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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Shimizu in view of Ranish fails to disclose “one or more openings extending through the cooling plate 155 from a first side of the cooling plate to a second side of the cooling plate”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ranish is used to teach obviousness to extend the heating unit 46 of Shimizu through the second reflector 50 which is a cooling jacket and the primary combination meets the limitations of the claims.
Further, the applicant argues that because Ranish “is a monolithic lamphead design” and therefore does not teach “and one or more light sources, each light source positioned outside the cooling plate”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation of the claim places the light source positioned outside the cooling plate and since Shimizu and Ranish teach light sources that are physically at a location outside of their respective cooling plates. See the rejection of claim 2 herein.
The amendment of 2/9/2026 which adds “and one or more light sources, each light source positioned outside the cooling plate” does not read over the prior art of record.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the primary combination in view of Funayoshi, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the primary combination in view of Chu, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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) 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20080187299A1 Shimizu in view of US10872790B2 Ranish
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches, except where struck through,
A chamber for substrate processing (processing chamber 4), comprising:
a chamber body (the structure surrounding processing chamber 4 is a chamber body);
a heating device (heating unit 46), comprising:
a cooling plate (second reflector 50 is a cooling plate because coolant passageways 68 are running through second reflector 50 as per par. 78 which teaches “Referring to FIG. 1, installed at the element attachment housing 48 provided with the heating sources 52 is an element cooling unit 66 for cooling a base portion of each element attachment rod 56. To be more specific, the element cooling unit 66 has coolant passageways 68 passing through the vicinity of the base portion of the element attachment rod 56, and cooling water serving as a cooling medium is introduced through a coolant inlet 68A and discharged through a coolant outlet 68B”) having one or more openings (first reflectors 54 are one or more openings and are openings for the heating sources 52),
one or more base members disposed on the cooling plate (connection terminal 60);
one or more irradiation windows (light transmitting window 8), each irradiation window coupled to at least one of the cooling plate or a base member included in the one or more base members (fig. 1 teaches second reflector 50 and light transmitting window 8 being connected to or coupled to each other);
and one or more light sources (heating light source 52), each light source positioned outside the cooling plate (fig. 3 teaches heating source 52 having element attachment rod 56 which extends the light emitting element 58 into the space between element attachment housing 48 and light transmitting window 8 which puts the light source outside the cooling plate) and configured to emit light towards at least one irradiation window included in the one or more irradiation windows and through at least one opening included in the one or more openings (fig. 3 and par. 69 and 70 in summation teaches how the heating light is transmitted and reflected in first reflectors 54).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Shimizu does not teach: each opening extending through the cooling plate from a first side of the cooling plate to a second side of the cooling plate.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Ranish teaches a cooling plate (lamp head 200 containing reflector 202 which contains circular cooing passages 206 column 4 lines 53 through 67 teach cooling) having one or more openings (lead passages 208),…(the side of reflector 202 closest to backing plate 203 fig. 3) of the cooling plate to a second side of the cooling plate (the side of reflector 202 coating 205 fig. 3); one or more base members disposed on the cooling plate (lamp holders 216 fig. 3).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Shimizu with the lead passages 208of Ranish such that the heating source 52 and connection terminal 60 extend to the outside of element attachment housing 48 to facilitate installation or to dissipate heat.
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu teaches, further comprising a window, wherein the cooling plate is disposed between the window and the one or more light sources (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu teaches, wherein the window comprises a quartz window (par. 61 teaches “ The light transmitting window 8 is made of, e.g., quartz”).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu teaches, wherein the window is a dome-shaped window (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu teaches, wherein the cooling plate comprises one or more coolant channels disposed therein (fig. 3 coolant passageways 68).
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu teaches, wherein the one or more openings have a conical frustum shape (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20080187299A1 Shimizu in view of US10872790B2 Ranish in view of JP 2001265373 FUNAYOSHI.
Regarding claim 3,
The primary combination teaches the chamber of claim 2.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Shimizu does not teach further comprising one or more optical fibers, each optical fiber included in the one or more optical fibers connected to at least one of the one or more light sources at a first end of the optical fiber and connected to at least one of the one or more base members at a second end of the optical fiber.
FUNAYOSHI teaches, further comprising one or more optical fibers (par. 44 teaches replacing light source unit 2 with an optical fiber teaches FIG. 1 shows a light source unit 2a that irradiates a laser beam as a circular or elliptical spot. For example, a semiconductor laser in which a semiconductor laser having one light emitting surface and a cylindrical lens are housed in a housing and which is coupled to an optical fiber is used as the light source unit 2a and therefore teaches the use of a fiber optic to guide a laser beam into FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view showing the structure of the exit portion 2b when laser light is emitted from an optical fiber in place of the light-source unit 2 in the heat treatment apparatus 1 shown in FIG. 1, and FIG. 7 is a view showing how the exit portion 2b is attached to the attachment plate 111), each optical fiber included in the one or more optical fibers connected to at least one of the one or more light sources (array 211 is a light source and par. 23 teaches The semiconductor laser array 211 and the cylindrical lens 212 are attached to the unit body 22 and fig. 1 teaches a plurality of light source units 2; par. 30 teaches That is, the substrate 9 is irradiated with the light from the plurality of light source units 2 as a plurality of circular or elliptical spots) at a first end of the optical fiber and connected to at least one of the one or more base members at a second end of the optical fiber (fig. 1, fig. 2, and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shimizu reference, to include one or more optical fibers, each optical fiber included in the one or more optical fibers connected to at least one of the one or more light sources at a first end of the optical fiber and connected to at least one of the one or more base members at a second end of the optical fiber, as suggested and taught by FUNAYOSHI, for the purpose of the advantage that the structure, output, and shape of the irradiation area of the light source unit 2a may be appropriately determined according to the degree of heating assistance (page 6 par. 3).
