DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Objections
Claims 1, 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “a housing having a hole to insert the plurality of light transmissive containers,” but there are a plurality of holes for each to be inserted inside. Claims should recite more than one hole.
Claims 11-15 recites, “the control unit displaces the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element.” This limitation is understood to mean that the distance of each light emitting element is controlled based on position of the light emitting element in both y and z axes. However, it is confusing as it can be read as controlling a single distance between the center of the substrate and the position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element (a distance between the center of the substrate and another position on the substrate) so revision is kindly requested to make it clear it is controlling position with respect to direction in both the z and y axes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (JP 2016189456).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong discloses An optical heating apparatus [Annotated Fig. 1 (1), para. 40] comprising:
a plurality of heating sources to optically heat a substrate [Annotated Fig. 1, para. 45] (Examiner Note: Jeong discloses an optical heating apparatus with UV and IR lamps that heat the substrate and thus discloses this limitation.);
a plurality of light transmissive containers in which the heating sources are inserted and which transmit light from the heating sources [Annotated Fig. 1, para. 42] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus [MPEP 2114-I]. Jeong discloses an optical heating apparatus with lamps used to heat a substrate that are held in the upper chamber by individual containers that transmit light (and heat) from the lamps to the workpiece, and thus discloses a light transmissive container.); and
a vacuum chamber [Annotated Fig. 1 (100)] including a housing having an inside in which the substrate can be placed [Annotated Fig. 1 (130), paras. 42-43], the housing having a hole to insert the plurality of light transmissive containers at a position opposed to the substrate placed in the inside [Annotated Fig. 1, paras. 42-45] (Examiner Note: Jeong is understood to disclose an optical heating apparatus with light sources inserted into the light transmissive containers that are disposed in holes provided in the upper chamber (110), and thus discloses this limitation.) ,
wherein each of the plurality of heating sources has at least one light emitting element [Annotated Fig. 1, para. 45] (Examiner Note: Jeong discloses each of the heat sources are IR and UV lamps and thus necessarily contain a light emitting element), and
the plurality of heating sources emit light toward the substrate placed in the vacuum chamber through the plurality of light transmissive containers inserted in the hole and protruding from the housing toward the inside. [Annotated Fig. 1, paras. 55-56] (Examiner Note: Jeong discloses that, “[t]he heat source unit 300 is provided such that at least a portion of it penetrates the upper chamber 110, and is positioned spaced apart above the stage 200.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
571
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the respective heating sources are inserted in the different light transmissive containers. [Annotated Fig. 1, para. 48] (Examiner Note: Jeong discloses that each lamp is installed in the upper chamber, and they do not overlap, and thus placed in different containers.)
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the light emitting element of at least one of the heating sources is located inside the housing. [Annotated Fig. 1, para. 45] (Examiner Note: Jeong discloses that, “The heat source unit 300 is provided so that at least a part thereof penetrates the upper chamber 110, and is spaced apart from the upper part of the stage 200.” As the upper chamber forms part of the interior housing, Jeong discloses this limitation.)
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (KR 20080077490 A)
Regarding Claim 2, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose wherein each of the light transmissive containers has a flange that is in contact with an outer surface of the housing, and the flange has a seal to achieve hermetic sealing between the flange and the outer surface. (Examiner Note: Jeong discloses that the housing is vacuum sealed and the light transmissive containers are in contact with the outer housing. As there is no sealed transmission window provided between the upper chamber and containers, the light transmissive containers must necessarily be hermetically sealed at the upper housing. Nonetheless, it does not specifically disclose sealing with a flange. (Para. 42-43))
However, Nam discloses each of the light transmissive containers has a flange that is in contact with an outer surface of the housing, and the flange has a seal to achieve hermetic sealing between the flange and the outer surface [Fig. 7 (104), p. 4 paras. 5-10, p. 5 paras. 1-10] (Examiner Note: Nam discloses a sealing flange (104), and a lamp fixture (152) disposed on the outside surface of the upper chamber to hermetically seal the processing chamber, while reducing the distance between the heat source and the substrate.)
Nam is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to apparatuses for Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP), and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Nam with the disclosure of Jeong in order to provide hermetic sealing of the light transmissive containers throughout the upper chamber of the housing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Nam could be combined with Jeong with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to RTP apparatuses and housings. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the sealing flange at the outside surface of the light transmissive containers as it provides hermetic sealing of the processing container without the need for a quartz window, while still allowing ease of access to light sources for replacement. Furthermore, by providing hermetic sealing at each of the light transmissive containers, rather than over the entirety of a quartz window, it reduces the overall differential pressure on the system. Accordingly, Claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Nam.
Regarding Claim 5, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Jeong does not disclose wherein the light emitting element is a filament.
However, Nam discloses the light emitting element is a filament. [Fig. 7 (101), p. 3 para. 6-7] (Examiner Note: Nam discloses a tungsten halogen lamp having, “a light emitting part 101, a quartz tube 102, a power supply wire 103,” and thus understood to disclose a light filament as filaments are the light emitting element in incandescent bulbs.)
Under MPEP 2144.06-II, it is prima facie obvious to substitute components that are recognized in the art for the same purpose. [MPEP 2144.06-II] An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. Id., see also In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
It would have been obvious to substitute the heat sources of Jeong with the halogen-tungsten lamps of Nam because it is prima facie obvious to substitute components that are recognized in the art for the same purpose. [MPEP 2144.06-II] One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heat sources of Jeong could be replaced with the halogen-tungsten lamps of Nam as halogen-tungsten bulbs are recognized in the art as suitable heat sources for UV and IR radiation. [Wikipedia, Halogen Lamps (cited in 892)] (Wikipedia discloses “a halogen lamp produces a continuous spectrum of light, from near ultraviolet to deep into the infrared, … [h]igh-temperature filaments emit some energy in the UV region.” As these lamps are for high heat applications, it will be understood to be an IR/UV irradiating lamp.) Thus, using the halogen-tungsten lamps of Nam would amount to simple substitution of art recognized structure (i.e. heating elements) performing the same function of providing UV/IR radiation, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill would recognize that substitution with the Halogen lamps from Nam has the advantage of providing UV/IR radiation from every light emitting element. Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Nam.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, and further in view of Takahashi (JP 2000195813)
Regarding Claim 6, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate.
However, Takahashi teaches a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate. [Fig. 3 (113), paras. 11, 27-28] (Examiner Note: Takahashi teaches a position adjusting portion (113), “individually adjust[s] the distance between the reflecting means and the substrate held by the holding means for each of the plurality of light irradiation units.”)
Takahashi in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to apparatuses for RTP, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jeong with the teachings of Takahashi to provide distinct position control of each light emitting unit. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the position adjusting portion (113) of Takahashi because it allows specific control of the position of the light emitting elements, which provides individualized control of the temperature profile to ensure uniform heating of the substrate. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 8, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3.
Jeong does not disclose a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate.
However, Takahashi teaches a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate. [Fig. 3 (113), paras. 11, 27-28] (Examiner Note: Takahashi teaches a position adjusting portion (113), “individually adjust[s] the distance between the reflecting means and the substrate held by the holding means for each of the plurality of light irradiation units.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jeong with the teachings of Takahashi to provide distinct position control of each light emitting unit. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the position adjusting portion (113) of Takahashi to provide specific position control of the light emitting elements to ensure uniform heating of the substrate. Accordingly, Claim 8 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 9, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4.
Jeong does not disclose a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate.
However, Takahashi teaches a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate. [Fig. 3 (113), paras. 11, 27-28] (Examiner Note: Takahashi teaches a position adjusting portion (113), “ individually adjust[s] the distance between the reflecting means and the substrate held by the holding means for each of the plurality of light irradiation units.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jeong with the teachings of Takahashi to provide distinct position control of each light emitting unit. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the position adjusting portion (113) of Takahashi to provide specific position control of the light emitting elements to ensure uniform heating of the substrate. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Takahashi.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Nam, and further in view of Takahashi (JP 2000195813)
Regarding Claim 7, Jeong in view of Nam discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Jeong in view of Nam does not disclose a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate.
However, Takahashi teaches a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate. [Fig. 3 (113), paras. 11, 27-28] (Examiner Note: Takahashi teaches a position adjusting portion (113), “ individually adjust[s] the distance between the reflecting means and the substrate held by the holding means for each of the plurality of light irradiation units.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jeong with the teachings of Takahashi to provide distinct position control of each light emitting unit. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the position adjusting portion (113) of Takahashi to provide specific position control of the light emitting elements to ensure uniform heating of the substrate. Accordingly, Claim 7 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Nam and further in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 10, Jeong in view of Nam discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5.
Jeong in view of Nam does not disclose a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate.
However, Takahashi teaches a distance adjuster to adjust a distance between the light emitting element of each of the heating sources and the substrate. [Fig. 3 (113), paras. 11, 27-28] (Examiner Note: Takahashi teaches a position adjusting portion (113), “ individually adjust[s] the distance between the reflecting means and the substrate held by the holding means for each of the plurality of light irradiation units.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jeong with the teachings of Takahashi to provide distinct position control of each light emitting unit. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the position adjusting portion (113) of Takahashi to provide specific position control of the light emitting elements to ensure uniform heating of the substrate. Accordingly, Claim 10 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Nam and further in view of Takahashi.
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of Takahashi, and further in view of Tokyo Electron Limited (JP 2013534970)
Regarding Claim 11, Jeong in view of Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6. Takahashi further teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a control unit and displaces the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element. [Paras. 35, 43-44, 49] (Examiner Note: First, Takahashi discloses a distance adjuster that adjusts the individual z position between each light emitting element and the substrate but this displacement is carried out manually. Furthermore, Takahashi discloses the power of each lamp (30a-c) is feedback controlled by the controller (40) based on the temperature at their relative positions on the substrate (inner, intermediate and edge regions) to maintain in-plane uniformity of temperature across the entire substrate. (Paras. 35, 43-44) Finally, Takahashi specifically discloses that, “since the distance between the light source and the substrate held by the holding means can be individually adjusted for each of the plurality of light irradiation units by individually operating the light source position adjusting means, … [the distance] can be adjusted to be different depending on the position in the substrate surface corresponding to the light irradiation unit, [so that] the temperature uniformity of the substrate can be further improved, and heat treatment with higher quality can be performed.” (Para. 49) Accordingly, Takahashi is understood to disclose a control unit configured to control the light emitting elements, and a distance adjuster configured for manual displacement of the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element.)
Jeong and Takahashi do not disclose wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element and a control unit to control the drive unit, and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches a control unit and a distance adjuster configured to perform the claimed operation, but lacks computerized control of the distance adjuster.)
However, Tokyo Electron Limited teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element [Annotated Fig. 3C (3060), paras. 78-80] and a control unit to control the drive unit [Annotated Fig. 3C (1080)], and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. [Annotated Fig. 3C, paras. 79-80] (Examiner Note: Tokyo Electron discloses a controller-operated (1080) positioning system (3060) that changes the position of each of the heater elements relative to the substrate such that the spacing (3035a, 30305B) is varied to allow individualized control of process parameters for each heating element. As the positioning system (3060) drives displacement of the light emitting elements, and controlled by the controller, it is construed as a drive unit. Accordingly, Tokyo Electron is understood to disclose a drive unit (positioning system 3060) with a controller configured to control the displacement of light emitting elements with respect to the separation distance, and the relative position of each light emitting element with respect to the substrate.)
Tokyo Electron is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to apparatuses for RTP, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to modify Jeong in view of Takahashi with the teachings of Tokyo Electron in order to provide individualized computer-control of the light emitting elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Tokyo Electron can be combined with Jeong as they are both related to RTP apparatuses. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the positioning system of Tokyo Electron in order to provide computerized control of the positions of light emitting elements to ensure in-plane uniformity of temperature and allow fine modulation of the displacement profiles of the light emitting elements. Computerized control of displacement positions allows for more accurate control of process parameters, and improves repeatability of the process. Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Takahashi and further in view of Tokyo Electron.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Jeong in view of Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8. Takahashi further teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a control unit and displaces the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element. [Paras. 35, 43-44, 49] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi is understood to disclose a control unit configured to control the light emitting elements, and a distance adjuster configured for manual displacement of the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element.)
Jeong and Takahashi do not disclose wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element and a control unit to control the drive unit, and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches a control unit and a distance adjuster configured to perform the claimed operation, but lacks computerized control of the distance adjuster.)
However, Tokyo Electron Limited teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element [Annotated Fig. 3C (3060), paras. 78-80] and a control unit to control the drive unit [Annotated Fig. 3C (1080)], and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. [Annotated Fig. 3C, paras. 79-80] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Tokyo Electron is understood to disclose a drive unit (positioning system 3060) with a controller configured to control the displacement of light emitting elements with respect to the separation distance, and the relative position of each light emitting element with respect to the substrate.)
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to modify Jeong in view of Takahashi with the teachings of Tokyo Electron in order to provide individualized computer-control of the light emitting elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Tokyo Electron can be combined with Jeong as they are both related to RTP apparatuses. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the positioning system of Tokyo Electron in order to provide computerized control of the positions of light emitting elements to ensure in-plane uniformity of temperature and allow fine modulation of the displacement profiles of the light emitting elements. Computerized control of displacement positions allows for more accurate control of process parameters, and improves repeatability of the process. Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Takahashi and further in view of Tokyo Electron.
Regarding Claim 14, Jeong in view of Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9. Takahashi further teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a control unit and displaces the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element. [Paras. 35, 43-44, 49] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi is understood to disclose a control unit configured to control the light emitting elements, and a distance adjuster configured for manual displacement of the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element.)
Jeong and Takahashi do not disclose wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element and a control unit to control the drive unit, and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches a control unit and a distance adjuster configured to perform the claimed operation, but lacks computerized control of the distance adjuster.)
However, Tokyo Electron Limited teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element [Annotated Fig. 3C (3060), paras. 78-80] and a control unit to control the drive unit [Annotated Fig. 3C (1080)], and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. [Annotated Fig. 3C , paras. 79-80] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Tokyo Electron is understood to disclose a drive unit (positioning system 3060) with a controller configured to control the displacement of light emitting elements with respect to the separation distance, and the relative position of each light emitting element with respect to the substrate.)
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to modify Jeong in view of Takahashi with the teachings of Tokyo Electron in order to provide individualized computer-control of the light emitting elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Tokyo Electron can be combined with Jeong as they are both related to RTP apparatuses. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the positioning system of Tokyo Electron in order to provide computerized control of the positions of light emitting elements to ensure in-plane uniformity of temperature and allow fine modulation of the displacement profiles of the light emitting elements. Computerized control of displacement positions allows for more accurate control of process parameters, and improves repeatability of the process. Accordingly, Claim 14 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Takahashi and further in view of Tokyo Electron.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Nam, and Takahashi and further in view of Tokyo Electron Limited (JP 2013534970)
Regarding Claim 12, Jeong in view of Nam and Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7. Takahashi further teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a control unit and displaces the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element. [Paras. 35, 43-44, 49] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi is understood to disclose a control unit configured to control the light emitting elements, and a distance adjuster configured for manual displacement of the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element.)
Jeong, Nam and Takahashi do not disclose wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element and a control unit to control the drive unit, and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches a control unit and a distance adjuster configured to perform the claimed operation, but lacks computerized control of the distance adjuster.)
However, Tokyo Electron Limited teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element [Annotated Fig. 3C (3060), paras. 78-80] and a control unit to control the drive unit [Annotated Fig. 3C (1080)], and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. [Annotated Fig. 3C , paras. 79-80] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Tokyo Electron is understood to disclose a drive unit (positioning system 3060) with a controller configured to control the displacement of light emitting elements with respect to the separation distance, and the relative position of each light emitting element with respect to the substrate.)
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to modify Jeong in view of Nam and Takahashi with the teachings of Tokyo Electron in order to provide individualized computer-control of the light emitting elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Tokyo Electron can be combined with Jeong as they are both related to RTP apparatuses. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the positioning system of Tokyo Electron in order to provide computerized control of the positions of light emitting elements to ensure in-plane uniformity of temperature and allow fine modulation of the displacement profiles of the light emitting elements. Computerized control of displacement positions allows for more accurate control of process parameters, and improves repeatability of the process. Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Nam and Takahashi and further in view of Tokyo Electron.
Regarding Claim 15, Jeong in view of Nam discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10. Takahashi further teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a control unit and displaces the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element. [Paras. 35, 43-44, 49] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi is understood to disclose a control unit configured to control the light emitting elements, and a distance adjuster configured for manual displacement of the light emitting element according to a separation distance between a center of the substrate and a position on the substrate opposed to the light emitting element.)
Jeong, Nam and Takahashi do not disclose wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element and a control unit to control the drive unit, and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches a control unit and a distance adjuster configured to perform the claimed operation, but lacks computerized control of the distance adjuster.)
However, Tokyo Electron Limited teaches wherein the distance adjuster includes a drive unit to displace the light emitting element [Annotated Fig. 3C (3060), paras. 78-80] and a control unit to control the drive unit [Annotated Fig. 3C (1080)], and the control unit displaces the light emitting element. [Annotated Fig. 3C , paras. 79-80] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Tokyo Electron is understood to disclose a drive unit (positioning system 3060) with a controller configured to control the displacement of light emitting elements with respect to the separation distance, and the relative position of each light emitting element with respect to the substrate.)
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to modify Jeong in view of Nam and Takahashi with the teachings of Tokyo Electron in order to provide individualized computer-control of the light emitting elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Tokyo Electron can be combined with Jeong as they are both related to RTP apparatuses. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the positioning system of Tokyo Electron in order to provide computerized control of the positions of light emitting elements to ensure in-plane uniformity of temperature and allow fine modulation of the displacement profiles of the light emitting elements. Computerized control of displacement positions allows for more accurate control of process parameters, and improves repeatability of the process. Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Jeong in view of Nam and Takahashi and further in view of Tokyo Electron.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, and further in view of Takahashi (JP 2000195813)
Regarding Claim 16, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose wherein each of the light transmissive containers has a reflector or a light shield to reflect or shield light traveling toward the other light transmissive containers.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein each of the light transmissive containers has a reflector or a light shield to reflect or shield light traveling toward the other light transmissive containers. [Paras. 29-31] (Examiner Note: Takahashi discloses a reflector (112) disposed on the inner surface (112a) of the through hole (112b) where the lamps are inserted. As the reflector ensures that the light irradiates down towards the substrate, it is understood to reflect light traveling towards other containers.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jeong with the reflectors taught in Takahashi in order to improve the thermal efficiency of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the reflectors disclosed in Takahashi because they increase the amount of light from each light emitting element reaching the substrate, thereby increasing the thermal efficiency of the system. Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 17, Jeong in view of Takahashi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16. Takahashi further teaches wherein the reflector or the light shield is formed on an inner surface of each of the light transmissive containers. [Para. 31] (Examiner Note: Takahashi discloses a reflector (112) disposed on the inner surface (112a) of the through hole (112b) where the lamps are inserted.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jeong with the teachings of Takahashi in order to improve the thermal efficiency of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi in order to prevent irradiation outside the processing region, such that all the light emitted from the heat source is directed towards the substrate. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 18, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose comprising a reflector having a parabolic shape or an elliptical shape to orient light emitted from the light emitting element toward the substrate.
However, Takahashi teaches comprising a reflector having a parabolic shape or an elliptical shape to orient light emitted from the light emitting element toward the substrate. [Para. 47] (Examiner Note: Takahashi discloses a reflector (112) is an elliptical or parabolic shape.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jeong with the reflectors taught in Takahashi in order to improve the thermal efficiency of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Takahashi could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the reflectors disclosed in Takahashi because the parabolic/elliptical shape directs more light in the direction of the substrate, and thus improving the thermal efficiency of the system. Accordingly, Claim 18 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Takahashi.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 4915532)
Regarding Claim 19, Jeong discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose a nozzle to supply cooling fluid between the light transmissive containers and the heating sources.
However, Suzuki teaches a nozzle to supply cooling fluid between the light transmissive containers and the heating sources. [Fig. 9, paras. 74-76] (Examiner Note: Suzuki teaches a light irradiation apparatus with a plurality of filament lamps (1) disposed in a lamp accommodation space (S1) where cooling air supplied by the cooling air unit (107) is blown on each filament lamp by an air supply nozzle (108). As the lamp accommodation space is construed as a light transmissive container, Suzuki is understood to disclose an air supply nozzle disposed in an area between the heat source (filament lamp 1) and light transmissive container (lamp accommodation space S1), and thus teaches this limitation.)
Suzuki is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to apparatuses for RTP, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jeong with the cooling nozzle taught in Suzuki in order to provide cooling of the heat sources. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Suzuki could be combined with Jeong as they are both directed to apparatuses for rapid thermal processing (RTP) of semiconductors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the cooling air unit disclosed in Suzuki because cooling of the heat sources protects the RTP components from heat damage and extends the lifetime and usability of the components. Accordingly, Claim 19 is rejected as obvious over Jeong further in view of Suzuki.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights