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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/707,165 filed on May 02, 2024.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Substrate Processing Apparatus Comprising Chamber Including Semiconductor Laser Modules and Pyrometer and Substrate Processing Method”.
Claims Corrections
6. Claims 2, 7, 9, 13, 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claims should be recited to avoid indefiniteness, such as ‘approximately’, and ‘article’ the before gerund, and/or perform proper alignment along with the prior claim languages:
2. (Currently Amended) The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a temperature at which the substrate is processed comprises a temperature range of
7. (Currently Amended) The substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the reflector comprises an inclined reflective surface having an inclined angle of
9. (Currently Amended) The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules is divided into a first area and a second area, wherein the
13. (Currently Amended) The substrate processing method of claim 12, wherein a temperature at which the substrate is processed comprises a temperature range of
15. (Currently Amended) The substrate processing method of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules is divided into a first area and a second area, wherein the
16. (Currently Amended) The substrate processing method of claim 15, wherein the pyrometer comprises:
a first pyrometer provided to correspond to the first area; and
a second pyrometer provided to correspond to the second area,
wherein
in
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bremensdorfer et al. (US 2020/0064198 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (100) comprising (Figs. 1-2):
a chamber (105, para [0080]) configured to provide a processing space in which a substrate (110 called workpiece, para [0080]) is processed;
a substrate support (120, para [0080]) provided in the processing space of the chamber (105) to support the substrate (110);
a heater (170A heat source array, para [0080]) provided with a plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130, para [0086]) configured to irradiate light toward a first face of the substrate (110); and
a pyrometer (170B: 210 pyrometer/sensors, para [0098]) provided at a side of a second face facing the first face to detect light incident from the substrate (110), thereby measuring a temperature,
wherein a main emission wavelength (1st wavelength 900nm, para [0067]) of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130) is less than a measurement wavelength (2nd wavelength 1100nm, para [0067]) of the pyrometer (210).
Regarding claim 2, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), a temperature at which the substrate (110) is processed comprises a temperature range of approximately 600°C or less (100°C, para [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), each of the semiconductor laser modules (130) comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (laser diode, para [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130) comprise:
a central semiconductor laser module (see the annotated figure below) provided at a central portion of the heater (170A); and
a peripheral semiconductor laser module (see the annotated figure below) provided around the central semiconductor laser module.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130) has an edge having a polygonal shape (see the figure in claim 4).
Regarding independent claim 12, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches a substrate processing method comprising (Figs. 1-2):
providing a substrate (110) in a processing space of a chamber (105);
irradiating light onto a first face of the substrate (110) by using a plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130) provided in a heater (170A); and
measuring a temperature of the substrate (110) by using a pyrometer (210, see Fig. 2) provided at a side of a second face of the substrate (110), which faces the first face,
wherein a main emission wavelength (1st wavelength 900nm, para [0067]) of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130) is less than a measurement wavelength (2nd wavelength 1100nm, para [0067]) of the pyrometer (210).
Regarding claim 13, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), a temperature at which the substrate is processed comprises a temperature range of approximately 600°C or less (100°C, para [0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), each of the semiconductor laser modules (130) comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (laser diode, para [0090]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
14. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bremensdorfer et al. (US 2020/0064198 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TOSHIMITSU (JP2003077857A).
Regarding claim 6, Bremensdorfer et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Bremensdorfer et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, further comprising a reflector configured to surround an edge of each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules to reflect at least a portion of light emitted from the plurality of semiconductor laser modules toward the substrate.
TOSHIMITSU teaches wherein (Fig. 8), further comprising a reflector (131 called reflection film, para [0041]) configured to surround an edge of each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (110) to reflect at least a portion of light emitted from the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (110) toward the substrate (9) (this is a functional limitation/an intended use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by TOSHIMITSU, and adding the metal material/reflection film in the structure of Bremensdorfer et al., in order to enhance/obtain the high reflection efficiency (para [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Bremensdorfer et al. and TOSHIMITSU teach all of the limitations of claim 6 from which this claim depends.
TOSHIMITSU teaches wherein (Fig. 8), the reflector (131) comprises a certain inclined reflective surface having a certain inclined angle of approximately 80 degrees to approximately 90 degrees with respect to an emission surface of each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules (130).
However, TOSHIMITSU is explicitly silent of disclosing the reflector comprises an inclined reflective surface having an inclined angle of approximately 80 degrees to approximately 90 degrees with respect to an emission surface of each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘inclined angle’ of the reflective surface to be within the quoted range, to obtain the high reflection efficiency. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed roughness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen inclined angle or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen inclined angle is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Bremensdorfer et al. and TOSHIMITSU teach all of the limitations of claim 7 from which this claim depends.
TOSHIMITSU teaches wherein (Fig. 1), a metal reflective film (131) is coated on the inclined reflective surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 9 (claims 10-11 depend on the claim 9), 15 (claims 16-17 depend on the claim 15) 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.
Claim 9: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the substrate processing apparatus comprising:
Claim 9 recites…. each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules is divided into a first area and a second area, wherein the plurality of first areas and the plurality of second areas are electrically connected for each area, and
the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a first power supply and a second power supply, which independently apply power applied respectively for each area to the plurality of first areas electrically connected to each other and the plurality of second areas electrically connected to each other.
Claim 15 recites…. each of the plurality of semiconductor laser modules is divided into a first area and a second area, wherein the plurality of first areas and the plurality of second areas are electrically connected for each area, and
irradiating of the light comprises applying power independently for each area to the plurality of first areas electrically connected to each other and the plurality of second areas electrically connected to each other.
16. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: the prior arts, Bremensdorfer et al. (US 2020/0064198 A1), and/or TOSHIMITSU (JP2003077857A) discloses the substrate processing apparatus as explained in the office action above, however, the prior arts do not depict the structure as claimed in the limitations above, therefore, either by itself or in combination with other arts fail to disclose the above allowable limitations in the section 15-16.
Examiner’s Note
17. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
19. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights