DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/12/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are pending, and all are currently amended.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 6, the entire claim is now recited nearly verbatim in claim 1 (penultimate clause, lines 1-3), and thus does not further limit claim 1 or claim 3. The Examiner recommends cancelling the claim or amending it to include further limitations not present in claim 1 or 3.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horiguchi (US Patent 6,402,848).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Horiguchi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 5, entirety) comprising: a process chamber comprising a chamber body (Fig. 5, chamber #24) that has an opened upper portion (Fig. 5, accommodating #94) and in which a through-hole is formed in a bottom surface (Fig. 5, accommodating #54), and a top lid (Fig. 5, unlabeled ceiling member) coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to form an inner space (Fig. 5, space “S”);
a substrate support comprising a substrate support plate installed in the process chamber and on which a substrate is seated on a top surface, and a substrate support shaft installed to pass through the through-hole to support the substrate support plate (Fig. 5, table #58 for wafer W, shaft/strut #56 passes through lower opening; see Fig. 1 for label);
a gas supply part configured to supply a process gas for the substrate processing (Fig. 5, shower head #94); and
an exhaust part disposed on a lower portion of the chamber body and configured to exhaust the process gas supplied through the gas supply part to the outside (Fig. 5, exhaust chamber #50, reduced volume within #76, openings #82, port #72 and tube #74 to pump not pictured);
wherein the chamber body comprises an exhaust passage disposed between an outer circumferential surface of the substrate support shaft and an inner surface of the through-hole, the exhaust passage in direct communication with the exhaust part and configured to minimize a volume of a space to be exhausted (Fig. 5, volume within #76);
wherein the exhaust part comprises:
an exhaust body at least partially installed on at the inner surface of the through-hole (Fig. 5, walls of #54 contacting the through-hole) to support the substrate support shaft (Fig. 5, walls of #54 also support the shaft/strut #56) and having an opened upper portion that forms an exhaust space communicating with the exhaust passage (Fig. 5, all volumes below #86 form a contiguous exhaust); and
at least one or more gas exhaust ports disposed on a side surface of the exhaust body to exhaust the process gas introduced into the exhaust space to the outside (Fig. 5, sidewall openings #82; C5, L40-48 for plurality);
wherein the process chamber comprises an installation groove in the bottom surface of the chamber body comprising the through-hole such that the substrate support plate is inserted into the installation groove (Fig. 5, concave volume at chamber bottom to accommodate #58 and related elements);
wherein an installation groove exhaust passage is between the substrate support plate and the installation groove to connect the processing space to the exhaust passage and to transfer the process gas exhausted from the processing space to the exhaust space (Fig. 5, volume on sides and below #58 bounded by #24); and
wherein a flow path gap at a section of the installation groove exhaust passage through which the process gas is introduced into the exhaust space (Fig. 5, gas goes into processing space “S” and through holes #84 to the exhaust space) is smaller than a flow path gap of the exhaust space around the substrate support shaft (Fig. 5, diameter of #84 appears much smaller than the diameter of any exhaust volume surrounding shaft/strut #56).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi (US Patent 6,402,848), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, further in view of Toshima (JP2011009299A, using the english machine translation provided 1/28/2025).
The limitations of claims 1 and 6 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Horiguchi teaches wherein the gas supply part is installed adjacent to an edge of the substrate support shaft to supply the process gas into the processing space (Fig. 5, #94 supplies gas into process space “S”, is considered to be “adjacent to an edge of the substrate support shaft” due to the breadth of the word adjacent, which is defined as “not distant” or “nearby” (Merriam-Webster dictionary).
Horiguchi does not teach an inner lid part which is installed to be movable vertically in the inner space and of which a portion is in close contact with the bottom surface adjacent to the installation groove through descending to form a sealed processing space in which the substrate support is disposed.
However, Toshima teaches this limitation (Toshima – Fig. 10 and [0052], upper chamber #23 and internal chamber #22 moves to close a processing space #20 around wafer W).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Horiguchi apparatus to comprise the movable inner lid of Toshima in order to protect the substrate from particulate contamination during processing (Toshima – [0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Horiguchi does not teach an inner lid driving part installed to pass through the top lid to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part.
However, Toshima teaches this limitation (Toshima – Fig. 10 and [0041], drive mechanism #236 is connected to shaft #235 such that when the upper assembly is lowered, #236 rotates the upper assembly into a lock position via angled channels – see Fig. 3 #212).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Horiguchi apparatus to comprise the movable inner lid of Toshima in order to protect the substrate from particulate contamination during processing (Toshima – [0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Horiguchi remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights