DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 07/09/26 is acknowledged.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettler [DE102020111293] in view of Iechika [JP2017017251] in view of Topmiller [US 6434516].
Claim 1: Zettler teaches an in-situ determination of temperature of a wafer [title], where the method determines the temperature of the wafer during a coating process by means of emissivity correct pyrometry (depositing layer on substrate) [abstract], during the deposition determine value pairs of emissivity value from thermal radiation at a first wavelength and reflectance value measured a second wavelength [abstract; pg 3], where the second wavelength can be different from the first wavelength [pg 4]; calculating temperature values from the pair values where the emissivity values lie on first curve that oscillate with a first angular frequency over time and reflectance values lie on a second curve that oscillates with a second angular frequency over time where the quotient of the first angular frequency and second angular frequency are different from 1 [pg 5-6]. However, Zettler does not appear to teach a numerical time transformation at which the emissivity or reflectance are calculated at different times to form transformed values from the emissivity and reflectance values wherein the temperature values are calculated using the transformed values. Iechika is provided.
Iechika teaches a vapor phase growth device and temperature detection method [title], wherein the method includes depositing the layer on the substrate [abstract], during the deposition, measurements of thermal radiation and reflectance value are measured [abstract], and calculating the temperature of the substrate from the values of radiation and reflectance based upon transforming the emissivity and reflectance values over a period of time [Fig. 5, pg 5, 7-8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the measured emissivity and reflectance values over time since Iechika teaches this is already a known technique to produce a more accurate result [pg 2].
However, the prior art does not appear to teach using a first gradient value of the emissivity values and a second gradient from the reflectance values. Topmiller is provided.
Topmiller teaches converting absolute measurements signal to incremental signal from sensor data [col 1, ln 5-16], and the method comprises determining the difference between the absolute measurement and a synthesized measurement and generating a first incremental signal and a second incremental signal based upon differences, where the first and second incremental signals are out of phase [col 3, ln 30-41]. Topmiller further teaches a synthesizer that determines the rate of change from the absolute measurement and the rate of change could be determined by subtracting a previous measurement of the sensor from the current measurement of the sensor and dividing the difference by the time period between the two measurement [col 4, ln 45-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to synthesize gradient data from measured data, such as the emissivity values and reflectance values since Topmiller teaches this ensures accurate representation of the sensor measurement [col 1, ln 15].
Claim 2: Zettler teaches emission and reflectance oscillations are measured at slightly different wavelengths (first angular frequency and second angular frequency) [pg 2-3].
Claim 3: Iechika teaches during deposition, transforming measurement values of emissivity and reflectance based over a unit of time [pg 5]. Although Iechika does not explicitly teach the exact equation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the equation from the teachings and equation of Iechika.
Claim 4: Topmiller teaches that gradients are calculated by subtracting a previous measurement of the sensor from the current measurement of the sensor and dividing the difference by the time period between the two measurement [col 4, ln 45-55]. Although Iechika does not explicitly teach the exact equation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the equation from the teachings of Topmiller.
Claim 5: Iechika teaches the temperature calculated by adjusting the parameter of the reflectance function [pg 5].
Claim 6: Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the first angular frequency is greater than the second angular frequency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from a finite number of options of value relationship between the angular frequencies, for example, either greater than, less than, or equal.
Claim 7: Iechika teaches the temperature values is monitored in a looping manner [pg 7].
Claim 8: Zettler teaches determining the periods of the time dependent Fabry-Perot oscillations and compares reflection and pyrometry oscillation periods [pg 4-6].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettler in view of Iechika and Topmiller as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Breiland [Reflectance-Correcting Pyrometry in Thin Film Deposition Applications].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitation of adjusting and testable transformation factor in claim 9.
Claim 9: Breiland teaches reflectance correcting pyrometry in thin film deposition [title], where temperature over-compensation artifacts are removed from reflectance or thermal measurements [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this technique to enhance precise temperature measurements [abstract].
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. US 18030734. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application fully encompass the subject matter of the claims of copending application or alternatively the claims of copending application anticipates the claim in the instant application.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
