DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 05/17/2023. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the auxiliary light source includes a vertical cavity surface emitting laser emitting light having a different wavelength and an LED lamp emitting light having a different wavelength” but should likely read “the auxiliary light source includes a vertical cavity surface emitting laser of the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers emitting light having a different wavelength and an LED lamp of the plurality of LED lamps emitting light having a different wavelength”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/757377 (reference application), herein referenced as ‘377. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations required by the instant application claims are recited by the copending application.
Instant Claim 1
Claim 1 - 3 of ‘377
[instant claim 1 lines 1-4]
A heat treatment apparatus heating a substrate by irradiating the substrate with light, comprising:
a chamber housing a substrate;
a holder holding the substrate in the chamber;
[Claim 1 of ‘377 lines 1-4]
A heat treatment apparatus for irradiating a substrate with light to heat the substrate, comprising: a chamber for receiving a substrate therein; a holder for holding said substrate in said chamber;
[instant claim 1 lines 5-6]
an auxiliary light source provided on one side of the chamber to irradiate the substrate held by the holder with light,
[Claim 1 of ‘377 lines 5-6 and 8]
an auxiliary light source provided on one side of said chamber and for irradiating said substrate held by said holder with light; and preheated by said auxiliary light source with a flash of light
[instant claim 1 lines 6-7]
the auxiliary light source including a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers
[Claim 1 of ‘377 line 9 and Claim 3 of ‘377]
said auxiliary light source including a plurality of laser diodes;
The heat treatment apparatus according to claim 2 [which depends upon claim 1], wherein said auxiliary light source further includes a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers
[Instant claim 1 lines 8-9]
a flash lamp provided on another side of the chamber to irradiate the substrate held by the holder with a flash of light.
[Claim 1 of ‘377 lines 7-8]
a flash lamp provided on the other side of said chamber and for irradiating said substrate
NOTE: the claims of ‘377 referenced below depend upon claim 3 of ‘377. The language of the claims compared against each other below being substantially the same.
Instant claim 2 is anticipated by claim 7 of ‘377.
Additionally, Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 and claims 6 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/988794 (reference application), herein referenced as ‘794. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations required by the instant application claims are recited by the copending application.
Regarding Instant Claim 1 over claims 6 and 9 of ‘794:
Instant Claim 1
Claims 6 and 9 of ‘794
[instant claim 1 lines 1-4]
A heat treatment apparatus heating a substrate by irradiating the substrate with light, comprising:
a chamber housing a substrate;
a holder holding the substrate in the chamber;
[Claim 6 of ‘794 lines 1-4]
A heat treatment apparatus for irradiating a semiconductor wafer with light to heat the semiconductor wafer, comprising: a chamber for receiving a semiconductor wafer therein; a holder for holding said semiconductor wafer in said chamber;
[instant claim 1 lines 5-6]
an auxiliary light source provided on one side of the chamber to irradiate the substrate held by the holder with light,
[Claim 6 of ‘794 lines 5-6]
an auxiliary light source provided on one side of said chamber and for irradiating said semiconductor wafer held by said holder with light,
[instant claim 1 lines 6-7]
the auxiliary light source including a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers
[Claim 6 of ‘794 line 6-8 and Claim 9 of ‘794]
said auxiliary light source including an insulative substrate made of an inorganic material and a chip including a semiconductor light emitting element;
The heat treatment apparatus according to claim 6, wherein said semiconductor light emitting element is one selected from the group consisting of a light emitting diode, a laser diode, and a vertical cavity surface emitting laser
[Instant claim 1 lines 8-9]
a flash lamp provided on another side of the chamber to irradiate the substrate held by the holder with a flash of light.
[Claim 6 of ‘794 lines 9-10]
a flash lamp provided on the other side of said chamber and for irradiating said semiconductor wafer preheated by said auxiliary light source with a flash of light
While the invention of claim 9 of ‘794 only states of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser and fails to explicitly anticipate a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers as required by instant claim 1. It would have been an obvious matter of duplication of parts to have modified the invention of claim 9 of ‘794 to instead have a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers.
Instant claim 1 is also found to be obvious over the scope of claim 5 (which also includes the scope of claim 1 from which it depends upon) of ‘794 under the rationale provided above regarding the invention of claim 9 of ‘794.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0015213, herein referenced as Kitagawa, in view of US 2023/0232501, herein referenced as Gouda.
PNG
media_image1.png
349
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Kitagawa
Regarding Claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a heat treatment apparatus (optical heating device 1 fig. 1) heating a substrate (semiconductor substrate W1 fig. 1) by irradiating the substrate with light, comprising:
a chamber (chamber 10 fig. 1) housing a substrate (W1 fig. 1);
a holder (support member 16 fig. 1) holding the substrate in the chamber (shown in fig. 1);
an auxiliary light source provided on one side of the chamber (see LED elements 12 on LED board 12a in fig. 1) to irradiate the substrate (W1 fig. 1) held by the holder (16 fig. 1) with light; and
a flash lamp (see plurality of flash lamps 11 fig. 1) provided on another side of the chamber (flash lamps 11 shown to be provided on another side of the chamber 10 from the LED elements 12 in fig. 1) to irradiate the substrate (W1 fig. 1) held by the holder (16 fig. 1) with a flash of light.
However, Kitagawa fails to anticipate the auxiliary light source including a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers.
Kitagawa and Gouda are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of heat treatment apparatuses.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Gouda
Gouda teaches an auxiliary light source (lamp 100 fig. 1) including a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (vertical cavity surface emitting lasers 108 fig. 1). Gouda further teaches that “where the amount of light is constant in irradiation of light energy on a silicon wafer (wafer), the silicon wafer absorbs rays of light emitted from the VCSEL elements 108 (rays of light [with a long wavelength] closer to infrared light) at a higher absorption rate than rays of light emitted from LED elements (rays of light with a wavelength in a visible light range); hence, the VCSEL elements 108 are advantageous for increase in temperature of the silicon wafer. Because of this, it is preferable to use the VCSEL elements 108 as the light source elements” pr. 60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified at least some, or all, of the LED elements of Kitagawa to instead be vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) elements as disclosed by Gouda, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘a higher absorption rate than rays of light emitted from LEDs which is advantageous for increase in temperature of a silicon wafer’ as taught by Gouda.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0267263, herein referenced as Lau.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda comprises the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the auxiliary light source includes vertical cavity surface emitting lasers each emitting light having a different wavelength.
Lau is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of heat treatment apparatuses.
Lau teaches wherein the auxiliary light source includes vertical cavity surface emitting lasers each emitting light having a different wavelength (“the emitter 450A emits thermal radiation at a different wavelength from the emitter 404A, and the emitter 450B emits thermal radiation at a different wavelength from the emitter 404B. When a first signal feature of the first group of signal features 144A circulates into registration with the signaler 146, the signaler 146 sends a signal to activate, for example, the emitter 450A (either firing a pulse or toggling), which emits a beam having a first wavelength toward the substrate. When a second signal feature of the first group of signal features 144A circulates into registration with the signaler 146, the signaler 146 sends a signal to activate, for example, the emitter 404A (either firing a pulse or toggling), which emits a beam having a second wavelength toward the substrate. In this way, radiation of different wavelengths can be triggered by use of signal features 144 and signalers 146, in cooperation with the power supplies 152A and 152B, and optionally the controller 154” pr. 72). Lau further teaches that “the signal features 144 may be used to activate a complex pattern of operation of the directed energy sources 150 and 404 comprising multiple pulses, on/off cycles, power levels, and wavelengths of radiation, depending on the exact configuration” in pr. 73.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vertical cavity surface emitting lasers in the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda such that they can emit radiation at different wavelengths from one another, as disclosed by Lau, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘enabling a complex pattern of operation depending on the exact configuration’ as taught by Lau.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0038941, herein referenced as Pesach.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda comprises the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach said apparatus further comprising
a homogenizer homogenizing light emitted from each of the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers between the chamber and the auxiliary light source.
Pesach is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of light radiation apparatuses.
PNG
media_image3.png
473
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Pesach
Pesach teaches of a homogenizer (beam homogenizer 52 fig. 4) homogenizing light emitted from each of the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (see matrix of light sources 60 fig. 4) between the chamber and the auxiliary light source (52 shown to be provided between the emitter 44 and the end destination of the light in fig. 3). : A beam homogenizer 52, comprising a dual microlens array, homogenizes and focuses the beam from emitter 44” pr. 38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda with the homogenizer disclosed by Pesach so as to obtain the benefit of ‘homogenizing and focusing the beam(s) from the emitter’ as taught by Pesach. This homogenization and focusing results in a light/laser which is more uniform in intensity as well as more concentrated.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kitagawa, Gouda and Pesach discloses the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the homogenizer has a plate-like shape (see figs. 3-5C of Pesach, as used to modify the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda which shows the beam homogenizer 52 as having a planar or plate-like shape) made up of optical elements (“Beam homogenizer 52 comprises an optical blank with a front optical surface 64 and a rear optical surface 68, with arrays of plano-convex microlenses 62, 66 formed on the respective surfaces” pr. 40 of Pesach, as used to modify the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda) bundled to correspond to the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (“Microlenses 62 are aligned with the matrix of light sources 60, so that the optical axis of each microlens 62 intercepts a corresponding light source 60 in the matrix and collimates the light emitted by the corresponding light source” pr. 41 of Pesach, as used to modify the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda), respectively, on a one-on-one basis (“the optical axis of each microlens 62 intercepts a corresponding light source 60 in the matrix” pr. 41 of Pesach, as used to modify the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0051771, herein referenced as Fuse.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda comprises the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary light source further includes a plurality of LED lamps (see plurality of LED elements 12 in fig. 3 of Kitagawa, as modified by Gouda above).
However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers are circularly disposed to surround the plurality of LED lamps.
Fuse is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of heat treatment apparatuses.
PNG
media_image4.png
495
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Fuse
Fuse teaches that “while the semiconductor wafer W tends to decrease in temperature more in its peripheral portion where heat is more liable to dissipate than in its central portion, the halogen lamps HL in the halogen heating part 4 are disposed at a higher density in a region facing the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer W than in a region facing the central portion thereof. This causes increasing the amount of light impinging on the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer W where heat is liable to dissipate, so that in-plane temperature distribution of the semiconductor wafer W in the preheating stage can be uniform” in pr. 79. This section stating that it is better to provide more light impinging on the peripheral portion of the wafer where heat is more liable to dissipate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the replacement of a plurality of LED elements with VCSEL elements, for the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda, such that light/irradiating intensity or amount is higher in a region facing the peripheral portions of the semiconductor wafer than a region facing the central portion thereof, as disclosed by Fuse, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘uniform in-plane temperature distribution of the semiconductor wafer’ as taught by Fuse. This modification would take the form of LED elements being provided centrally with VCSEL elements being provided about the periphery (surrounding the central LED elements), thereby providing greater light intensity for the peripheral portions of the semiconductor wafer given that wafers absorb light emitted from VCSELs at a higher rate than LEDs as stated in pr. 60 of Gouda.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kitagawa, Gouda and Fuse comprises the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the auxiliary light source includes a vertical cavity surface emitting laser emitting light having a different wavelength and an LED lamp emitting light having a different wavelength (“the silicon wafer absorbs rays of light emitted from the VCSEL elements 108 (rays of light [with a long wavelength] closer to infrared light) at a higher absorption rate than rays of light emitted from LED elements (rays of light with a wavelength in a visible light range)” pr. 60 of Gouda, as used to modify Kitagawa).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Invention of Claim 7 was found to be non-obvious over the prior art found during the search. Specifically, the feature of “additional vertical cavity surface emitting lasers obliquely provided around the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers circularly disposed so that an illuminance direction of the additional vertical cavity surface emitting lasers is directed to the substrate by the holder”, in context of all the intervening limitations. While it is known to provide a heat treatment apparatus which has obliquely oriented light emitting elements arranged circularly/annularly, as disclosed by Kitagawa. However, it was not found to provide this along with an auxiliary light source which includes LED elements surrounded by VSCEL elements as required by the invention of claim 7. US 11398394 provides light emitting elements provided around different centrally provided light emitting elements, but lacks the oblique arrangement required by claim 7. US 8624165 discloses obliquely angled reflectors provided about a peripheral region as well as an obliquely angled laser emitter which is provided centrally, but this still fails to teach all the aspects required by claim 7. The obliquely arranged VCSELs of claim 7 is also not a mere design choice since they are included “so that an illuminance direction thereof is directed to the peripheral part of the lower surface of the semiconductor wafer W” as stated in in pr. 102 of the instant published Application. For the reasons listed above, the invention of claim 7 is determined to be novel over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12171051, US 10770319, US 8908277 and US 12160936 – US patent grant of prior art cited above.
US 12165889 and US 2021/0366745 - prior art which has a structure with a flash lamps on one side of a chamber and light emitted elements on the other side of the chamber.
KR101701147B1, US 11418000, US 10135222, US 2023/0274955 – discloses benefits of using vertical cavity surface emitting lasers over halogens, LEDs and/or other known light emitters.
US 10256005 – discloses a heat treatment apparatus which is provided with laser diodes on a top side and a plurality of lamps on the lower side
US 2016/0381732 – discusses the light distribution of light emitting elements and various manners of arranging them.
US 2021/0043478 – discusses an LED light emitting device which as various circular regions which can be different from each other to control the temperature of the semiconductor wafer in more detail.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, 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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745