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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 06/29/2023, claims 1-17 are pending.
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:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
a beam irradiating module for irradiating a VOSEL beam having a single wavelength to a lower surface of the flat substrate through the beam transmitting plate; and
a temperature measuring module for measuring the temperature of the lower surface or an upper surface the flat substrate.
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
a substrate rotating module configured to support and rotate the substrate support.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “a beam irradiating module” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0031 discloses:“ the beam irradiating module 200, which includes a laser light-emitting device emitting the laser beam, to the flat substrate a to heat the flat substrate a”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “temperature measuring module”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0064 discloses: “The temperature measuring module 400 may include a pyrometer 410 and a pyrometer support 420.”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “substrate rotating module” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0069-0071 disclose: “The substrate rotating module 500 may include an inner rotating means 510 and an outer rotating means 520…
The inner rotation means 510 may be formed to have the same structure as a rotor of a motor. For example, the inner rotating means 510 may be formed as a magnet structure, which is formed in a ring shape as a whole and has N poles and S poles alternately arranged in a circumferential direction. …
The outer rotating means 520 may be formed to have the same structure as a stator of a motor. For example, the outer rotating means 520 may include an iron core formed in a shape of ring and a conducting wire wound around the iron core”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the beam irradiating plate” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the limitation “the beam irradiating plate” corresponds to the “beam transmitting plate” or “beam irradiating module” previously recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, “the beam irradiating plate” (claim 3) is construed as the “beam transmitting plate” (claim 1).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the emissivity measuring hole” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the limitation “the emissivity measuring hole” corresponds to “temperature measuring hole” previously recited in line 3 of the same claim. For examination purposes, “the emissivity measuring hole” is construed as “the temperature measuring hole”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the path of the incident beam” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear what element corresponds to “the path of the incident beam”. For examination purposes, “the path of the incident beam” is construed as “a path of an incident beam”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an incident beam” in last line which is unclear if the “incident beam” (claim 7) corresponds to “the incident beam” previously recited in claim 6. For examination purposes, the limitation “an incident beam” (claim 7) refers to the “incident beam” (claim 6).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the substrate rotating module” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if limitation “the substrate rotating module” (Claim 11) corresponds to “a substrate rotating module” recited in claim 10. If so, claim 11 should be depended upon claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the chamber lower space” and “the outer housing” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitations “the chamber lower space” and “the outer housing” are construed as “a chamber lower space” and an outer housing”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the path of the incident beam” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear what element corresponds to “the path of the incident beam”. For examination purposes, “the path of the incident beam” is construed as “a path of an incident beam”.
Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 15.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20150155190 A1) in view of Möench (US 20160381732 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses A substrate heat-treating apparatus (combo 200, 208 and 226, see fig.2) comprising:
a process chamber (200, see fig.2) in which a flat substrate (122, see fig.2) to be heat treated is placed (See fig.2 and para.0010: “the radiant energy source 108 is configured to rapidly heat the substrate 122”),
the process chamber (200) comprising a beam transmitting plate (206, see fig.2 and para.0029: “The radiant source window 206 may be formed from quartz or other similar material that is optically transparent to the electromagnetic energy delivered from lamps 208A disposed within a radiant energy source 208”. Notes: in the current application, pub. para.0040 discloses: “The beam transmitting plate 130 may be formed of a transparent plate, such as quartz or glass, through which a laser beam is transmitted”. By forming of the same transparent material (such as: quartz) as the current application, the radiant source window 206 of Miller is capable of transmitting beam) placed below the flat substrate (122, see fig.2) and an infrared transmitting plate (252, see fig.2 and para.0035: “the cover 252 is formed from an optically transparent material, such as flame fused quartz, electrically fused quartz, synthetically fused quartz, a high hydroxyl containing fused quartz (i.e., high OH quartz), sapphire, or other optically transparent material that has desirable optical properties (e.g., optical transmission coefficient and optical absorption coefficient)”. Notes: in the current application, pub. para. 0046 discloses: “The infrared transmitting plate 150 may be formed of transparent quartz to allow radiant energy generated from the flat substrate a during a heat treatment process to be transmitted to the outside”. By forming of the same transparent material (such as: quartz) as the current application, the cover 252 of Miller is the claimed “infrared transmitting plate”) placed above the flat substrate (122, see fig.2); and
a temperature measuring module (226, see para.0029) for measuring the temperature of an upper surface the flat substrate (see para.0029: “ A plurality of sensors 226, such as pyrometers, may be positioned over the upper wall 212 to detect temperatures of the substrate 122”. Thus, the pyrometers 226 disposed above the upper surface the flat substrate 122 and would be about to measure the upper surface the flat substrate 122).
Miller discloses a radiant energy source 208 for irradiating a radiant energy to a lower surface of the flat substrate 122 through the beam transmitting plate 206 (see fig.2).
However, Miller does not expressly disclose
a beam irradiating module for irradiating a VCSEL beam having a single wavelength to a lower surface of the flat substrate through the beam transmitting plate.
Möench discloses a heating system (100), comprising:
a beam irradiating module (100, see fig.13) for irradiating a VCSEL beam (see para.0075: “ the heating system comprises one sub module 110 with a multitude of semiconductor light sources 115 like vcsel”) having a single wavelength (see parta.0031: “vcsel may emit laser light at an essentially single wavelength in the wavelength range between 800 nm and 1200 nm”) to a lower surface of the flat substrate (see lower surface of the object 150 in annotated fig. 13 below) through the beam transmitting plate ( optical element 116 , see para.0088: “A sub module 110 with semiconductor light sources 115 is combined with an optical element 116 (convex lens) in order to provide a defined intensity distribution on a heating surface 180 of an object 150”).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.13 in upside down position
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the beam irradiating module of Möench for the radiant energy source 208 of Miller, so as the “beam irradiating module for irradiating a VCSEL beam having a single wavelength to a lower surface of the flat substrate through the beam transmitting plate”, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable of heating the substrate/object.
Regarding claim 8, Miller in view of Möench further discloses the beam irradiating module (100 of Möench, see fig.1 and 13, is included in the modification) comprises a laser light-emitting device (110 of Möench. See fig.1 and 13), and the laser light-emitting device (110 of Möench) comprises a surface light-emitting laser device (See fig.1 of Möench).
Regarding claim 10, Miller further discloses the process chamber (200, see fig.2) further comprises a substrate support (combo 218 and 216, see fig.2) configured to support an outer side of the flat substrate (122, see fig.2), and the substrate heat-treating apparatus (combo 200, 208 and 226, see fig.2) further comprises a substrate rotating module (228 and 215, see fig.2) configured to support and rotate the substrate support (combo 218 and 216, see fig.2 and para. 0030: “a lift assembly 228 that is configured to vertically move and rotate a rotor 215 disposed in the processing volume 204” and para.0043: “it is common to rotate the lift assembly 228 and substrate 122 during thermal processing “).
Regarding claim 12, Miller further discloses the process chamber (200, see fig.2) comprises; a side wall (216. See side wall in annotated fig.2 below) in which the flat substrate (122, see fig.2) is seated, an outer housing (202, see fig.2) in which the infrared transmitting plate (252) and an upper plate (214, see fig.2) are placed above the flat substrate (122) in the side wall (see side wall in annotated fig.2 below, and an inner housing (see inner housing in annotated fig.2 below) placed below the flat substrate (122) inside the outer housing (202, see fig.2) and having an upper portion (upper portion of the annotated inner housing) on which the beam irradiating plate (206, se fig.2 and see 112(b) rejections above) is placed, wherein the beam irradiating module (beam irradiating module 100 of Möench in place of the lamps 208 of Miller, see fig.2) is placed below the beam transmitting plate ((206) inside the inner housing (see inner housing in annotated fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
655
1146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Miller
Regarding claim 14, Miller further discloses the temperature measuring module (206, see fig.2) comprises a pyrometer (See para.0029: “A plurality of sensors 226, such as pyrometers”).
Regarding claim 17, Miller in view of Möench further discloses wherein the beam irradiating module (100 of Möench, see fig.1 and 13, is included in the modification) comprises a laser light-emitting device (110 of Möench, see figs.1 and 13), and the laser light-emitting device comprises a VCSEL device (115, see fig.13 and para.0075).
Claims 2-3, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Möench as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Anderson (US6064799A)
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the temperature measuring module measures the temperature of the lower surface of the flat substrate at the lower part of the beam irradiating module.
Anderson discloses Method and apparatus for controlling the radial temperature gradient of a wafer while ramping the wafer temperature, comprising:
the temperature measuring module (129, see fig.2) measures the temperature of the lower surface of the flat substrate (lower surface of 102, see fig.2 and col. 6 lines 62-63: “second pyrometer 129 for measuring the temperature of the susceptor 102”) at the lower part of the beam irradiating module (lower part of 123, see fig.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the temperature measuring module of Miller in view of Möench to have “the temperature measuring module measures the temperature of the lower surface of the flat substrate at the lower part of the beam irradiating module” as taught by Anderson. Doing so ensures uniformity of substrate temperature (See col. 2 lines 4-5 of Anderson).
Regarding claim 3, Miller in view of Möench further discloses the process chamber (200, see fig.2) comprises; a side wall (216. See side wall in annotated fig.2 below) in which the flat substrate (122, see fig.2) is seated, an outer housing (202, see fig.2) in which the infrared transmitting plate (252) and an upper plate (214, see fig.2) are placed above the flat substrate (122) in the side wall (see side wall in annotated fig.2 below, and an inner housing (see inner housing in annotated fig.2 below) placed below the flat substrate (122) inside the outer housing (202, see fig.2) and having an upper portion (upper portion of the annotated inner housing) on which the beam irradiating plate (206, se fig.2 and see 112(b) rejections above) is placed, wherein the beam irradiating module (beam irradiating module 100 of Möench in place of the lamps 208 of Miller, see fig.2) is placed below the beam transmitting plate ((206) inside the inner housing (see inner housing in annotated fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
655
1146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Miller
Regarding claim 5, Miller further discloses the temperature measuring module (206, see fig.2) comprises a pyrometer (See para.0029: “A plurality of sensors 226, such as pyrometers”).
Regarding claim 9, Miller in view of Möench further discloses wherein the beam irradiating module (100 of Möench, see fig.1 and 13, is included in the modification) comprises a laser light-emitting device (110 of Möench, see figs.1 and 13), and the laser light-emitting device comprises a VCSEL device (115, see fig.13 and para.0075).
Claims 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Möench/ Anderson as applied to claim 3 or 5, respectively, and further in view of Ansonii (JPH08285692A)
Regarding claim 4, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the beam irradiating module comprises a temperature measuring hole penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof, and the temperature measuring module is placed below the emissivity measuring hole.
Ansonii discloses semiconductor processing technology including measurement of radiated and heated main body by pyrometer and equipment for executing technology thereof, comprising:
the beam irradiating module (200, see fig.2) comprises a temperature measuring hole (210) penetrating from an upper surface (see upper surface in annotated fig.2 below) to a lower surface (see lower surface in annotated fig.2 below) thereof, and the temperature measuring module (100, see fig.3) is placed below the emissivity measuring hole (210, see fig.3).
PNG
media_image3.png
443
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Ansonii
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam irradiating module of Miller in view of Möench/ Anderson to comprise “a temperature measuring hole penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof, and the temperature measuring module is placed below the emissivity measuring hole” as taught by Ansonii. Doing so ensures uniformity of substrate temperature.
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the pyrometer further comprises an iris and a filter unit located on the path of the incident beam.
Ansonii discloses semiconductor processing technology including measurement of radiated and heated main body by pyrometer and equipment for executing technology thereof, comprising:
the pyrometer (probe 100, see figs.2-3) further comprises an iris (150, see fig.2 and see page 2, lines 14-19: “Iris diaphragm”) and a filter unit (215, see fig.3) located on the path of the incident beam (signal collected by the probe 100, see figs.2-3, see 112(b) rejections above)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the pyrometer of Miller in view of Möench/ Anderson by the one of Ansonii, so as “the pyrometer further comprises an iris and a filter unit located on the path of the incident beam”, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of measuring the temperature of the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Miller in view of Möench/ Anderson/ Ansonii further discloses the filter unit (215 of Ansonii, see fig.3) comprises a color filter (215, which filters radiation of the wavelength of about 2μm~ about 3μm, see page 5, lines 20-21 of Ansonii) that removes a beam in the visible ray region (Wavelengths shorter than about 1μm) from an incident beam(signal collected by the probe 100, see figs.2-3 of Ansonii, see 112(b) rejections above).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Möench as applied to claim 10 (see 112(b) rejections above) and further in view of Sorabj (US20140199786A1) and Yamada US (20190097488 A1)
Regarding claim 11, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Miller further discloses the substrate rotating module (228 and 215, see fig.2) comprises;
an inner rotating means (215, see fig.2) having a ring shape (See fig.2) 216, see fig.2) of the substrate support (combo 218 and 216) within the chamber lower space (space inside the chamber 200, see fig.2), and an outer rotating means (228, see fig.2) placed outside the outer housing (202, see fig.2) to face the inner rotating means (215, see fig.2), but does not expressly disclose the inner rotating means in which N poles and S poles are alternately formed in a circumferential direction and the outer rotating means configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate the inner rotating means.
Yamada discloses a motor, comprising:
an inner rotating means (6, see fig.1) in which N poles and S poles are alternately formed in a circumferential direction (See para.0027: “ north and south poles arranged to alternate with each other in a circumferential direction, or alternatively, a plurality of magnets arranged in the circumferential direction may be used as the rotor magnet 6”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner rotating means of Miller in view of Möench to have the “inner rotating means in which N poles and S poles are alternately formed in a circumferential direction” as taught by Yamada. Doing so enables the substrate holder to rotate with high torque, facilitating the movement of the substrate.
Miller in view of Möench/ Yamada discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but silent on the outer rotating means configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate the inner rotating means.
Sorabj discloses the substrate rotating module (combo 104 and 118, see fig.2) comprises;
an outer rotating means (118, see fig.1) placed outside the outer housing (102, see fig.1) to face the inner rotating means (208, see fig.1-2) and configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate the inner rotating means (see para.0024: “The stator assembly 118 is magnetically coupled to the substrate support 104 disposed within the interior volume 120 of the chamber body 102. The substrate support 104 may comprise or include a magnetic portion to function as a rotor, thus creating a magnetic bearing assembly to lift and/or rotate the substrate support 104”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the outer rotating means of Miller in view of Möench/Yamada to be “configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate the inner rotating means” as taught by Sorabj. Doing so allows for precise and efficient rotation of the inner rotating means.
Claims 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Möench as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ansonii (JPH08285692A)
Regarding claim 13, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the beam irradiating module comprises a temperature measuring hole penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof.
Ansonii discloses semiconductor processing technology including measurement of radiated and heated main body by pyrometer and equipment for executing technology thereof, comprising:
the beam irradiating module (200, see fig.2) comprises a temperature measuring hole (210) penetrating from an upper surface (see upper surface in annotated fig.2 below) to a lower surface (see lower surface in annotated fig.2 below) thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
443
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Ansonii
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam irradiating module of Miller in view of Möench/ Anderson to comprise “a temperature measuring hole penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof” as taught by Ansonii. Doing so ensures uniformity of substrate temperature.
Regarding claim 15, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the pyrometer further comprises an iris and a filter unit located on the path of the incident beam.
Ansonii discloses semiconductor processing technology including measurement of radiated and heated main body by pyrometer and equipment for executing technology thereof, comprising:
the pyrometer (probe 100, see figs.2-3) further comprises an iris (150, see fig.2 and see page 2, lines 14-19: “Iris diaphragm”) and a filter unit (215, see fig.3) located on the path of the incident beam (signal collected by the probe 100, see figs.2-3, see 112(b) rejections above)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the pyrometer of Miller in view of Möench/ Anderson by the one of Ansonii, so as “the pyrometer further comprises an iris and a filter unit located on the path of the incident beam”, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of measuring the temperature of the substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Miller in view of Möench/ Ansonii further discloses the filter unit (215 of Ansonii, see fig.3) comprises a color filter (215, which filters radiation of the wavelength of about 2μm~ about 3μm, see page 5, lines 20-21 of Ansonii) that removes a beam in the visible ray region (Wavelengths shorter than about 1μm) from an incident beam(signal collected by the probe 100, see figs.2-3 of Ansonii, see 112(b) rejections above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US5818137A discloses A rotary motor and a rotary magnetic bearing are integrated in a compact assembly that is contact-less.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights