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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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, 3-11, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angiulli et al. US 5,323,293 in view of NAKANISHI US 20240392767 A1 and Fukuda US 20130219924 A1.
Re claim 1, Angiulli et al. teach a cooling device for semiconductor device comprising: a chamber (28) including an internal structure capable of holding a pressure in the chamber lower than atmospheric pressure (col 4);
one or a plurality of cooling member (22, 36) provided inside of the internal structure of the chamber, the cooling member holding and cooling a semiconductor device (38, 54); and a heat transfer part (12, 14) exchanging heat with a refrigerator (10, source, col 4 lines 29-30) cooling the cooling member.
Angiulli et al. fail to explicitly teach controls.
NAKANISHI teach and a controller (para 4, 60, fig 2) wherein the cooling member includes a thermometer (para 74) and a heater (62) the controller is connected to the thermometer and the heater,
the controller is configured to control the cooling member to lower temperature than a temperature in a period in which the semiconductor device is in an operation period when the semiconductor device has not been driven in a predetermined time or more (para 47), the controller is configured to increase a temperature of the cooling member by driving the semiconductor device when the semiconductor device is in the operation period and a temperature measured by the thermometer is a predetermined temperature or less (para 47), and after the controller controlled the cooling member to lower temperature than a temperature in a period in which the semiconductor device is in the operation period and the controller controlled to increase a temperature of the cooling member by driving the semiconductor device (para 47), the controller is configured to heat (para 85, interpreted to be increase heat energy to the downstream function and thus by reducing the cooling is considered heating, para 27, 31, 34, 40-60 ) the semiconductor device by turning on the heater when a performance of the semiconductor device is a predetermined standard or less (paras 85-86) to provide a cryogenic cooler with a controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include controls as taught by NAKANISHI in the Angiulli et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for cooling controls and energy efficiency.
Angiulli et al. , as modified, fail to teach a thermometer, however B teach a thermometer to provide a substitute for the known element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a thermometer (para 59) taught in Fukuda for the temperature sensor in Angiulli et al. , as modified, for the predictable result of measuring temperature.
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
Re claim 3, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the chamber has a cylindrical shape, and the heat transfer part has a longitudinal shape in an axis direction of the cylindrical shape of the chamber (figs).
Re claim 4, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the cooling member has a plate shape (figs).
Re claim 5, Angiulli et al. , as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein thickness of the cooling member is 1 cm or more. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide wherein thickness of the cooling member is 1 cm or more, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 6, Angiulli et al. teach wherein thermal conductivity of the cooling member is 100 W/mK or more (col 4 lines 50-55).
Re claim 7, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the cooling member includes copper or aluminum (col 4 lines 50-55).
Re claim 8, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the cooling member extends to the axis direction of the cylindrical shape, and extends from the heat transfer part toward an inner wall of the chamber (three dimensional objects naturally extend).
Re claim 9, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the plurality of cooling members are provided, and the plurality of cooling members extend radially around the heat transfer part when viewed in the axis direction of the cylindrical shape (teeth in between 32 seen from top view fig 2 are considered a plurality of members).
Re claim 10, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the heat transfer part has a rod shape having a longitudinal in the axis direction of the cylindrical shape (figs).
Angiulli et al. , as modified discloses the claimed invention except for and a width of the heat transfer part in a direction perpendicular to the axis direction of the cylindrical shape is 2 cm or more. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide and a width of the heat transfer part in a direction perpendicular to the axis direction of the cylindrical shape is 2 cm or more, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 11, Angiulli et al. teach wherein the cooling member includes a first plate shape member connected to the heat transfer part, a second plate shape member holding the semiconductor device, and a cold storage member between the first plate shape member and the second plate shape member (annotated fig).
Re claim 13, NAKANISHI teach wherein the controller is configured to turn on the heater when a temperature measured by the thermometer is a predetermined temperature or less (para 85, para 27, 31, 34, 40-60, see the rejection of claim 1).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
PNG
media_image1.png
769
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 17, NAKANISHI teach further comprising a vacuum pump configured to reduce an internal pressure of the chamber to a pressure lower than the atmospheric pressure (para 54) to provide a cryogenic cooler pump down effect.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include controls as taught by NAKANISHI in the Angiulli et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for cooling controls and energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angiulli et al., as modified by NAKANISHI and Fukuda, in view of Sabo et al. US 4986077 A.
Additionally, Re claim 2, Sabo et al. teach wherein internal pressure of the chamber can be reduced to a pressure lower than the atmospheric pressure by a vacuum pump (95) to achieve vacuum state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a vacuum pump as taught by Sabo et al. in the Angiulli et al. , as modified invention in order to advantageously allow for an apparatus known in the art to achieve the vacuum state as required by the primary reference.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angiulli et al., as modified by NAKANISHI and Fukuda, in view of BENJAMINSON US 20190371577 A1.
Re claim 18, Angiulli et al. , as modified fail to explicitly teach controller details.
BENJAMINSON teach further comprising a controller, wherein the controller generates a notification signal notifying degradation of a performance of the semiconductor device when the performance of the semiconductor device is a predetermined standard or less (para 10, 50, 52) to control the temperature of a substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include controller details as taught by BENJAMINSON in the Angiulli et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for uniform temperature during operation via controls.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angiulli et al., as modified by NAKANISHI and Fukuda, in view of Jung US 20100107975 A1.
Re claim 19, Angiulli et al. , as modified fail to explicitly teach a load lock chamber.
Jung teach further comprising a load lock chamber adjacent to the chamber via a door capable of opening and closing, wherein the semiconductor device moves from the chamber to the load lock chamber when the door is open state, and the semiconductor device is detached from the load lock chamber to outward when the door is closed (para 10, 29-34) to store a wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a load lock chamber as taught by Jung in the Angiulli et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for wafer processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 1/16/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that BENJAMINSON fails to teach controller details. However, the scope of claim 1 has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on NAKANISHI to teach the recited controller details (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763