DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 04/15/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 01/27/2026. Claims 1, 5 and 6 were amended; claims 3-4 were cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The claim objection of 01/27/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amendments made to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 over Kitagawa (US 2022/0015213) in view of Gouda (US 2023/0232501) in further view of Fuse (US 2021/0051771) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art combination still reads on to invention as claimed.
Applicant's point on page 7 of Remarks that “Kitagawa, et al. and Gouda, et al. do not disclose that the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers are circularly disposed to surround the plurality of LED lamps. Fuse does not disclose LED lamps in the first place. Moreover, Fuse merely discloses increasing the density of the arrangement of Halogen lamps in the peripheral region and completely fails to mention an arrangement that is such that ‘the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting laser are circularly disposed to surround the plurality of LED lamps ‘” was not found persuasive by Examiner.
In response to applicant's argument that the individual references do not disclose the claimed aspect of “the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers are circularly disposed to surround the plurality of LED lamps”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
While Applicant's point that the halogen lamps of Fuse do not present a circular orientation, this is more because of the design/structure of halogen lamps. The teaching of Fuse is related to the fact that the peripheral portion of the semiconductor wafer W has an increased amount of heat dissipate. The wafer and also general apparatus of Fuse being circular as evident by figs. 2-4 of Fuse. The apparatus of Kitagawa also being similarly circular as evident from their figures. Since the wafer which the teaching of Fuse is related to is circular, and the base reference is similarly circular in design. It would be obvious in the combination of Kitagawa, Gouda and Fuse to have the VCSELs being circularly disposed to surround the plurality of LED lamps. The VCSELs being provided about the LED lamps as such because they provide greater light intensity to the circular periphery of the wafer where it would be most useful given the greater heat dissipate rate at the periphery of the wafer.
Double Patenting
Examiner acknowledges Applicant's deferment towards responding to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection previously established in prior Office Action of 01/27/2026. Copending US patent applications 18/757377 and 18/988794 were cited.
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, and further in view of US 2013/0038941, herein referenced as Pesach.
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) 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; and
a homogenizer homogenizing light emitted from each of the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers between the chamber and the auxiliary light source, the homogenizer has a plate-like shape made up of quadrangular optical elements bundled to correspond to the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers, respectively, on a one-on-one basis.
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.
However, the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda fails to teach a homogenizer homogenizing light emitted from each of the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers between the chamber and the auxiliary light source, the homogenizer has a plate-like shape made up of quadrangular optical elements bundled to correspond to the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers, respectively, on a one-on-one basis.
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), the homogenizer has a plate-like shape (see figs. 3-5C which shows the beam homogenizer 52 as having a planar or plate like shape) made up of [optical elements] (see microlenses 62 fig. 4; “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) 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), 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). Pesach further teaches that “A beam homogenizer 52, comprising a dual microlens array, homogenizes and focuses the beam from emitter 44” in 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.
Pesach discloses of quadrangular optical elements (see micro lens 66 formed as rectangular in fig. 5B), that “the two arrays may be arranged in different, respective geometrical arrangements, such as one hexagonal array and one rectangular array” in pr. 29 and that “it is also advantageous that the respective microlens arrays on surfaces 64 and 68 have different geometrical arrangements” in pr. 41. However, the combination of Kitagawa, Gouda and Pesach fails to teach that the [optical elements] are quadrangular optical elements.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). Similarity in the instant case, the instant specification does not state that optical elements being “quadrangular optical elements” solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose or establishes it as significant. Further, Pesach provides an example of quadrangular optical elements via its rectangular arrangement and does not seem to provide any requirement for the shape of the microlens other than they be preferably different geometric arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of Changes in Shape to modify at least the shape of the micro lens 62 in the beam homogenizer of Pesach, as used to modify Kitagawa and Gouda above such that they are quadrangular/rectangular micro lens. The microlens 66 could also be modified such that they have a different geometric arrangement from the microlens 62. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. “Changes in Shape”.
Claim(s) 5 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, and further in view of US 2021/0051771, herein referenced as Fuse.
Regarding Claim 5, Kitagawa discloses a heat treatment apparatus (optical heating device 1 fig. 1) heating a substrate (semiconductor substrate W1 fig. 1) 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, the auxiliary light source including [a] plurality of LED lamps (see LED elements 12 on LED board 12a in fig. 1); 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 and a plurality of LED lamps; and
the plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers are circularly disposed to surround the plurality of LED lamps.
Kitagawa and Gouda are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of heat treatment apparatuses.
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.
However, the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda fails to 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 light radiation 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. The wafer of Fuse being circular, similar to Kitagawa, as evident by figs. 2-4 of Fuse.
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) circularly disposed around them given the circular shape of the wafer, 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitagawa, Gouda and Fuse as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2019/0267263 herein referenced as Lau.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kitagawa, Gouda and Fuse comprises the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the auxiliary light source includes vertical cavity surface emitting lasers each emitting light having a different wave length and LED lamps 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 [a plurality of emitters] 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 plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers and the plurality of LED lamps in the combination of Kitagawa and Gouda such that each of the lasers and/or lamps 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7 are 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:
Regarding Claim 2, no prior art was found which anticipated or rendered obvious the invention as claimed. Particularly “wherein the auxiliary light source includes vertical cavity surface emitting lasers each emitting light having a different wavelength” in context of all intervening limitations. While Lau (US 2019/0267263) was previously used to teach this aspect in the prior Office Action, Lau does disclose of the use of a homogenizer as claimed in claim 1. Thus, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to have modified the combination above used to rejection claim 1 with the teachings of Lau as its not clear that the motivations stated by Lau would materialize in such a combination given the homogenizer as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, see rationale provided in the prior Office Action of 01/27/2026.
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 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
Prosecution Insights