Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 2021/0197224) in view of Son et al. (US 2023/0119960) and/or Park et al. (US 2020/0194284).
Regarding Claim 1, Abe et al. teaches a spin coating apparatus (See Abstract, teaching a device for liquid coating and ration coating, i.e. spin coating) comprising:
a substrate supporter [5R] configured to support a substrate [W], a substrate supporter driver configured to rotate the substrate supporter (See page 19, paragraph [0291], page 20, paragraph [0293], and Fig. 16, wherein spin chuck holds and rotates a substrate [W], any machinery causing rotation, i.e. spin motor [219], is substrate support driver as claimed),
a light supply unit [251] positioned above the substrate supporter [5R] and configured to supply a light (See page 19, paragraph [0291] and page 21, paragraph [0306]-[0307], teaching a heating unit [251], positioned above substrate supporter [5R], which irradiates light to heat, such as by a lamp), and
a light driver [263] configured to drive the light supply unit [251], wherein the light supply unit [251] is configured to move along a first direction, the first direction being horizontal relative to a surface of the substrate when supported on the substrate supporter [5R] (See pages 21-22, paragraph [0314]-[0315] and [0318], wherein third moving device, i.e. a light driver, move the light supply unit heat [251] horizontally over the substrate, wherein any said movement direction is a first direction as claimed).
Abe et al., which teach semiconductor and display processing (See page 1, paragraph [0002]), teaches the light supply unit is an LED lamp (See page 38, paragraph [0503]), but is not strictly limited and also teaches other light sources for irradiation heating such as halogen lamps (See page 39, paragraph [0509]), but fails to specifically teach laser. However, lasers are a known alternative to LED and halogen lamps for as a light irradiation heating device for substrate on spin chucks utilized in similar applications (See, for example, Son et al., page 1, paragraph [0003], and page 9, paragraph [0108], teaching a laser as a light radiation heating unit for a spin chuck in semiconductor and display processing, and teaching LED and halogen heating as suitable alternatives to a laser; and/or Park et al., page 2, paragraphs [0032]-[0040] Fig. 2, teaching a spin chuck [13] for semiconductor processing with an above positioned laser [15] with adjustable intensity and positioning as an irradiating heating device on the substrate during spinning). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a laser, as opposed to an LED or halogen lamp, as the light irradiation heating device in Abe et al. Such lasers are known alternatives to LEDs and halogens for similar spin chucking applications and are known to be suitable for heating substates on chuck from above and thus would have predictably been a suitable functionally equivalent adjustable light irradiation heating device in Abe et al.
Regarding Claims 11-15, Abe et al. teaches the output, i.e. intensity, of the heater [252] may increase towards an outer circumference, clearly teaching the ability to vary intensity output through various positions, i.e. first, second, and third regions (See pages 37-38, paragraph [0491]).
Regarding Claims 16, 17 and 20, Abe et al. teaches a controller [3R], which acts as a main driver as claimed, and is configured to control the spin motor [219], the third moving device [263] for light heater [252] while adjusting electrical power to the heater [252], implying intensity control based on position as described above. Note the controller isn’t specifically taught to receive, but two-way closed-loop communication is standard in any type of display-type controller, e.g. a standard computer, to show process implementation or conditions, e.g. rotation speed, heating intensity, or successful movement actuation or completion. Such standard actuation display and confirmation represents receiving signals as claimed. This is obvious in any controlled system so an operator is aware of controlled operating settings being successfully implemented and does not represent a patentable advancement.
Claim(s) 2-10, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al., Son et al., and Park et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ohoshi et al. (US 2010/0028590)
Regarding Claims 2-10, 18 and 19, Abe et al., Son et al., and Park et al. teach the device of Claim 1 as described above. Abe et al. further teaches controlling movement of the heater [252], such as via programmable control (See page 24, paragraph [0342]), and indicates movement speed may be controlled (See page 28, paragraph [0382]), while further indicating varying methods of providing heating, i.e. through intensity or height movement, over the surface of the substrate on the spin chuck are known control heating as desired at different locations (See page 31, paragraph [0422] and page 37, paragraph [0491], indicates more heat need to be provided as you move out be area is greater).
Abe et al. doesn’t explicitly teach a capability to vary speed at different positions over the spinner as part of the programmable control of heater movement. However, this would be easy to implement as a control parameter in the system, and further, specifically controlling speed to adjust speeds at different positions is known in similar light heating devices while spin coating on a spin chuck, such as to control coating thickness (See, for example, Ohoshi et al., page 5, paragraph [0086]-[0088]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to vary speed of heater [252] as desired via the programmable control. Doing so is a known system control in similar heaters and would have predictably allowed greater process control as desired during spin coating to implement location specific heating and thickness control as desired without specific system limitations.
Although the programmable function doesn’t necessarily teach the claimed process limitations, it teaches a structure capable of implementing them. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Examiner submits any device capable of programmable speed variation based on position is capable of varying speed relative to position as desired, including as claimed. Note similarly, intensity control allows variable or constant intensity as desired. The claimed speed and intensity process limitations need not be taught directly since Applicant claims an apparatus, not a process. The apparatus must merely have a structure capable of carrying out such a process. Since programmable heater speed and intensity control without restriction is obvious as described above, a device capable of implementing speed and intensity variations as claimed is also obvious since any such control possesses a structure capable of carrying out the claimed process functions related to speed and intensity variation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights