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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on May 28, 2026 was received. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued March 7, 2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement are maintained. While Applicant’s amendments did substantially clarify the scope of the claims in general and brought them closer to the subject matter in the disclosure, the claims still require that the display presents “a plurality of process-setting screens including: … a recipe configuration” which is not something the specification supports in any way. Nothing in the specification suggests that the display presents a screen related to a recipe configuration- the description of figure 7 makes it clear that it is a schematic table detailing an example recipe and in no way ties it to something the display is functionally programmed to show the user. Regarding the concept of inherency, if Applicant maintains that inherency cannot be relied on to teach a recipe screen in the prior art then this same liberty cannot be extended to the instant disclosure which makes no explicit or implicit mention of a recipe screen shown on the display.
The subject matter relating to the “wafer stage” and “step-specific table” has been clarified by the amendments and is no longer considered new matter. Further, none of the limitations are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) after the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2016/0122872) in view of Ito (US 2014/0109833) on claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Kato et al. discloses a film forming apparatus having a rotary table (2) disposed in a vacuum chamber (11) and configured to rotate around a center shaft (21) which extends vertically from the center of the table (2) surface, thereby revolving a number of wafers (w) which are arranged in recess portions (25) of wafer holders (24) which are stages, the wafer holders (24) each provided with rotation shafts (26) and rotation driving parts (27) to drive rotation of the corresponding holder (24) in a separate central axis to that of the table (2), thereby rotating the wafer (W) in its recess portion (25), the apparatus further including a number of gas nozzles (51-55) configured to supply a number of different gasses into the vacuum chamber (11), and a control part (100) that includes a display part (105) that displays various settings on a screen, including parameters related to controlling the rotation speed of the table (2) and the wafer holder (24), where the control part (100) includes recipes and means to actuate the recipes such that a desired process is performed (pars. 35-37, 40-42, 48, 55-65, figures 1-2 and 4-5). The recipe data includes information such as target thickness, gas flow rate and rotation speed (V) of the rotary table (2) and rotation speed (A) of the individual wafers, and implicitly includes information about when to start and stop various processes such that it includes multiple process steps (i.e., starting and stopping) where parameters like speed are obviously different at a processing time and a stopping time (par. 56-57, 59-60). The control part (100) further has a memory (104) which includes information on how to calculate various parameters such as the rotation speed (A) of the wafers and compares these to reference speeds such that these self-rotation speeds must exist in a data table in the memory (104) (pars. 60-64). Kato et al. discloses that the process of executing the recipe includes consulting the reference speed values stored by the memory (104), and also calculating speed parameters based on desired numbers of rotations and other parameters such that the control part (100) is necessarily consulting data stored in various tables designated by the specific recipe being used (pars. 60-62).
Kato et al. fails to explicitly disclose the exact layout of the display screen, i.e. that it includes a first setting screen for setting parameters, a recipe configuration presenting the steps of a recipe including the ID for each self-rotation table stored in the memory, or specific display components that receive the selected self-rotation table and a plurality of slots associated with the stages and parameters for them. However, Ito et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus which has a display unit as part of an input unit (77), the input unit (77) being a computer display that shows a number of windows and screens with a number of recipe tables (86) that contain a list of parameters (pars. 63-71, figure 6). Ito et al. further discloses that the input unit (77) includes a list of the wafer numbers and slot numbers which are numbers that are assigned to each wafer slot in the apparatus (par. 80, figure 15), and also a recipe setting button (80) which allows the user to edit a particular recipe, which requires a separate recipe configuration (par. 76, figure 6), the recipe information then being set in the recipe table (86) on the main screen of the input unit (77) (par. 71, figure 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an input system similar to the one taught by Ito et al. for the display of Kato et al. because Ito et al. teaches that precisely controlling each part of the process recipe as well as identification of the slots, wafers and use of dummy wafers can help ensure reproducibility of the coating processes (pars. 5-7).
The combination of Kato et al. and Ito et al. effectively performs the same process as the instant claims, despite not specifically using terms like “self-rotation table”. The control part (100) of Kato et al. uses parameters including desired film thickness, number of rotations, rotation speed of the rotary table and rotation speed of each individual wafer as recipe info, and determines the latter parameters by consulting data stored in memory, whether from data tables or from calculations (pars. 60-64). When combined then with Ito et al., the combined apparatus presents this recipe information and designates specific functions within the memory by which the rotation speed of the wafer can be determined, these functions by necessity having some form of identification (i.e. file names/numbers).
Regardless, the majority of these limitations are controller-specific limitations which do not necessarily impart patentability to apparatus claims. Claim 1 is drawn to a film-forming apparatus, with a display “configured to present a plurality of process-setting screens”. The combination of Kato et al. and Ito et al. does this- the exact content of each of the screens is merely an intended use limitation which any computer is capable of replicating, and as such does not further limit the “film forming apparatus” of claim 1. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claims 2 and 7: Kato et al. discloses that the apparatus uses at least the rotation speed of the table (2) and rotation speed of the holders (24) as two setting parameters (pars. 58-64).
Regarding claim 4: Kato et al. discloses that the apparatus uses at the rotation speed of the table (2) as a setting parameter which requires a screen, window or box dedicated to this specific setting, any of which can be considered “a second setting screen” (pars. 58-64).
Regarding claim 5: Kato et al. discloses that the apparatus is controlled to supply gas to a gas supply area such that a wafer (W) passing through that area a plurality of times due to the revolution of the table (2) has a film formed thereon (par. 9).
Regarding claim 8: Kato et al. discloses that the apparatus is controlled to supply gas to a gas supply area such that a wafer (W) passing through that area a plurality of times due to the revolution of the table (2) has a film formed thereon (par. 9).
Regarding claim 10: Kato et al. and Ito et al. disclose the above combination in which the input system (77) includes information about the wafers and slots corresponding them to identification numbers which can then connect to the process recipe information (Ito et al. pars. 80-83, figures 15-18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Ito et al. fails to disclose individualized rotation driver control based on slot-specific data tables and therefore fails to read on claim 1.
In response:
Applicant merely addresses Ito et al. in these arguments and therefore has seemingly forgotten that the above rejection is a 103 obviousness type rejection over Kato et al. in view of Ito et al. Kato et al. is specifically drawn to a process for individually controlling each individual rotation driver corresponding to each wafer slot on a revolving table, and teaches that the process of doing this includes the control part reading recipe data and using that to consult functions and data stored in the memory to determine appropriate individual wafer speeds (see pars. 60-64). This is, functionally speaking, identical to the process performed by the instant invention. Applicant’s main argument appears to revolve around the exact nature of how the data from the “self-rotation tables” in the instant invention is accessed by way of the recipe, but that is an abstract description of how data can be grouped together in a specific software-based array which does not actually change the physical, structural nature of how the data is accessed by the controller, which is the only relevant issue of patentability when it comes to apparatus claims. That is to say, the computer accesses the same data in the same way no matter how it is grouped and presented to the programmer and/or user, and therefore this process is functionally identical to the one claimed. Applicant’s arguments only cited Ito et al. for these features, and therefore are not persuasive as they ignored Kato et al. which, as stated above, does read on this same aspect of the apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
7/24/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights