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 filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, with respect to drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, with respect to specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot in view of the cancellation of claim 11.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, regarding the legal standard governing a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103—including the requirements for “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)), and the principle that a mere showing that references can be combined does not itself establish obviousness absent a showing that the result would have been predictable (MPEP 2143.01)—have been fully considered. The legal standard as stated is not in dispute. As explained below with respect to claim 1, the rejection as set forth in the previous office action, together with the further explanation herein grounded in the express teachings of O’Neill and Moench, articulates the requisite reasoning with rational underpinning for the specific combination resulting in the claimed emissivity-measurement architecture. Accordingly, applicant’s statement of the governing legal standard, while correct, does not by itself demonstrate that the rejection fails to meet the standard.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As explained in the rejection below, O’Neill’s detector 58 is positioned to receive, along optical path 44, radiation that inherently includes a component reflected from the wafer’s lower surface, such that substitution of Moench’s single-wavelength VCSEL for O’Neill’s lamps results in the reflected-beam emissivity-measurement architecture recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant’s assertion on page 11 that the claimed arrangement avoids a separate light source and wavelength-isolating filter is unsupported attorney argument, not evidence (MPEP 716.01(c)). It also does not distinguish over O’Neill, whose own stated advance over its cited prior art is likewise avoiding an external light source for reflectance measurement.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 12 that O’Neill failed to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, an emissivity measuring module that “measures the same single-wavelength laser beam reflected from the lower surface of the flat substrate” the applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, there are no structural differences between the structure that is claimed and the structure that is taught by O’Neill other than the claimed “laser beam.” Based on the teachings of Moench, it is a matter of simple substitution to replace the lamps taught by O’Neill with the VCSEL taught by Moench. Instead of relying on structural differences, the Applicant relies on functional limitations in order to distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art references.
Applicant’s arguments premised on the filter 60 of O’Neill are also not persuasive because claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising”, which is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or structure. See MPEP 2111.03. To the extent O’Neill’s filter 60 performs wavelength-selective filtering, its presence in the combined apparatus does not take the combination outside the scope of claim 1, since claim 1 does not exclude the presence of a filter. Applicant would need to have claimed using the transitional phrase “consisting of” in order to exclude such additional structure from the claim scope.
Similarly, claim 1’s recitation of a laser beam “having a single wavelength” does not limit the claimed apparatus to a beam irradiating module capable of emitting only one wavelength and no others. The term “single” is not among the terms recognized as creating closed claim language. See MPEP 2111.03. Accordingly, claim 1’s scope is not limited to exclude a beam irradiating module capable of emitting additional wavelengths beyond the claimed single wavelength.
Furthermore, although the Applicant argues that the emissivity measuring module taught by O’Neill is not capable of measuring the VCSEL light emitted by Moench, O’Neill teaches that “the spectral region where the emissivity can be measured is between 1 and 5 μm.” Meanwhile, Moench teaches that “VCSEL may emit laser light at an essentially single wavelength in the wavelength range between 800 nm and 1200 nm,” which is a wavelength range between 0.8 and 1.2 μm, overlapping with O’Neill’s disclosed detection range of 1 to 5 um between 1.0 and 1.2 um. Thus, the emissivity measuring module taught by O’Neill is capable of detecting at least a portion of the VCSEL light taught by Moench falling within this overlapping range.
On page 13 of the arguments, the Applicant states that the Office action does not provide a “reason” for combining O’Neill with Moench. However, a reason for combining the references was provided on page 7 of the Non-Final Office action.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, with respect to claims 3-6 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant does not separately traverse Miller’s teachings, arguing only that claims 3-6 are patentable by virtue of dependency from amended claim 1. As the rejection of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons set forth above, this argument is not persuasive, and claims 3-6 remain rejected under the previously applied combination of O’Neill, Moench and Miller.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues only that claim 9 is patentable by virtue of dependency from amended claim 1, without separately traversing Hunter’s teaching of a substrate rotating module. As the rejection of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons set forth above, this argument is not persuasive, and claim 9 remains rejected under the previously applied combination of O’Neill, Moench, and Hunter.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that claim 10 is patentable by virtue of dependency from amended claim 1. As the rejection of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons set forth above, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the previous office action’s assertion of official notice regarding the alternating N/S pole limitation was unsupported, relaying only on a general statement and an internet search citation rather than documentary evidence. This argument is persuasive as to the previous citation; however, the rejection is maintained herein, as evidenced by Magma (NPL), which directly supports the finding that magnetic rotors having N poles and S poles alternately formed in a circumferential direction were well known in the art. Claim 10 remains rejected under the previously applied combination of O’Neill, Moench and Hunter, as evidenced by Magma.
Claims 2, 11 and 15-18 have been cancelled. The rejections previously applied to these claims are moot in view of their cancellation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 7-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 5738440) hereinafter O’Neill, in view of Moench et al. (US 20160381732) hereinafter Moench.
Regarding claim 1, O’Neill teaches, in Fig. 1,
a substrate heat-treating apparatus (14, “heating apparatus”) comprising:
a process chamber (16, “chamber”) in which a flat substrate (12, “semiconductor wafer”) to be heat treated is placed (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1), the process chamber (16) comprising a beam transmitting plate (20, “bottom wall”) placed below (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1) the flat substrate (12) and an infrared transmitting plate (18, “top wall”) placed above (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1) the flat substrate (12);
a beam irradiating module (26, “heating lamps”) for irradiating a light (“ray”; “rays of the lamp radiation,” col. 6, ln. 30) to a lower surface (Fig. 1) of the flat substrate (12) through the beam transmitting plate (20) (“The walls of the chamber 16 are fabricated of a material, such as quartz, which is transparent to the radiation of the lamps 26,” col. 6, lns. 22-24) and heating the flat substrate (12) (col. 6, lns. 19-20: “Rows of heating lamps 26, external to the chamber 16 illuminate the wafer with radiant energy to heat the wafer 12”); and
an emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1: “emissivity measuring module”; the examiner interprets an emissivity measuring module annotated in Fig. 1 comprising a port 40, an optical path 44 and a detector 58 as the “emissivity measuring module”) configured to measure the laser beam (“ray”) (“a detector 58 of the radiation propagating along the path 44,” col. 6, lns. 52-53) reflected from the lower surface (“an optical path 44 of radiation propagating through the port 40 in a direction normal to be bottom surface of the wafer 12,” col. 6, lns. 42-44) of the flat substrate (12), thereby measuring the emissivity (“a filter 60 located on the optical path 44… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns. 53-57) of the flat substrate (12),
wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) is placed below (the arrangement is shown in Fig. 1) the beam irradiating module (26) to measure the at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns. 53-57) of the flat substrate (12).
O’Neill does not explicitly teach a light irradiated by a beam irradiating module is a laser beam having a single wavelength; and the light measured by the emissivity measuring module is the laser beam reflected from the lower surface of the flat substrate.
However, Moench teaches, in Fig. 1, a beam irradiating module (110, “sub module” with a multitude of semiconductor light sources 115) for irradiating a VCSEL beam (paragraph 75: “… light source 115 like VCSEL… emit laser light”) having a single wavelength (paragraph 31: “VCSEL may emit laser light at an essentially single wavelength”).
O’Neill and Moench are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of heating system for an OLED substrate or a semiconductor wafer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the beam irradiating module of O’Neill with the VCSEL as taught by Moench for the purpose of “emit[ting] less power… [to] be advantageous if a big number of VCSEL is arranged … [to] illuminate an area element of the heating surface.” Moench, paragraph 13. Because O’Neill’s detector 58 is positioned along optical path 44 by the fixed location of port 40 relative to the wafer’s lower surface—independent of the type of source used to illuminate the wafer—substitution of the VCSEL beam of Moench for the lamps 26 of O’Neill results in detector 58, unchanged in position below the beam irradiating module, receiving the substituted VCSEL beam as reflected from the lower surface of the flat substrate—thereby teaching both that the light irradiated is a laser beam having a single wavelength, and that the light measured by the emissivity measuring module is the laser beam reflected from the lower surface of the flat substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of O’Neill, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
622
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Moench
Regarding claim 7, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of Moench, the beam irradiating module (110) comprises a laser light-emitting device (115, “semiconductor light source”), and the laser light-emitting device (115) comprises a surface light-emitting laser device or an edge light-emitting laser device (paragraph 39: “semiconductor light sources are Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers”).
Regarding claim 8, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, O’Neill and Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of Moench, the beam irradiating module (110) comprises a laser light-emitting device (115), and the laser light-emitting device (115) comprises a VCSEL device (paragraph 75: “semiconductor light source 115 like VCSEL”).
Regarding claim 12, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 1, wherein the beam irradiating module (26) comprises an emissivity measuring hole (40) penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof (the configuration shown in Fig. 1), and the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) is placed below (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1) the emissivity measuring hole (40).
Regarding claim 13, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 12, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises a power- meter (58) placed below (shown in Fig. 1) the emissivity measuring hole (40) and configured to receive (col. 6, lns. 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench), thereby measuring the emissivity (col. 6, lns. 53-57).
Regarding claim 14, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 12, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises an optical cable (44) placed below the emissivity measuring hole (40) to receive (col. 6, lns. 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench), and a power-meter (58) connected to (Fig. 1) the optical cable (44) to measure the emissivity (col. 6, lns. 53-57).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 5738440) hereinafter O’Neill, in view of Moench et al. (US 20160381732) hereinafter Moench, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20150155190) hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 3, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 1, wherein the process chamber (16) comprises; a side wall (22, “sidewalls”) in which the flat substrate (12) is seated (Fig. 1), the infrared transmitting plate (18), an upper plate (28, “top mirror”), the beam transmitting plate (20), and the beam irradiating module (26).
O’Neill and Moench does not explicitly teach an outer housing in which the infrared transmitting plate and an upper plate are placed above the flat substrate in the side wall, and an inner housing placed below the flat substrate inside the outer housing and having an upper portion on which the beam transmitting plate is placed, wherein the beam irradiating module is placed below the beam transmitting plate inside the inner housing.
However, Miller teaches, in Fig. 2,
an outer housing (annotated Fig. 2: “outer housing”; the examiner interprets the combination of an upper wall 212 and a chamber body 202 as an “outer housing”) in which the infrared transmitting plate (252, “cover”) and an upper plate (212, “upper wall”) are placed above (the arrangement shown in Fig. 2) the flat substrate (122) in the side wall (202) (shown in Fig. 2), and
an inner housing (annotated Fig. 2: “inner housing”) placed below (Fig. 2) the flat substrate (122) inside the outer housing (the arrangement shown in annotated Fig. 2) and having an upper portion on which the beam transmitting plate (206, “radiant source window”; paragraph 29: “The radiant source window 206 may be formed from quartz or other similar material that is optically transparent”) is placed (the arrangement is shown in annotated Fig. 2), wherein the beam irradiating module (208, “radiant energy source”) is placed below the beam transmitting plate (206) inside the inner housing (“inner housing”) (shown in annotated Fig. 2).
O’Neill, Moench and Miller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of apparatus for thermally processing a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have outer and inner housings as taught by Miller in the substrate heat-treating apparatus taught by O’Neill and Moench, in order to “minimize… the amount of deposits on reflector and chamber walls… and… improve the thermal processing environment to improve the RTP process results,” as well as to achieve “improved temperature uniformity during processing, reduced chamber down time and improved cost-of-ownership of the processes performed in the thermal processing chamber.” Miller, paragraph 13 & 15.
PNG
media_image3.png
397
823
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Miller, annotated
Regarding claim 4, O’Neill in view of Moench and Miller teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 3, wherein the beam irradiating module (26) comprises an emissivity measuring hole (40, “port”) penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof (the configuration shown in Fig. 1), and the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) is placed below the emissivity measuring hole (40) (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, O’Neill in view of Moench and Miller teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
The substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 4, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises a power-meter (58, “detector”) placed below (shown in Fig. 1) the emissivity measuring hole (40) and configured to receive (“a detector 58 of the radiation propagating along the path 44,” col. 6, lns. 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench), thereby measuring the emissivity (“a filter 60 positioned directly in front of the detector… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns. 53-57).
Regarding claim 6, O’Neill in view of Moench and Miller teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 4, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises an optical cable (44, “optical path”) placed below the emissivity measuring hole (40) to receive (“a detector 58 of the radiation propagating along the path 44,” col. 6, lns. 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench), and a power-meter (58) connected to (Fig. 1) the optical cable (44) to measure the emissivity (“a filter 60 positioned directly in front of the detector… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns. 53-57).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 5738440) hereinafter O’Neill, in view of Moench et al. (US 20160381732) hereinafter Moench, and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 20080170842) hereinafter Hunter, as evidenced by Magma (NPL).
Regarding claim 9, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill,
the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 1, wherein the process chamber (16) further comprises a substrate support (24, “supports”) configured to support an outer side of the flat substrate (12) (“The wafer 12… is held… by supports 24 inwardly from the sidewalls 22,” col. 6, lns. 15-18).
O’Neill and Moench does not explicitly teach the substrate heat-treating apparatus further comprises a substrate rotating module configured to support and rotate the substrate support.
However, Hunter teaches, in Fig. 2, a substrate heat-treating apparatus (10, “rapid thermal processing system”) further comprises a substrate rotating module (annotated Fig. 2) configured to support and rotate the substrate support (annotated Fig. 2: the examiner interprets an edge ring 20 and a tubular riser 39 as the upper support and the connection support respectively, and thus the combination of the edge ring and the tubular riser as “the substrate support”).
O’Neill, Moench and Hunter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of apparatus for thermally processing a semiconductor substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the substrate rotating module as taught by Hunter in the substrate heat-treating apparatus taught by O’Neill and Moench, for the purpose of rotating “the substrate 12 and … heat[ing] the substrate 12 uniformly to a target temperature.” Hunter, paragraph 33.
PNG
media_image4.png
820
1431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Hunter, annotated
Regarding claim 10, which is a dependent claim of claim 9, O’Neill in combination with Moench and Hunter teaches, in Fig. 2 of Hunter, the substrate rotating module (annotated Fig. 2) comprises;
an inner rotating means (21, “magnetic rotor”) having a ring shape (paragraph 22: “A magnetic rotor 21 is disposed in the circular channel 22,” based on which the examiner interprets the magnetic rotor is “ring shape”) in which N poles and S poles are alternately formed in a circumferential direction (Magma evidenced that magnetic rotors are designed with multiple poles, each pole alternates in polarity (north & south), and opposite poles rotate about a central point or axis, which is the principal design for rotors) and being coupled to a lower portion of the substrate support within the chamber lower space (the arrangement shown in Fig. 2), and
an outer rotating means (23, “magnetic stator”) placed outside the outer housing to face (shown in annotated Fig. 2) the inner rotating means (21) and configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate (paragraph 22: “[a] magnetic stator… is magnetically coupled through the chamber body 35 to induce rotation of the magnetic rotor 21 and hence of the edge ring 20 and the substrate 12 supported thereon”) the inner rotating means (21).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights