DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai [US 20120223220 A1].
As per Claims 1 and 11, Arai teaches a substrate processing apparatus (See fig. 8) comprising:
a lamp unit (UV unit 1) configured to emit a UV light, comprising:
a UV lamp (See the label on the figure) for emitting the UV light (Para 9);
an intensity sensor configured to sense and measure the light intensity of the UV light (Para 9); and
a power regulator electrically connected to the intensity sensor and configured to control a power supplied to the UV lamp according to the light intensity measured by the intensity sensor (Para 9, wherein a UV power control system);
a lamp compartment configured to contain one or more lamp units (See fig. 8);
a processing chamber 6 (shown in fig. 1) with a susceptor and configured to process a substrate, the susceptor is configured to support and/or heat the substrate for processing (Para 23);
a separation window (window glass, see figure 8) disposed between the lamp compartment and the processing chamber, and configured to be transparent for a light from the UV lamp to reach to the substrate (Para 50);
a gas inlet (a gas introduction pipe 105) disposed at one side of the processing chamber and configured to provide a gas for processing the substrate;
an exhaust duct (an exhaust port 106) disposed at an opposite side of the gas inlet and configured to pump out the gas from the processing chamber (Para 44);
a measurement unit (a UV sensor) disposed in a wall of the processing chamber, the measurement unit configured to measure a light intensity in the processing chamber (Para 50); and
a power controller electrically connected to the measurement unit and configured to adjust a supply of power to the lamp compartment according to the light intensity measured by the measurement unit (Para 51).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Arai teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the separation window is made of one of quartz, glass, crystal or a mixture of at least one of them (Para 50).
As per Claims 10 and 20, Arai teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a sectional shape of the tube is one of circle, rectangle, pentagon, hexagon or polygon larger than hexagon (See fig. 3, Para 33).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, 12-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of Moriya et al. [US 20180136567 A1, hereafter Moriya].
As per Claims 2 and 12, Arai teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the measurement unit comprises: a tube disposed through a side wall of the processing chamber (See fig. 8).
Arai does not explicitly teach a fluorescent body disposed at one end of the tube and configured to convert a UV light into a visible light; an optical fiber disposed at the other end of the tube and configured to guide the visible light; and a light sensor connected to the optical fiber and configured to sense and measure a visible light intensity received from the optical fiber.
Moriya teaches in order to measure the illuminance of the irradiation area 30, the upper surface of the fluorescent glass 54 extend in a horizontal plane such that the upper surface is positioned at the same level (height) as the irradiation area 30, i.e., the surface of the wafer W. The ultraviolet light incident on the fluorescent glass 54 is converted to visible light, and is guided to the illuminance sensor 52 through the optical fibers 57 (See fig. 8, Para 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a fluorescent body in order to improve measurement accuracy.
As per Claims 3 and 13, Arai in view of Moriya teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Arai further disclosed the measurement unit further comprising: a fixing jig configured to seal and attach the tube onto the wall of the processing chamber (Para 9, Para 33, wherein a measuring jig).
As per Claims 4 and 14, Arai in view of Moriya teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Arai further disclosed wherein the fluorescent body is tilted at an angle of a first degree from a vertical (Para 9, Para 33, wherein a measuring jig).
As per Claims 5 and 15, Arai in view of Moriya teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Arai further disclosed wherein the first-degree ranges from 0° to 45° (See fig. 8, Para 33).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Arai in view of Moriya teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Arai further disclosed wherein the tube is tilted at a predetermined angle to a horizon (See fig. 8, Para 33).
As per Claims 9 and 19, Arai in view of Moriya teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein an inside of the tube is covered with a material that reflects the visible light (Para 33).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of Moriya as applied above, in further view of Godfried [US 20170184451 A1].
As per Claims 7 and 17, Arai in view of Moriya teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Arai in view of Moriya does not explicitly teach wherein the fluorescent body comprises one of YAG [Y.sub.3Al.sub.5O.sub.12:Ce.sup.3+], LSN [La.sub.3Si.sub.6N.sub.11:Ce.sup.3+], LYSN [(La,Y).sub.3Si.sub.6N.sub.11:Ce.sup.3+], CASN [CaAlSiN.sub.3:Eu.sup.2+], SCASN [(Sr,Ca)AlSiN.sub.3:Eu.sup.2+], CSO [CaSc.sub.2O.sub.4:Ce.sup.3+], β-SiAlON [(Si,Al).sub.3(O,N).sub.4:Eu.sup.2+], GYAG [Y.sub.3(Al,Ga).sub.5O.sub.12:Ce.sup.3+], LuAG [Lu.sub.3Al.sub.5O.sub.12:Ce.sup.3+], SBCA [(Sr,Ba).sub.10(PO4).sub.6Cl.sub.2:Eu.sup.2+] or any mixture of them.
Godfried teaches wherein the fluorescent body comprises one of YAG (Para 39-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a fluorescent material as claimed in order to produce a desired radiation type.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference [US 20220288259 A1 to Wu et al] listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach other prior art apparatus/method of a substrate processing that may anticipate or obviate the claims of the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights