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 temperature control apparatus connected to the temperature measuring apparatus and the heat radiation source as recited in claim 10 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a temperature measuring apparatus and a temperature control apparatus in claim 10 wherein the temperature measuring/temperature control is a functional language with the apparatus being a generic placeholder for means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The temperature measuring apparatus is interpreted an infrared temperature sensor as disclosed in the specification, or its equivalents.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim limitation “a temperature control apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose what a corresponding structure would be for the temperature control apparatus. For purposes of examination, a temperature control apparatus is interpreted to include any device or means that is capable of controlling the heat radiation source, or its equivalents. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 12-14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (US 2015/0037019).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 20, Collins discloses the heating apparatus for a semiconductor device/substrate disposed in a vacuum atmosphere of a vacuum apparatus (para 0031) wherein the heating apparatus includes a carrier (118 shown by a susceptor support in Figures 1 and 3) having a first abutting part (302), a heat colleting plate (120 shown by a susceptor) comprising a working surface (600 a top side as shown in Figure 6) disposed on the carrier, the first abutting part abuts an edge of the heating collecting plate (as illustrated in Figure 1) on a side opposite to the working surface (top side), and a heat radiation source (102) disposed on the side of the heat collecting plate opposite to the working surface and separated from the heat collecting plate by a predetermined distance as heat radiation is emitted in a non-contact manner wherein the heat collecting plate receives the heat radiation and heats an object (108) disposed on the working surface of the heat collecting plate (120; susceptor) in a contact manner.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Collins discloses the heat collecting plate having a second abutting part (502) at the edge of the heat collecting plate (also, see Figure 6) with a thickness of the second abutting part is smaller than a thickness of remaining parts of the heating collecting plate wherein the second abutting part is supported on by the first abutting part of the carrier.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 13 and 14, Collins discloses a heat insulation structure (304) having a ball shape arranged between the first abutting part (302) of the carrier (108) and the second abutting part (502) of the heat collecting plate (120) wherein such ball can be a wedge structure as claimed.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Collins discloses a radiation reflecting plate (144) disposed on the side of the heat radiation source opposite to the heat collecting plate wherein heat radiation by the heat radiation source is reflected to the heating collecting plate.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokouchi (US 2014/0270734).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Yokouchi discloses the heating apparatus for a semiconductor device/substrate disposed in a vacuum atmosphere of a vacuum apparatus (para 0038) wherein the heating apparatus includes a carrier (22 shown by a susceptor support plate in Figure 1) having a first abutting part upon which a heat colleting plate (70 shown by a susceptor) is supported thereon, the heat collecting plate having a working surface upon which an object (W) is disposed thereon, the first abutting part abuts an edge of the heating collecting plate (as illustrated in Figure 1) on a side opposite to the working surface, and a heat radiation source (HL) disposed on the side of the heat collecting plate opposite to the working surface and separated from the heat collecting plate by a predetermined distance as heat radiation is emitted in a non-contact manner wherein the heat collecting plate receives the heat radiation and heats the object (W) disposed on the working surface of the heat collecting plate (120; susceptor) in a contact manner.
With respect to claims 8 and 11, Yokouchi discloses the carrier (22) that is provided with a carrying structure adapted to a shape of the heat collecting plate (also, see Figure 2) wherein the carrying structure includes a concave stepped structure wherein a bottom surface forms the first abutting part that only is in contact with the heat collecting plate (70) as illustrated in Figure 1.
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) 5-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 2015/0037019) in view of Takagi (US 2003/0015141).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Collins discloses the structure claimed including the heat insulation structure but does not explicitly show the heat insulation structure is integrally formed with the first abutting part of the carrier as claimed.
Takagi discloses a carrier (24) having a heat insulation structure shown by a column shaped that is integrally formed with the carrier for carrying or supporting a heat collecting plate (i.e., a susceptor 22) as illustrated in Figures 3A and 3B. Also, see para 0032.
In view of Takagi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Collins with the heat insulation structure that is integrally formed with the carrier as the heat insulation structure and the carrier can be made of the same material to form a mechanically stable and continuous structure that is less prone to breaks or separations.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Collins as well as Takagi show the heat collecting plate (susceptor) has a circular or disk shape wherein Takagi further shows the heat insulation structure having at least three heat insulating columns (as the susceptor is supported at three points from the carrier 24; para 0032 of Takagi) along a circumferential direction of the heat collecting plate.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Takagi shows the heat insulating columns as illustrated in Figures 3A and 3B, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the columns that are cylindrical or other shapes claimed as a matter of design choice or routine experimentations, lacking criticality, having an adequate mechanical strength that would predictably support the heat collection plate without the insulation column easily becoming broken or deformed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 2015/0037019) in view of Comita et al (US 2004/0053515).
Collins discloses the structure claimed including a temperature measuring apparatus (142) disposed on the side of the working surface of the collecting plate and separated from the heat collecting plate by a set distance (also, see Figure 1), but Collins does not a temperature control apparatus connected to the temperature measuring apparatus to adjust the temperature of the heat radiation source as claimed.
Comita shows it is known to provide a temperature measuring apparatus (237) disposed on the side of a working surface of a heat collecting plate (220) wherein a temperature control apparatus (150) is connected to the temperature measuring apparatus and a heat radiation source (234) so as to control the heat radiation source to obtain a desired temperature as desired (234; also, see para 0056 and 0061).
In view of Comita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Collins with a temperature control apparatus connected to the temperature measuring apparatus and the heat radiation source so that the heating temperature for the object can be predictably obtained for proper and desired heating application of the object as known in the art.
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