometer 25 measures temperature of the front surface of the substrate, as disclosed in paragraph [0096]. The lower radiation thermometer 20 measures temperature of a semiconductor wafer W when the halogen lamps HL perform preliminary heating, see paragraph [0088]. Since the controller 3 effects feedback control of the output from the halogen lamps HL so that the temperature of the semiconductor wafer W is equal to the preliminary heating temperature T1 based on the value measured with the lower radiation thermometer 20, said calculation part 3/31 in the known apparatus of Kitagawa et al. “integrates” the front surface temperatures of said substrate and back surface temperatures of said substrate, as required in independent claim 1. Since the controller 3 controls the output from the halogen lamps HL and effects feedback control of the output from the halogen lamps HL based on the temperature of the back surface measured with the lower radiation thermometer 20, the temperature profile of the front surface of the substrate in the apparatus of Kitagawa et al. is acquired by integrating the temperature measured on the front surface and the temperature measured on the back surface of the substrate, as shown in Fig. 10 of Kitagawa et al., see paragraphs [0088]-[0091]. For this reason, the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6 based on Kitagawa et al. has been maintained. 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 MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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. MARY A. WILCZEWSKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2898 /MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 23, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604642
OLED DISPLAY PANEL, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME, AND MICRO LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604578
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588321
METAL OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR-BASED LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588455
DOPANT DIFFUSION WITH SHORT HIGH TEMPERATURE ANNEAL PULSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581827
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 828 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month