Regarding claim 4,
The primary combination teaches the chamber of claim 3.
Shimizu does not teach wherein the one or more light sources comprises a plurality of light sources, and the one or more optical fibers comprises a plurality of optical fibers.
FUNAYOSHI teaches, wherein the one or more light sources comprises a plurality of light sources (plurality of light source units 2a), and the one or more optical fibers comprises a plurality of optical fibers (par. 44 teaches replacing light source unit 2 with an optical fiber teaches FIG. 1 shows a light source unit 2a that irradiates a laser beam as a circular or elliptical spot. For example, a semiconductor laser in which a semiconductor laser having one light emitting surface and a cylindrical lens are housed in a housing and which is coupled to an optical fiber is used as the light source unit 2a and therefore teaches the use of a fiber optic to guide a laser beam into FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view showing the structure of the exit portion 2b when laser light is emitted from an optical fiber in place of the light-source unit 2 in the heat treatment apparatus 1 shown in FIG. 1, and FIG. 7 is a view showing how the exit portion 2b is attached to the attachment plate 111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shimizu reference, such that wherein the one or more light sources comprises a plurality of light sources, and the one or more optical fibers comprises a plurality of optical fibers, as suggested and taught by FUNAYOSHI, for the purpose of the advantage that the structure, output, and shape of the irradiation area of the light source unit 2a may be appropriately determined according to the degree of heating assistance (page 6 par. 3).
Regarding claim 5,
The primary combination teaches the chamber of claim 2.
Shimizu does not teach wherein each irradiation window included in the one or more irradiation windows is disposed within at least one of the one or more base members.
FUNAYOSHI teaches, wherein each irradiation window (window member 13) included in the one or more irradiation windows is disposed within at least one of the one or more base members (fig. 1, fig. 2, and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shimizu reference, such that wherein each irradiation window included in the one or more irradiation windows is disposed within at least one of the one or more base members, as suggested and taught by FUNAYOSHI, for the purpose of the advantage that the structure, output, and shape of the irradiation area of the light source unit 2a may be appropriately determined according to the degree of heating assistance (page 6 par. 3).
Regarding claim 8,
The primary combination teaches the chamber of claim 7.
Shimizu does not teach wherein the quartz window is a reflective quartz window with one or more window openings disposed therethrough.
FUNAYOSHI teaches, wherein the quartz window is a reflective quartz window with one or more window openings disposed therethrough (par. 41 teaches A reflective film 131 is formed on the main body portion 12 side (the side facing the substrate 9) of the window member 13 by depositing gold or aluminum having high reflection efficiency. A large number of openings 132 through which the laser light passes are formed in the reflective film 131 in correspondence with the arrangement of the light-source units 2 and 2a ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shimizu reference, such that wherein the quartz window is a reflective quartz window with one or more window openings disposed therethrough, as suggested and taught by FUNAYOSHI, for the purpose of providing the advantage that the laser light from the light-source unit 2 and the 2a is guided to the substrate 9, and the light reflected by the substrate 9 and the inner surface of the main body 12 is prevented from returning to the light-source unit 2 side and is returned to the substrate 9 side again. As a result, the substrate 9 is efficiently heated (par. 41).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20080187299A1 Shimizu in view of US10872790B2 Ranish in view of US20170103907A1 Chu.
Regarding claim 10,
The primary combination teaches the chamber of claim 2.
Shimizu does not teach wherein at least one irradiation window included in the one or more irradiation windows comprises a lens for diverging light emitted by the one or more light sources into a conical beam.
Chu teaches, wherein at least one irradiation window included in the one or more irradiation windows comprises a lens for diverging light emitted by the one or more light sources into a conical beam (par. 72 teaches in one embodiment, the high-energy radiant beam, such as a focused high-energy radiant beam, for example a laser beam, out of the fiber 604 has a diameter of about 800 micrometers that is re-imaged onto the substrate 110 at 17× magnification by the lens 714, so the beam spot on the substrate 110 has a diameter of about 10 mm. In one embodiment, the laser beam out of the fiber exits at a divergence of about 0.17 NA, a divergence of a laser beam is a conical beam because the structure matches par. 62 of the instant application which discloses that the irradiation window is a divergent or co-axial lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shimizu reference, to include wherein at least one irradiation window included in the one or more irradiation windows comprises a lens for diverging light emitted by the one or more light sources into a conical beam, as suggested and taught by Chu, for the purpose of providing the advantage that the laser light from each semiconductor laser array 211 is widely spread in the Y direction and applied to the substrate 9 (page 4 par. 5).
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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights