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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add a temperature sensor and other limitations, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2017/0133245 to Iizuka in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0350610 to Lingampalli et al, United States Patent Application No. 2001/0035403 to Wang, United States Patent Application No. 2003/0164226 to Kanno et al and United States Patent Application No. 20200120759 to Song is presented below.
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 and 4 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. 2018/0350610 to Lingampalli et al, United States Patent Application No. 2001/0035403 to Wang, United States Patent Application No. 2003/0164226 to Kanno et al and United States Patent Application No. 20200120759 to Song.
In regard to Claim 1, Iizuka teaches a pedestal heater Fig. 1 block having an hot- wire structure 10, comprising: a heater block 10 having a circular shape (ring 31 surrounding 10), on which with respect to the pedestal heater block for a chemical vapor deposition machine Fig. 4, in which a structure intended for causing a vacuum 33 to be applied is installed on a surface so that a wafer is configured to be placed and can be fixed by vacuum absorption [0026-0028], and which comprises: an inner rod (stem surrounding 20) connected onto a part of the heater block; a gas supply pipe (41 outside of 20) connected to the inner rod and configured to supply gas to the inner rod (as shown in Fig. 4); gas supply holes 41 (shown on the top) distributed in the heater block and configured to supply the gas for temperature uniformity onto a back side of the wafer [0030]; a hot wire 12, 14, 16 [0022] configured to apply heat to the wafer, the hot wire being installed in the heater block and installed in the heater block and extending within the inside of the inner rod, and extending from an inner side of the inner rod, 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 to fix the wafer to the heater block through the vacuum absorption is maintained at less than 3 torr or below of low pressure [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.
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.
Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno does not expressly teach the inner rod is connected onto a central part of the heater block and that there is a temperature sensor pipe installed on the inner rod.
Lingampalli teaches a substrate support 300 Fig. 2 wherein the inner rod 306 is attached to the center of the heater block 302 with temperature sensors/thermocouples installed on the inner rod (as it is inside the road, as broadly recited in the claim), [0030-0038], Claims 1-5).
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 substituted the generic supporting stem of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno with the central support rod/shaft of Lingampalli, as art analogous structures for a stem, and have included the thermocouple/temperature sensor as a well known structure in the art for a substrate support. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno and Lingampalli do not expressly teach a spacing between successive turns of the hot wire disposed within a range from 3/5 to 2/3 of a radius of the heater block from a center of the heater block is narrower than a spacing between successive turns of the hot wire disposed in an outer part of the heater block, such that an installation density of the hot wire is installed to have higher installation density in the central part of the heater block is greater than that an installation density of the hot wire in a neighborhood part which is an the outer side part of the heater block.
Song teaches a heater coil wherein the spacing between turns is narrower in the central area of the heater, as shown in Fig. 4 [0046-0157], the arrangement of the inner and outer electrodes being formed so that an insulation breakdown does not occur between the inner and the outer electrodes [00156].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Iizuka in view of Wang and in further view of Kanno and Lingampalli with the in-plan design of electrode coils, as shown in Song. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing insulation breakdown. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the apparatus would result in a heater coil with a spacing between successive turns of the hot wire disposed within a range from 3/5 to 2/3 of a radius of the heater block from a center of the heater block is narrower than a spacing between successive turns of the hot wire disposed in an outer part of the heater block, such that an installation density of the hot wire is installed to have higher installation density in the central part of the heater block is greater than that an installation density of the hot wire in a neighborhood part which is an the outer side part of the heater block.
In regard 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.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 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
Prosecution Insights