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 .
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 further susceptor plate and the further infrared radiation source as recited in claim 17 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 17, 23, 25, 27, 36, 37 and 39-42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the thickness of the susceptor plate”.
Claim 17 recites for “the susceptor plate” but it is unclear if the susceptor plate is referencing the susceptor plate as recited in claim 1 or that of the further susceptor plate. Claim 17 also recites for “a (further) infrared radiation source” but it is noted that the use of the parenthesis is reserved for a reference numeral but not for defining a claim element. It is suggested that “a (further) infrared radiation source” is amended as a further infrared radiation.
Claim 23 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the total contact area”.
Claim 25 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the maximum unsupported distance”.
Claim 27 recites for a “large-area substrate” and it is noted that the term “large” is a term of a relative degree that renders the scope of the claim vague and unclear.
Claim 37 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the distance”.
Claim 39 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the total contact area”.
Claim 40 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the width of the total contact area” and “substrate thickness”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites the spacers that project at least 1 mm from the upper plate of the susceptor which is already recited in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 27 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2009/0175605) in view of Probst (US 2004/0087172) and Nogami et al (US 2018/0135172).
With respect to claims 1, 6 and 27, Kobayashi disclose the heating system and method claimed including a susceptor plate (74) having an upper side and a lower side, a plurality of spacers (75) which consists of a material having a low thermal conductivity (e.g., quartz; para 0036) and project at least 1 mm from the upper side of the susceptor plate (para 0012), and a radiation source shown by a halogen lamp source (HL) arranged to heat the lower side of the susceptor plate as a substrate or a large substrate is stationarily supported on the spacers. But, Kobayashi does not show the susceptor plate that is nontransparent to infrared radiation emitted from an infrared radiation source.
Probst disclose it is known to provide that a plate or a susceptor plate body (5) that is made of a glass material wherein Probst further discloses that the material can be made not only glass or glass-ceramic but also a caron reinforce fiber graphite material (para 0062). It is noted that as the material for the Applicant’s claimed susceptor plate can be made of carbon or graphite as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification on page 6, lines 5-7, and on page 9, lines 23-25, the carbon or the graphite plate of Probst would also be nontransparent to infrared radiation wherein the carbon/graphite material is known to further emit high and thermal conductive emission. Also, see para 0005, 0006, and para 0062 of Probst.
Nogami discloses that a susceptor (20) is known to be made of caron graphite with an infrared lamp or halogen lamp that heats the lower side of the susceptor plate that generates a high temperature and excellent temperature controllability (para 0039).
In view of Probst and Nogami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kobayashi with the susceptor that is made of a material including carbon or graphite as an alternative material that would be nontransparent to infrared radiation (as such carbon or graphite is nontransparent to infrared radiation as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification) wherein such susceptor would provide a high thermal conductive emission for heating a substrate supported on the spacers with the radiation source including an infrared radiation source (i.e., infrared lamp) that is known to generate a high temperature increase/decrease rate with an excellent temperature controllability to effectively provide the desired radiation heat.
With respect to claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the spacers that project at least 1 mm from the upper side of the susceptor plate. Also, see para 0012.
With respect to claim 7, Kobayashi discloses the spacers that project at least 2 mm from the upper side of the susceptor plate. Also, see para 0012.
With respect to claim 10, Kobayashi discloses the spacers (75) that are made of the same material (i.e., quartz) as that of the claimed spacers (i.e., quartz as disclosed on line 4-6 on page 8 of the Applicant’s specification) which would also be capable of having the thermal conductivity or property in the claimed temperature. Also, see MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 11, Kobayashi discloses that the spacers project in the range of 3 mm that would be encompassed with the claimed range of at most 10 mm.
With respect to claim 17, Probst discloses a further susceptor plate (shown by a container 17) having an upper and a lower side with an another further infrared radiation source (11) that heats the upper side of the further susceptor by means of infrared radiation (para 0018), and as Probst discloses that the further susceptor plate (17) is made of graphite, it would also be nontransparent to infrared radiation (also, see para 0004 and 0005).
With respect to claim 21, Probst further discloses the susceptor plate/body (5) or the further susceptor plate (17) wherein the susceptor plate/body or the further susceptor plate would also exhibit the claimed lateral thermal conductivity or property as claimed since Probst also shows the same structure or material (as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification) as claimed in the claimed temperature range. Also, see MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 22, Kobayashi discloses the spacers that are arranged on the upper side of the susceptor plate.
With respect to claim 37, Kobayashi discloses that the spacers project in the range of 3 mm which is indicative of a distance between the upper side of the susceptor plate and a lower side of the substrate which encompasses the claimed distance of at most 10 mm.
Claim(s) 12 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Probst and Nogami as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 27 and 37 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al (US 2004/0020599).
Kobayashi in view of Probst and Nogami shows the system claimed except for the thickness of the susceptor that is smaller than 5 mm.
Tanaka shows it is known in the art to provide a susceptor (230) having a thickness to about 1 mm to 7 mm that encompasses the claimed range that provides an increased effectiveness of heat conduction. Also, see para 0137.
In view of Tanaka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kobayashi, as modified by Probst and Nogami, with the susceptor plate having a thickness that is smaller than 5 mm that would provide an effective heat conduction for heating a substrate wafer thereon.
With respect to claim 36, Tanaka discloses for providing a gas pressure substantially at 10666 Pa (which is about 106 mbar; also, see para 0085), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kobayashi, as modified by Probst and Nogami, with a gas pressure of at least 20 mbar or any other suitable pressure to effectively process a heating operation as known in the art.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 39, 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Probst and Nogami as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 27 and 37 above, and further in view of Fure et al (US 2003/0015517).
With respect to claims 23, 24 and 41, Kobayashi in view of Probst and Nogami shows the system claimed except for a total contact or projected area between the substrate and the spacers being at most 5%, 10%, or 15% of the substrate surface.
Fure discloses a susceptor having a plurality of spacers (20) wherein each spacers has a contact surface of 10 mm^2 or less (para 0085) which can equal about 100 mm^2 (i.e., there are ten spacers shown in Figure 8A) to suppress thermal effect of the supporting spacers/pins, and as a substrate wafer having a diameter of 300 mm (having a total surface area of about 70,650 mm^2), the total contact surface would be about 0.14% (100/70,650) which is less than 5%, 10% or 15% of the substrate surface.
In view of Fure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kobayashi, as modified by Probst and Nogami, with a total contact area between the substrate and the spacers or the total projected area of all the spacers is at most 5%, 10% or 15% of the substrate surface to minimize any thermal disturbances of the substrate due to the contact surfaces of the spacers.
with respect to claim 40, Fure shows a thickness of the susceptor plate (2) can be 1 to 8 mm wherein a diameter or width of a supporting pin/spacer can be 2 mm wherein the width of the total contact line of the spacers extending continuously would be 2 mm that is less than 50% (i.e., 4 mm) of the thickness of the susceptor plate, and it would have been obvious to provide the width/diameter of the support spacers/pins is less than 50% of the susceptor thickness to suppress any thermal effect or thermal disturbance on the substrate due to the supporting spacers/pins.
Claim(s) 25 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Probst and Nogami as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 27 and 37 above, and further in view of Goto et al (US 2007/0128888).
Kobayashi in view of Probst and Nogami shows the system claimed except for a maximum unsupported distance between the support areas of the two spacers is most 10 cm.
Goto shows it is known to provide a susceptor plate (1) with a plurality of spacers (11) wherein a distance between the spacers is about 35 mm to 40 mm (para 0064).
In view of Goto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Kobayashi, as modified by Probst and Nogami, with the spacers having a maximum distance that is at most 10 cm or any other suitable distance, lacking criticality, to stably support the substrate without any sagging substrate surface portions.
Conclusion
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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