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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fougere, US 3,522,464.
Fougere teaches:
Regarding claims 1 and 6, a lamp or lamp assembly for use in a processing chamber, comprising: a lamp envelope 10 having an interior volume; a first end of the lamp envelope coupled to a base 20; a second end of the lamp envelope opposing the first end (Figure 3); a filament 11 disposed within the interior volume; and a radiation shield 22 proximate to the second end.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the radiation shield 22 is disposed within the interior volume of the lamp envelope 10 positioned between the filament 23 and the second end.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ott, US 4,794,499
Ott teaches:
Regarding claims 1 and 6, a lamp or lamp assembly for use in a processing chamber, comprising: a lamp envelope 10 having an interior volume; a first end of the lamp envelope coupled to a base 22; a second end of the lamp envelope opposing the first end; a filament 18 disposed within the interior volume; and a radiation shield 32 proximate to the second end.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the radiation shield 32 is coupled to an outer surface of the second end such that the second end is positioned between the filament 18 and the radiation shield 32 (Figure 1).
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.
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fougere, US 3,522,464, in view of Strobl et al, WO 2023/121710 A2 or GB 669716 A (‘716).
Fougere was discussed above.
Fougere differs from the present invention in that Fougere does not teach that the radiation shield comprises an opaque quartz material or a molybdenum foil.
Strobl et al teaches a radiation shield 50 made of opaque quartz (Paragraph 0069).
‘716 teaches a radiation shield 13 made of a molybdenum foil 13.
The motivation for making the shield of Fougere out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or molybdenum foil as taught by ‘716 is to provide a specific material of construction as required by Fougere but not disclosed by Fougere. Furthermore, it has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the radiation shield of Fougere out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or molybdenum foil as taught by ‘716.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott, US 4,794,499, in view of Strobl et al, WO 2023/121710 A2 or Posnansky et al, DE 4024216 A1.
Ott was discussed above.
Ott differs from the present invention in that Ott does not teach that the radiation shield comprises an opaque quartz material or a reflective quartz material.
Strobl et al teaches a radiation shield 50 made of opaque quartz (Paragraph 0069).
Posnansky et al teaches a radiation shield 13 made of reflective quartz 5.
The motivation for making the shield of Ott out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or reflective quartz as taught by Posnansky et al is to provide an alternate material of construction. Furthermore, it has been held that:
the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and
reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the radiation shield of Ott out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or of reflective quartz as taught by Posnansky et al.
Claims 11-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fougere, US 3,522,464, in view of Trujillo et al, US 2005/0146257 A1.
Fougere was discussed above.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Fougere differs from the present invention in that Fougere does not teach an annular array of a plurality of the at least one lamp disposed within an upper or lower lamp module of a substrate processing system.
Trujillo et al teaches annular arrays 20a, 20b, 20c of a plurality of lamps 20 disposed within an upper 20a or lower lamp 20b, 20c module of a substrate processing system 100.
The motivation for using the lamp of Fougere in the annular arrays of Trujillo et al is to provide an alternate lamp in the annular arrays of Trujillo et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to use the lamp of Fougere in the annular arrays of Trujillo et al.
Regarding claim 12, Trujillo et al teaches that the annular array is configured to heat a processing volume 122 of the substrate processing system 100, a substrate 128 on a substrate support 123, or both.
Regarding claim 14, Trujillo et al teaches a substrate processing system, comprising: a housing structure 102; a chamber comprising a processing volume 122 comprising an upper chamber volume (area above substrate support 120) and a lower chamber volume (area below the substrate support 120); a substrate support 120 disposed within the processing volume 122; an upper lamp module 20a disposed within the chamber and comprising at least one lamp assembly 20.
Regarding claim 15, Fougere teaches the radiation shield 22 is disposed within the interior volume of the lamp envelope 10 positioned between the filament 23 and the second end.
Regarding claim 19, Trujillo et al teaches an isolation plate 136. Trujillo et al does not teach a sensor proximate to the radiation shield, the sensor configured to determine a temperature of an isolation plate. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of temperature sensors are well known in the art and commonly used to determined the temperature of a desired object. The motivation for adding a temperature sensor to the isolation plate of Trujillo et al is to measure the temperature of the isolation plate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add a temperature sensor to the isolation plate of Trujillo et al.
Regarding claim 20, Trujillo et al teaches that the lamp assembly is configured to heat the processing volume, a substrate on the substrate support, or both.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fougere in view of Trujillo et al, as applied to claims 11-15, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Strobl et al, WO 2023/121710 A2 or GB 669716 A (‘716).
Fougere and Trujillo et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the radiation shield comprises an opaque quartz material or a molybdenum foil.
Strobl et al teaches a radiation shield 50 made of opaque quartz (Paragraph 0069).
‘716 teaches a radiation shield 13 made of a molybdenum foil 13.
The motivation for making the shield of Fougere and Trujillo et al out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or molybdenum foil as taught by ‘716 is to provide a specific material of construction as required by Fougere and Trujillo et al but not disclosed by Fougere and Trujillo et al. Furthermore, it has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the radiation shield of Fougere and Trujillo et al out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or molybdenum foil as taught by ‘716.
Claims 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott, US 4,794,499, in view of Trujillo et al, US 2005/0146257 A1.
Ott was discussed above.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Ott differs from the present invention in that Ott does not teach an annular array of a plurality of the at least one lamp disposed within an upper or lower lamp module of a substrate processing system.
Trujillo et al teaches annular arrays 20a, 20b, 20c of a plurality of lamps 20 disposed within an upper 20a or lower lamp 20b, 20c module of a substrate processing system 100.
The motivation for using the lamp of Ott in the annular arrays of Trujillo et al is to provide an alternate lamp in the annular arrays of Trujillo et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to use the lamp of Ott in the annular arrays of Trujillo et al.
Regarding claim 12, Trujillo et al teaches that the annular array is configured to heat a processing volume 122 of the substrate processing system 100, a substrate 128 on a substrate support 123, or both.
Regarding claim 14, Trujillo et al teaches a substrate processing system, comprising: a housing structure 102; a chamber comprising a processing volume 122 comprising an upper chamber volume (area above substrate support 120) and a lower chamber volume (area below the substrate support 120); a substrate support 120 disposed within the processing volume 122; an upper lamp module 20a disposed within the chamber and comprising at least one lamp assembly 20.
Regarding claim 17, Ott teaches the radiation shield 32 is coupled to an outer surface of the second end such that the second end is positioned between the filament 18 and the radiation shield 32 (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Trujillo et al teaches an isolation plate 136. Trujillo et al does not teach a sensor proximate to the radiation shield, the sensor configured to determine a temperature of an isolation plate. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of temperature sensors are well known in the art and commonly used to determine the temperature of a desired object. The motivation for adding a temperature sensor to the isolation plate of Trujillo et al is to measure the temperature of the isolation plate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add a temperature sensor to the isolation plate of Trujillo et al.
Regarding claim 20, Trujillo et al teaches that the lamp assembly is configured to heat the processing volume, a substrate on the substrate support, or both.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott in view of Trujillo et al, as applied to claims 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Strobl et al, WO 2023/121710 A2 or Posnansky et al, DE 4024216 A1.
Ott was discussed above.
Ott differs from the present invention in that Ott does not teach that the radiation shield comprises an opaque quartz material or a reflective quartz material.
Strobl et al teaches a radiation shield 50 made of opaque quartz (Paragraph 0069).
Posnansky et al teaches a radiation shield 13 made of reflective quartz 5.
The motivation for making the shield of Ott out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or reflective quartz as taught by Posnansky et al is to provide an alternate material of construction. Furthermore, it has been held that:
the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and
reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the radiation shield of Ott out of opaque quartz as taught by Strobl et al or of reflective quartz as taught by Posnansky et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The following cited references teach:
Radiation shield outside: US 4370751 A; or
Molybdenum foil: WO 2006072634 A2 JP S61283185 A US 3571478 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights