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 .
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US 2022/0399214.
Per claims 1-3, Kim teaches a process and apparatus for controlling temperature uniformity comprising heating an internal volume of a processing chamber for semiconductor manufacturing [0021], utilizing a sensor across one or more sections (Fig. 2, abstract, [0081], generating a temperature profile using the data (abstract, [0080]), analyzing the signal profile and adjusting the heating parameters accordingly (abstract), wherein said adjusting comprises identifying a heat source and adjusting the electricity to control the heating temperature as desired (abstract), wherein the identifying would comprise determining which heat source to adjust (based on the comparison mentioned above). Kim is silent regarding scanning the sensor across the sections and comparing data to a range. However, Kim does teach that a temperature data requires a distribution of a heat source and estimating operation to get the entire temperature distribution such as, by using multiple heat sensors [0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to therefore scan the temperature sensor across certain sections as desired to create a more accurate temperature sensor. Kim also teaches that the amount of electricity should be controlled based on the distribution of a heat source and temperature profile [0077]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have taken the temperature (signal) profile and compared it to a desired or predetermined range to therefore control or adjust the electricity output as desired with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results, as this is the purpose of Kim’s invention. This comparison and adjustment would necessarily include peaks and troughs as the purpose of Kim’s temperature control is to increase uniformity and therefore even temperature distribution [0086] (abstract).
Per claim 7, Kim teaches that the temperature model is a non-linear model (abstract, [0033]), and also teaches that the process typically includes reflecting a model deviation [0004]. As such, in generating a temperature model, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined a standard deviation during the modeling process with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US 2022/0399214 in view of Aderhold et al US 10741457.
Per claims 8-9, Kim is silent regarding rotating the substrate during scanning with the sensor. Aderhold teaches a similar process of providing a method to reduce non uniformity during thermal processing (abstract), wherein the substrate support is rotated and a sensor assembly measures the temperature at a plurality of locations (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have rotated the substrate according to Aderhold because this helps in reducing non uniformity (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 112 rejections are persuasive and withdrawn. However, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejection are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach this limitation. However, this limitation is implicitly disclosed by the prior art -- the heat source that was heating during the signal (e.g., the heat source that caused the signal) must be identified in order to adjust the correct parameters, as this is the purpose of the prior art. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights