DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the application filed July 31, 2024, identified as a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/899,041, filed June 11, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 12,085,338, issued September 10, 2024.
Claims 1–20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Domestic Benefit
18/790,300 filed 07/31/2024 is a continuation of 16/899,041, filed 06/11/2020 now U.S. Patent 12,085,338 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (i.e., application numbers 2020-073076 and 2019-109838 both respectively filed on 04/15/2020 and 06/12/2019 in Japan) required by 37 CFR 1.55 as electronically retrieved on 22 August 2024.
The earliest effective filing date available for subject matter supported by JP 2019-109838 is June 12, 2019. Applicant is reminded that a certified English translation of the foreign applications may be required if priority becomes necessary to overcome a rejection. See 37 CFR 1.55.
No terminal disclaimer has been filed over U.S. Patent No. 12,085,338.
Two Information Disclosure Statements
The two information disclosure statements submitted on 07/31/2024 and 11/18/2024 were filed before first Office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the two information disclosure statements are considered.
Parent Record
Office has considered the art of record in parent Application No. 16/899,041, including at least:
US 2012/0223066 A1 (Tokyo Electron)
US 2013/0065189 A1 (Tokyo Electron)
US 2006/0054616 A1 (Ptasienski)
US 2007/0039938 A1 (Peck)
US 4,484,243
US 6,352,594
Additional art is applied below.
Claim interpretation
Claims 1--20 are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
“Output variable element” is interpreted, consistent with the specification and claim 2, as a device that can vary power delivered to a heat generator, including a resistor, a thyristor, or an IGBT.
“Wafer region” is interpreted as the axial region of the reaction tube in which substrates are processed, as distinguished from end or cap zones.
“Control zone” is a heater subdivision provided with its own output circuit.
Functional language (“configured to raise,” “configured to adjust”) is given weight only to the extent it recites structure capable of performing the function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an output circuit installed for a specific control zone, which is located in a wafer region, among the plurality of control zones.”
A control zone is a division of the heater. A wafer region is a spatial region of the reaction tube. The claim grammatically locates the control zone “in” a wafer region and thereby mixes two different structures. It is unclear whether the heater zone must be physically co-located with wafers, whether the zone must merely correspond to the wafer-load region, or whether the claim requires a reaction tube and wafers as part of the claimed heater.
Clarification or amendment to language such as “a control zone corresponding to a wafer region of a reaction tube” is required. The same indefiniteness applies to claims 15 and 16.
Claim 17 recites “A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: processing a substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater according to claim 1.” Claims 18 and 19 are of the same form. Claim 20 is a computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a processing apparatus to perform that process.
These claims do not recite any manufacturing, processing, or heating step other than using the heater of claim 1. It is unclear what process is performed, what “by the heater” requires beyond placing a substrate near a heater, and whether any of the intra-zone parallel / variable-element functionality must actually be used during the method. A claim that merely recites processing a substrate by an apparatus without identifiable method steps is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Claim 20 likewise does not make clear what executable steps are stored.
Claim 15 recites “An output circuit of a heater divided into a plurality of control zones, the output circuit comprising….” It is unclear whether the claim is directed to the output circuit alone or to a heater that includes the output circuit. The body then recites heat generators “installed for a specific control zone,” which is heater structure rather than circuit structure. Scope is unclear.
Claims 2–14 and 16 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Mapping — independent claims
Instant claim 1
Patent 12,085,338 claim 1
heater divided into a plurality of control zones
heater divided into a plurality of control zones
output circuit installed for a specific control zone located in a wafer region
output circuit installed for each of the control zones; the output circuit for a control zone located in a wafer region
plurality of heat generators configured to raise an internal temperature of a reaction tube
plurality of heat generators installed for each of the control zones and configured to raise an internal temperature of a reaction tube
parallel circuit in which the heat generators are wired in parallel
parallel circuit in which the plurality of heat generators are wired in parallel
output variable element connected to at least one heat generator and configured to adjust power supplied thereto
connecting an output variable element to at least one heat generator to adjust power supplied thereto, based on a control signal
Instant claim 1 is a broadening of patented claim 1:
It requires an output circuit only for a specific wafer-region zone, not for each zone.
It does not require heat generators “for each of the control zones.”
It omits “based on a control signal inputted to the output variable element” (that limitation appears in instant claim 6).
A later claim that omits a limitation of an earlier patented claim, while covering the same heater architecture, is an obvious variant of the patented claim. One of ordinary skill, having patented claim 1, would have found it obvious to implement the parallel-circuit / variable-element arrangement in only the wafer-region zone (the zone the patent itself identifies as critical) and to treat the control-signal limitation as an inherent or obvious attribute of a thyristor or IGBT output variable element.
Instant claim 7 (system + temperature controller) is not patentably distinct from patented claim 8.
Instant claim 16 (processing apparatus) is not patentably distinct from patented claim 17.
Instant claim 15 (output circuit) is an obvious extraction of the wafer-zone output circuit of patented claim 1.
Instant claims 17–20 (methods / CRM) are not patentably distinct from patented claims 6–7.
Dependent claims 2–6 and 8–14 track patented claims 2–5 and 9–16 with only minor wording differences (for example, “power” versus “electric power,” and “specific control zone” versus “the control zones”). None introduces a patentable distinction.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome this rejection. The disclaimer must be accompanied by the fee and a statement establishing common ownership with U.S. Patent No. 12,085,338.
Until a terminal disclaimer is filed, no claim can be allowed.
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 1-6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witkin et al., US 4,011,430 (“Witkin”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Witkin teaches a heater divided into a plurality of control zones (“thermal zones 12, 14, and 16”; Abstract; claim 1; FIG. 1; also “thermal zones 112, 114, 116”; FIG. 3; each thermal zone is a control zone because each zone is independently powered and independently temperature-controlled).
Witkin teaches an output circuit installed for a specific control zone, among the plurality of control zones (“a plurality of heater circuits associated with each thermal zone”; claim 1; FIG. 3; each heater circuit includes a heating element and a thyristor device connected in series and is the output path that delivers power to that zone).
Witkin teaches that the specific control zone is located in a wafer region (the interior of furnace 10 / furnace 110 in which work is heated; FIGS. 1 and 3; under BRI a work-processing thermal zone is a region in which a workpiece or substrate may be placed; to the extent “wafer region” is limited to a semiconductor wafer-load zone, see the § 103 rejection below).
Witkin teaches a plurality of heat generators configured to raise an internal temperature of a reaction tube by heat generation (“heating element”; claim 1; “resistive heating element (respectively 22, 24, and 26)”; FIG. 1; “heating element 122” and “heating element 123”; FIG. 3; the heating elements convert supplied power to heat in the furnace interior; under BRI the furnace working volume is a reaction-tube equivalent).
Witkin teaches a parallel circuit in which the plurality of heat generators are wired in parallel (“means for connecting the heater circuits associated with each thermal zone in parallel”; claim 1; Abstract; FIG. 3; “The heater circuits for each thermal zone are connected in parallel in circuit relation with a respective one of the phases of the power supply”).
Witkin teaches an output variable element connected to at least one of the plurality of heat generators and configured to adjust a power supplied to the at least one of the plurality of heat generators (“thyristor device for controlling the amount of power supplied to said heating element”; claim 1; Abstract; FIG. 3; thyristor devices 132–137 are connected in series with the associated heating elements and vary power by suppressing a portion of each oscillation of the supply).
Regarding claim 2, Witkin teaches that the output variable element is at least one selected from the group of a resistor, a thyristor, and an IGBT (“thyristor device (e.g., a semi-conductor controlled rectifier or Triac)”; Background; claim 1; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Witkin teaches that the output circuit includes two or more circuits constituting the parallel circuit and wired in parallel in the specific control zone (“two or more heater circuits … for each thermal zone”; Abstract; claim 1; FIG. 3; “Two heater circuits are provided for each thermal zone”).
Regarding claim 4, Witkin teaches that the plurality of heat generators are installed individually and respectively for circuits constituting the parallel circuit (each heater circuit includes “a heating element and a thyristor device”; claim 1; FIG. 3; heating element 122 with thyristor 132, and heating element 123 with thyristor 133).
Regarding claim 5, Witkin teaches that the output variable element is configured to be capable of adjusting a power outputted from the at least one of the plurality of heat generators by adjusting the power supplied to the at least one of the plurality of heat generators (“thyristor device for controlling the amount of power supplied to said heating element”; claim 1; the thyristors “control the amount of power supplied to the associated heating elements by suppressing a portion of each oscillation of the power supply signal”; FIG. 1 discussion).
Regarding claim 6, Witkin teaches that the output variable element is configured to adjust the power supplied to the at least one of the plurality of heat generators based on a control signal inputted to the output variable element (“The firing angle is controlled by a trigger circuit … which is in turn controlled by the control signal applied to the thyristor device from the associated controller circuit”; FIG. 1 discussion; “The output signal of each controller circuit is respectively applied to the trigger circuits of the thyristor devices for the associated thermal zone”; FIG. 3 discussion).
Regarding independent claim 15, Witkin teaches an output circuit of a heater divided into a plurality of control zones for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 (claim 1; Abstract; FIGS. 1 and 3).
Regarding independent claim 16, Witkin teaches a processing apparatus comprising a heater divided into a plurality of control zones for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 (“electrical furnace including a plurality of thermal zones”; claim 1; furnace 10 / furnace 110; FIGS. 1 and 3).
Regarding independent claim 17, Witkin teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising processing a substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater according to claim 1 (“method of operating an electrical furnace”; claim 7; work is heated in the thermal zones of furnace 10 / 110; under BRI a workpiece is a substrate).
Regarding independent claim 18, Witkin teaches a method of processing a substrate comprising processing the substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater according to claim 1 (claim 7; FIGS. 1 and 3).
Regarding independent claim 19, Witkin teaches a method of heating a substrate comprising heating the substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater according to claim 1 (claim 7; the heating elements raise the temperature of work in the thermal zones).
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al., US 2013/0065189 A1 (“Yoshii”) in view of Witkin et al., US 4,011,430 (“Witkin”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yoshii teaches a heater divided into a plurality of control zones (“The heater 63 is also divided into a plurality of heaters 63-1, 63-2, … 63-10 to respectively correspond to the unit areas A1 … A10 in a vertical direction”; ¶ [0033]; the unit areas are control zones because “The heaters 63-1 to 63-10 independently control output to the unit areas A1 to A10”).
Yoshii teaches an output circuit installed for a specific control zone, which is located in a wafer region, among the plurality of control zones (“heater output unit 86 formed of, e.g., a thyristor”; ¶ [0033]; control unit 100 “calculates a setting value for the heater output unit 86”; ¶ [0034]; the unit areas include the region in which wafers W are held by the substrate holding unit inside processing container 65; Abstract; ¶ [0038]).
Yoshii teaches a plurality of heat generators configured to raise an internal temperature of a reaction tube by heat generation (heaters 63-1 to 63-10 heat processing container 65; ¶¶ [0033]–[0035]; processing container 65 is a reaction tube in which substrates are thermally treated).
Yoshii does not explicitly teach that the output circuit of a specific wafer-region zone includes a parallel circuit in which the plurality of heat generators are wired in parallel, and an output variable element connected to at least one of the plurality of heat generators and configured to adjust a power supplied to that heat generator.
Regarding independent claim 1, Witkin teaches a parallel circuit in which the plurality of heat generators are wired in parallel (“means for connecting the heater circuits associated with each thermal zone in parallel”; claim 1; Abstract; FIG. 3).
Witkin teaches an output variable element connected to at least one of the plurality of heat generators and configured to adjust a power supplied to the at least one of the plurality of heat generators (“thyristor device for controlling the amount of power supplied to said heating element”; claim 1; FIG. 3; thyristors 132–137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a wafer-region zone of Yoshii using Witkin’s parallel heater circuits with a thyristor on at least one leg. Yoshii already independently powers vertically adjacent zones through thyristor heater output unit 86 to control temperature along processing container 65. Witkin teaches placing two or more thyristor-controlled heating elements in parallel inside a single thermal zone so that power within that zone can be further allocated. Combining them uses known multi-zone furnace heaters and known intra-zone parallel thyristor legs for their known purposes, with a reasonable expectation of improved intra-zone temperature uniformity in the wafer load region.
Regarding claim 2, Witkin teaches that the output variable element is a thyristor (“thyristor device”; claim 1). Yoshii likewise teaches a thyristor as the heater output device (heater output unit 86 “formed of, e.g., a thyristor”; ¶ [0033]). An IGBT is an obvious solid-state substitute for a thyristor. A series resistor is a still-simpler output variable element.
Regarding claim 3, Witkin teaches that the output circuit includes two or more circuits constituting the parallel circuit and wired in parallel in the specific control zone (“two or more heater circuits … for each thermal zone”; Abstract; claim 1; FIG. 3).
The number of parallel circuits within a zone appears to be a [i] result-effective variable1 that may be [ii] optimized2 given the general conditions of the claim. As per the specification discussion of dividing a control zone into upper and lower heating elements and wiring those elements in parallel, the number of parallel legs is adjusted in order to allocate power vertically within the zone and is also a function of the remaining intra-zone temperature gradient. The general condition of the claim structure — a multi-zone heater on a reaction tube with independently powered zones — is taught by Yoshii at ¶ [0033], which already divides heater 63 into multiple vertically stacked zones of the same order of magnitude as the claimed intra-zone split.
Regarding claim 4, Witkin teaches that the plurality of heat generators are installed individually and respectively for circuits constituting the parallel circuit (each heater circuit includes its own heating element; claim 1; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Witkin teaches that the output variable element is configured to be capable of adjusting a power outputted from the at least one of the plurality of heat generators by adjusting the power supplied thereto (“thyristor device for controlling the amount of power supplied to said heating element”; claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Witkin teaches that the output variable element is configured to adjust the power supplied based on a control signal inputted to the output variable element (controller-circuit output signal applied to the thyristor trigger circuits; FIG. 3 discussion). Yoshii likewise teaches control unit 100 inputting a calculated setting value to heater output unit 86 (¶¶ [0034]–[0035]).
Regarding independent claim 7, Yoshii teaches a temperature control system comprising the heater and a temperature controller configured to control the internal temperature of the reaction tube by adjusting the power supplied to the heat generators (control unit 100 controls output of heater output unit 86 to heaters 63-1 to 63-10; ¶¶ [0033]–[0035]; temperature sensors Ao1–Ao10 and Ai1–Ai10; ¶ [0034]). The heater limitations are taught by Yoshii in view of Witkin for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshii teaches that the temperature controller is configured to output a different power for each of the plurality of control zones (“The heaters 63-1 to 63-10 independently control output to the unit areas A1 to A10”; ¶ [0033]; “The control unit 100 controls output of the heater output unit 86 to each of the heaters 63-1 to 63-10”; ¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshii teaches that the temperature controller is configured to output different powers in a vertical direction in the specific control zone (unit areas A1–A10 are arranged “in a vertical direction”; ¶ [0033]; independent output to each unit area produces different power along the vertical axis of processing container 65). To the extent claim 9 requires different powers inside a single zone rather than across zones, Witkin teaches independently gated parallel legs inside one thermal zone (claim 1; FIG. 3), which, when oriented along the tube axis as in Yoshii, yield different vertical powers within that zone.
Regarding claim 10, Witkin teaches that the temperature controller is configured to output a different power for each of circuits constituting the parallel circuit in the specific control zone (each heater circuit has its own thyristor; the thyristors of a zone respond to the controller output in different portions of the output range; FIG. 3 discussion).
Regarding claim 11, Witkin in view of Yoshii teaches that the temperature controller is configured to output a power according to a resistance value of each of circuits constituting the parallel circuit in the specific control zone (each parallel heater circuit has a resistive heating element; claim 1 of Witkin; power delivered to a resistive element follows P = V²/R or I²R).
Regarding claim 12, Witkin teaches a structure in which an output variable element is installed in one heater circuit of a zone and not identically in another. Making the power outputted to a circuit in which the output variable element is not installed larger than the power outputted to a circuit to which the output variable element is connected is the ordinary result of inserting a series thyristor or resistor in only one parallel branch.
The intra-zone power split appears to be a [i] result-effective variable that may be [ii] optimized given the general conditions of the claim. As per the specification discussion of Upper_Ratio and Lower_Ratio and of reducing the difference between an ideal power distribution and an actual stepwise zone distribution, the relative power delivered to each parallel circuit is adjusted in order to flatten temperature in the wafer region and is also a function of heat loss at the zone boundaries. The general condition of the claim structure is taught by Yoshii at ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], which already varies zone power to correct vertical profile error, in conjunction with Witkin, which already independently gates parallel legs inside a zone.
Regarding independent claim 15, Yoshii in view of Witkin teaches an output circuit of a heater divided into a plurality of control zones for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 16, Yoshii teaches a processing apparatus comprising the heater (“thermal treatment apparatus”; Abstract; claim 1 of Yoshii; processing container 65, substrate holding unit, heating unit 63). The remaining heater limitations are taught by Yoshii in view of Witkin for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 17, Yoshii teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising processing a substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater (“performing a thermal treatment on a substrate”; Abstract; wafers W held inside processing container 65).
Regarding independent claim 18, Yoshii teaches a method of processing a substrate comprising processing the substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater (thermal treatment of wafers W; Abstract).
Regarding independent claim 19, Yoshii teaches a method of heating a substrate comprising heating the substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater (heaters 63-1 to 63-10 heat processing container 65 containing wafers W; ¶¶ [0033]–[0035]).
Regarding independent claim 20, Yoshii teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a processing apparatus to perform a process comprising processing a substrate arranged in the wafer region by the heater (“non-transitory computer readable medium embodied with program for executing the thermal treatment method or the temperature control method”; Title; claims 18–19 of Yoshii).
Claims 1–12 and 15–20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii in view of Peck, US 2007/0039938 A1 (“Peck”).
Regarding the parallel-circuit and output-variable-element limitations of claim 1 that Yoshii does not explicitly teach, Peck teaches a furnace heating assembly in which subzones of heating elements are connected in parallel to a control circuit (“the first subzone and the second subzone are connected in parallel to each other”; ¶ [0019]; ¶ [0033]; FIG. 2A) and a control device such as an SCR on a parallel path (“only one resistance element is connected to the power source, through a corrective circuit such as a SCR, at a time”; ¶ [0056]). It would have been obvious to apply Peck’s parallel subzone / SCR arrangement inside a wafer-region zone of Yoshii for the same reasons set forth above with respect to Witkin: finer allocation of power within a zone while keeping the remaining elements energized.
Claims 1–12 and 15–20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudovsky, US 7,429,717 B2 (“Yudovsky”) in view of Witkin.
Regarding independent claim 1, Yudovsky teaches a heater divided into a plurality of control zones (“a plurality of heating elements connected in at least two independently controlled zones”; Abstract; claim 1; the zones are vertically stacked about a semiconductor processing chamber).
Yudovsky teaches heat generators configured to raise an internal temperature of a reaction tube by heat generation (heating elements surrounding side walls of the semiconductor processing chamber; claim 1; Abstract; FIGS. 3–4).
Yudovsky does not explicitly teach a parallel circuit of heat generators within a specific wafer-region zone with an output variable element on at least one heat generator. Witkin teaches those limitations as set forth above (claim 1; Abstract; FIG. 3). The same motivation to combine applies.
Claims 13–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii in view of Witkin, and further in view of ordinary skill in ratio or split-range control.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshii in view of Witkin teaches the temperature control system of claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshii in view of Witkin teaches an adjuster configured to adjust a power outputted from a circuit, among circuits constituting the parallel circuit, to which the output variable element is connected (Witkin’s trigger / controller circuit adjusts the thyristor in a selected heater circuit of the zone; FIG. 3 discussion; Yoshii’s control unit 100 calculates a setting value for heater output unit 86; ¶¶ [0034]–[0035]).
Yoshii in view of Witkin teaches that the adjuster is configured to output a different power for each of the circuits (each of Witkin’s parallel heater circuits has its own thyristor and can be driven differently; claim 1; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshii teaches a temperature control calculator configured to perform temperature control calculation such that a preset temperature and a temperature detected by a temperature detector match each other (control unit 100 receives detected temperatures from sensors Ao1–Ao10 and Ai1–Ai10 and calculates a setting value for heater output unit 86; ¶¶ [0034]–[0035]; each of Witkin’s controller circuits “compares the signals applied to it from the associated thermocouple and from temperature selector 170 and produces an output signal proportional to the power required by the associated thermal zone”; FIG. 3 discussion).
The combination teaches that the adjuster is configured to determine an output to the output circuit based on a ratio of control signals calculated by the temperature control calculator. Yoshii already computes a single zone control output from set point and measured temperature. Witkin already provides independently gated parallel legs inside a zone. Splitting one zone control output into two parallel-leg commands by a ratio, with the ratios summing to a constant so that total zone power and PID tuning are undisturbed, is ordinary split-range control. Using a ratio is the simplest split that preserves the outer-loop gain.
The claimed ratio of control signals appears to be a [i] result-effective variable3 that may be [ii] optimized4 given the general conditions of the claim. As per the specification discussion of Upper_Ratio and Lower_Ratio summing to a constant (exemplified as 2.0) and of changing those ratios by temperature zone so that a single outer-loop calculation can still be used, the ratio is adjusted in order to allocate power between vertically offset parallel circuits without retuning the zone PID, and is also a function of the temperature set point and of the remaining intra-zone gradient. The general condition of the claim structure — closed-loop temperature control of a multi-zone reaction-tube heater — is taught by Yoshii at ¶¶ [0033]–[0035]. Witkin already provides independently gated parallel legs to which that output can be applied.
The specification’s particular Upper_Ratio + Lower_Ratio = 2.0 example, and temperature-dependent switching of those ratios, is more specific than claims 13–14 as written. Claims 13–14 do not recite those numerical or temperature-scheduled features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
15 September 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
2 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (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).
3 In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
4 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (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).
Prosecution Insights