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
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, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0133245 to Iizuka in view of United States Patent Application No. 2001/0035403 to Wang.
In regards to Claim 1, Iizuka teaches a pedestal heater block Fig. 1 having an structure 10, 20, with respect to the pedestal heater block for a processing apparatus 200 Fig. 4, in which a structure intended for causing a vacuum 34 to be applied is installed on a surface so that a wafer can be fixed by vacuum absorption [0035-0036], and which comprises: gas supply holes 41 distributed to supply gas 42 for temperature uniformity onto a back side of the wafer [0030]; and a hot wire heater 12, 14, 16 [0022] configured to apply heat to the wafer, wherein backside pressure applied to the back side of the wafer by the structure of causing the vacuum to be applied and the gas supply holes is fixed to be 3 torr or below of low pressure (as the pressure is lower than the vacuum atmosphere of the chamber [0028]), the heater block is composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy [0023], and the hot wire is composed in a cartridge form (electrode 12), [0017-0058].
Iizuka does not expressly teach that the pedestal heater block has an asymmetrical hot wire, wherein the hot wire is installed to have higher installation density in a central part of the heater block than that in a neighborhood part which is an outer side of the heater block.
Wang teaches a heater 26a 206 Fig. 4 which is an asymmetrical coil/tube/cable resistive heater [0011] which is a spiral shaped heater or that has several coils in the center but only one partial coil in the outermost portion of the heater block (as shown in 26a Fig. 4 and as broadly recited) [0024-0034]. Wang teaches that the shape of the heater is provided for a uniform temperature distribution on the chuck surface.
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. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Iizuka with the spiral asymmetrical hot wire heater of Wang, as an art analogous structure for a heater, with its change of shape and coil/hot wire structure. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of uniform heating. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Iizuka in view of Wang do not expressly teach the apparatus is a chemical vapor deposition machine. However, this limitation is that of intended use and is part of a preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. As such, though Iizuka in view of Wang does not expressly teach CVD, it would be capable of performing said function, there being no limiting structure otherwise.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Iizuka in view of Wang teaches wherein the central part of the heater block is set on the basis of a point which is within a range of 3/5 to 2/3 of a radius from the center of the circular heat block, the outer side of the heater block forms the neighborhood part, as there are four turns of the spiral, and the outermost turn being formed the 3-4th turn, such that the central part is approximately at 0.66-0.75X the radius, as generally shown in Fig. 4.
In regards to Claim 4, Iizuka in view of Wang teaches hot wire is configured in a snail form which is an asymmetrical form to be distributed only within the central part, as shown in the coiled shape of 26a in Fig. 4 of Wang.
In regards to Claim 5, Iizuka in view of Wang teaches the hot wire is configured in a snail form which is an asymmetrical form to be distributed only within the central part, as shown in the coiled shape of 26a in Fig. 4 of Wang.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2017/0133245 to Iizuka in view of United States Patent Application No. 2001/0035403 to Wang, as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2003/0164226 to Kanno et al.
The teachings of Iizuka in view of Wang are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim Iizuka in view of Wang do not expressly teach that the grooves formed on a surface of the heater block each show that width is formed to be 2 to 6 times wider than depth, the width ranging from 2.3 mm to 3.0 mm, and the depth ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, so that a pressed adhesion can be improved when the backside pressure applied onto the back side of the wafer during a process is maintained in a range of 3 torr or below.
Kanno teaches a gas groove 60 Fig. 1-3 has a width of 2 mm to a depth of 0.5 mm, a 4 times wider than depth dimension, and that the dimensions can be modified to allow medium to propagates [0071[ 0066-0097]. As such, Kanno teaches that the dimensions of the groove are for heat transfer gas to propagate thoroughly around the outer periphery, and are considered a result effective variable for ranges.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for propagating heat transfer gas, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus it is obvious to modify the dimensions of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno to 2.3 mm, thus fulfilling the claim dimensions.
Furthermore, Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno does not expressly teach that this is so that a pressed adhesion can be improved when the backside pressure applied onto the back side of the wafer during a process is maintained in a range of 3 torr or below. However, this is considered a limitation of function/intended use. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to fulfill “a pressed adhesion can be improved when the backside pressure applied onto the back side of the wafer during a process is maintained in a range of 3 torr or below”, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2006/0133004 to Yamamura which teaches 1-3 mm width of the groove.
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