CTNF 18/779,927 CTNF 65022 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5, 11, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (2015/0087082) in view of Wada (2021/0324536) . The Iyer reference teaches a method and apparatus for growth on a substrate, note, entire reference. There is a chamber body which partially defines a processing volume, note fig 2 no 106. There is a substrate support disposed in the processing volume which holds a substrate, note fig 2 no 114. There are gas inlets, note, para 0016. The substrate is heated by a heater(s), note para 0029. There is a laser source which directs energy to the substrate, note fig 2, no 110b. A controller is looped to control the heat and laser in view of measurements in the chamber including thickness, note para 0017. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the thickness sensor. However, the Wada reference teaches a vapor deposition system with a thickness sensor, note fig 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Iyer et al reference by the teachings of the Wada reference to include a thickness sensor in order to increase control over the growth conditions by knowing the deposited materials in view of the conditions. With respect to claim 5, the Iyer reference teaches changing the laser power in view of thickness, note para 0019. With respect to claim 16, the Iyer reference teaches more than one thickness measuring means, note, fig. 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (2015/0087082) in view of Wada (2021/0324536) . The Iyer and Wada references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the placement of the sensors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have the temperature and thickness sensor monitoring the same area in order to have a real comparison of the thickness and temperature . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (2015/0087082) in view of Wada (2021/0324536) . The Iyer and Wada references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the second set of sensors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have more than one temperature and thickness sensor in order to have more data points for control . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (2015/0087082) in view of Wada (2021/0324536) . The Iyer and Wada references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the sensors being movable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have movable sensors in order to be able to change monitoring positions . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 to 9, 13, 14, 17, 19and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (2015/0087082) in view of Wada (2021/0324536) . The Iyer and Wada references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the determination of the thickness measures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have thickness measures over different sections in order to obtain a full profile of the thickness . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (2015/0087082) in view of Wada (2021/0324536) . The Iyer and Wada references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the specific thickness means. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use an optical spectrometer in order to increase control over the process . . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 15 and 18 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 prior art does not teach the additional laser means and sensor controller loops of the claims. Examiner’s Remarks The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in measuring thickness during substrate processing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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. RMK /ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/779,927 Page 2 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/779,927 Page 3 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/779,927 Page 4 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/779,927 Page 5 Art Unit: 1714
Prosecution Insights