DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Amendment submitted on 03 August 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 8 are independent
This application is a divisional of application Serial No. 17/152,241, filed on 19 January 2021, now US Patent 11,842,908.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Suzuki et al., EP 2 059 089.
With respect to claim 1, Suzuki et al. disclose a method of heating a semiconductor substrate 6 (shown in Fig. 1, see Summary of the Invention), the method comprising:
placing the semiconductor substrate on a substrate holder 5, the substrate holder configured to support the semiconductor substrate (“The semiconductor wafer 6 is arranged such that the said semiconductor wafer is inserted into the circular opening of the toric treatment table 5 (guard ring), and supported by the aforementioned step part.”); and
heating the semiconductor substrate with a top array of linear heat lamps 10 (shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the top array of linear heat lamps overlying the semiconductor substrate 6, as shown in Fig. 1,
wherein at least one lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps 10 comprises a filament (1) having a varying winding density across a length of the at least one lamp (see lamps 5-8 in Fig. 3), and
wherein the winding density is higher within a central portion relative to the density within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp, as shown in Fig. 3. The central portions of linear heat lamps 5-8 have a higher winding density than peripheral portions, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 5, in the method of Suzuki et al., each lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps extends substantially parallel to every other lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps, as shown in Fig. 3.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., EP 2 059 089.
With respect to claim 3, although Suzuki et al. disclose lamps 5-8 have a varying winding density across a length of the lamp (similar to what is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 7A), Suzuki et al. fail to expressly disclose a ratio of the power output of the central portion to the power output of the peripheral portions is between 5:1 and 200:1. However, based on what is shown in Fig. 3 of Suzuki et al., since the winding density is higher within a central portion of lamps 5-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that power output from the central portion of lamps 5-8 would be higher than power output from the peripheral portions of these lamps. Consequently, it would have been obvious that a ratio of the power output of the central portion to the power output of the peripheral portions of lamps 5-8 could be between 5:1 and 200:1.
With respect to claim 4, in the method of Suzuki et al., the central portions of linear heat lamps 5-8 have a higher winding density than peripheral portions, as shown in Fig. 3. However, Suzuki et al. do not disclose that a length of the central portion is 30 mm. It has been well established that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Additionally, the length of the central portion would be dependent on the dimension of the semiconductor substrate to be heated by the lamp, as shown in Fig. 3 of Suzuki et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the length of the central portion would have been an obvious process parameter to be optimized and ascertainable through routine experimentation. The length of the central portion does not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed method from the known method of Suzuki et al.
With respect to claim 7, although Suzuki et al. show in Fig. 3 eight lamps, Suzuki et al. disclose that the number of lamps is set according to the dimensions of the substrate 6 (“The number of units and the arrangement are set according to the dimension of the workpiece 6”). Therefore, in light of this teaching of Suzuki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the top array of linear heat lamps could comprise eleven lamps.in order to heat a larger semiconductor wafer.
With respect to claim 8, Suzuki et al. disclose a method of heating a semiconductor substrate 6 (shown in Fig. 1, see Summary of the Invention), the method comprising:
placing the semiconductor substrate on a substrate holder 5, the substrate holder configured to support the semiconductor substrate (“The semiconductor wafer 6 is arranged such that the said semiconductor wafer is inserted into the circular opening of the toric treatment table 5 (guard ring), and supported by the aforementioned step part.”); and
heating the semiconductor substrate with a top array of linear heat lamps 10 (shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the top array of linear heat lamps overlying the semiconductor substrate 6, as shown in Fig. 1,
wherein at least one lamp (lamps 5, 6, 7, or 8) of the top array of linear heat lamps 10 comprises a power output, as shown in Fig. 6(c), the power output varying across a length of the at least one lamp (Suzuki et al. disclose power is supplied to the filaments (1), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the central portions of lamps 5-8 have a higher winding density than peripheral portions, the power output would vary across the length of lamps 5-8.), and
wherein the power output is higher within a central portion relative to the power output within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp, since power is supplied to the filament (1) from power source 7 and power output (light irradiation) is from the filament (1) in the central portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the power output is higher within a central portion relative to the power output within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp. (Suzuki et al. disclose “heat treatment device, as a heat source, a plurality of incandescent lamps is used in general. Incandescent lamps where filaments are arranged inside a light tube made of an optically-transparent material is suitable for a rapid heat treatment of a workpiece because its rise time of light output is fast” and “power supply control to the filaments in each lamp corresponding to each zone set in the light irradiation areas”.)
With respect to claim 10, although Suzuki et al. disclose lamps 5-8 have a varying winding density across a length of the lamp (similar to what is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 7A), Suzuki et al. fail to expressly disclose a ratio of the power output of the central portion to the power output of the peripheral portions is between 5:1 and 200:1. However, based on what is shown in Fig. 3 of Suzuki et al., since the winding density is higher within a central portion of lamps 5-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that power output from the central portion of lamps 5-8 would be higher than power output from the peripheral portions of these lamps. Consequently, it would have been obvious that a ratio of the power output of the central portion to the power output of the peripheral portions of lamps 5-8 could be between 5:1 and 200:1.
With respect to claim 11, in the method of Suzuki et al., the central portions of linear heat lamps 5-8 have a higher winding density than peripheral portions, as shown in Fig. 3. However, Suzuki et al. do not disclose that a length of the central portion is 30 mm. It has been well established that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Additionally, the length of the central portion would be dependent on the dimension of the semiconductor substrate to be heated by the lamp, as shown in Fig. 3 of Suzuki et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the length of the central portion would have been an obvious process parameter to be optimized and ascertainable through routine experimentation. The length of the central portion does not patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed method from the known method of Suzuki et al.
With respect to claim 12, although Suzuki et al. disclose power source 7 can be used to supply power to the filaments and that this power can be adjusted, Suzuki et al. fail to teach the power output of the central portion is about 2000 W. However, the power output of the central portion is clearly a result of the power supplied to the filament (1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that that the power output of the central portion could be determined by routine optimization, based on the purpose for heat treating the semiconductor substrate, for example, is the heat treatment for oxidation, annealing ion-implanted regions, silicidation, or deposition.. .
With respect to claim 13, in the method of Suzuki et al., each lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps extends substantially parallel to every other lamp of the top array of heat lamps, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 15, although Suzuki et al. show in Fig. 3 eight lamps, Suzuki et al. disclose that the number of lamps is set according to the dimensions of the substrate 6 (“The number of units and the arrangement are set according to the dimension of the workpiece 6”). Therefore, in light of this teaching of Suzuki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the top array of linear heat lamps could comprise eleven lamps.in order to heat a larger semiconductor wafer.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., EP 2 059 089, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Dr. Hald et al., EP 2 058 841.
Suzuki et al. is applied as above. With respect to claims 2 and 9, Suzuki et al. fail to teach the method further comprises heating the semiconductor substrate with a bottom array of linear heat lamps while heating the semiconductor substrate with the top array of linear heat lamps, and wherein the substrate holder is located between the bottom array of linear heat lamps and the top array of linear heat lamps. In the same field of endeavor, Dr. Hald et al. disclose a heat treatment apparatus used for heat treating a semiconductor substrate 12, shown in Fig. 1, in which a semiconductor substrate 12 can be heated with a bottom array of linear heat lamps 71 while heating the semiconductor substrate with the top array of linear heat lamps 70 and wherein the substrate holder 32 is located between the bottom array of linear heat lamps 71 and the top array of linear heat lamps 70. In light of the disclosure of Dr. Hald et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bottom array of linear heat lamps 71 could have been provided in the known apparatus of Suzuki et al. in order to enable heating of the underside of the semiconductor substrate 6 in the known method of Suzuki et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 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: Suzuki et al. lack anticipation of the at least one lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps comprises a center lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps in which length of the central portion of the at least one lamp is smaller than length of the peripheral portions of the at least one lamp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Suzuki et al. do not disclose a filament having a varying winding density across its length or a winding density that is higher within a central portion relative to peripheral portions. Applicant has pointed to paragraph [0087] of Suzuki et al. Admittedly, in paragraph [0087], Suzuki et al. disclose that “the wire diameter of the filament, the diameter of the coil, and the winding pitch value of the coil in each lamp are normally designed to be the same”. Applicant has argued that Suzuki discloses a uniform winding pitch, not a varying winding density. In the context of a filament lamp, the term pitch refers to the distance between the centers of two adjacent coils of the filament wire. As shown in Fig. 3 of Suzuki, the windings in each lamp have the same winding pitch, that is, the distance between the centers of two adjacent coils of the filament. However, whereas Suzuki et al. teach that the winding pitch for each lamp is the same, Suzuki et al. clearly do not teach that lamp filaments have the same winding density across the length of each lamp. Rather, as shown in Fig. 3 of Suzuki et al., at least one lamp of the array of heat lamps has a varying winding density across a length of the at least one lamp. As shown in annotated Fig. 3 below, lamps 5-8 have a winding density that is higher within a central portion relative to the density within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki et al. disclose lamps 5-8 have a varying winding density across a length of the lamp, similar to what is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 7A. It is maintained that Suzuki et al. clearly teach wherein at least one lamp of the top array of linear heat lamps 10 comprises a filament (1) having a varying winding density across a length of the at least one lamp (see lamps 5-8 in Fig. 3), and wherein the winding density is higher within a central portion relative to the density within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp, as shown in Fig. 3, as required in independent claim 3, and at least one lamp (lamps 5, 6, 7, or 8) of the top array of linear heat lamps 10 comprises a power output, as shown in Fig. 6(c), the power output varying across a length of the at least one lamp (Suzuki et al. disclose power is supplied to the filaments (1), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the central portions of lamps 5-8 have a higher winding density than peripheral portions, the power output would vary across the length of lamps 5-8.), and wherein the power output is higher within a central portion relative to the power output within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp, since power is supplied to the filament (1) from power source 7 and power output (light irradiation) is from the filament (1) in the central portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the power output is higher within a central portion relative to the power output within peripheral portions of the at least one lamp, as required in independent claim 8.
.
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 MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights