Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/901,640

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 01, 2022
Examiner
SEOANE, TODD MICHAEL
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Wonik Ips Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
5 granted / 8 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +75% interview lift
Without
With
+75.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
71
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
61.8%
+21.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 8 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered. Claim Status Claims 1-4 and 6 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 7 is cancelled. 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011009299 A using previously attached English machine translation) in view of Juergensen (US 20090178620 A1), Kudoh (US 20110308464 A1), and Wen (JP 2021109997 A, using attached English machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Toshima teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 2, [0024], processing apparatus 1) comprising: a process chamber comprising a chamber body which has an opened upper portion (Fig. 2, [0024], lower chamber 21 is open at the top) and in which a through-hole is defined in a bottom surface thereof (Fig. 2, [0025], recess 210 is formed in bottom surface of lower chamber 21); and a substrate support comprising a substrate support plate which is installed in the process chamber and on which a substrate is seated on a top surface thereof (Fig. 2, [0026], plate 31 upon which wafer W is placed), and a substrate support shaft installed to pass through the through-hole so as to support the substrate support plate (Fig. 2, [0026]-[0027], bar 32 passes through recess 210). Toshima fails to teach a top lid coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to define an inner space; a gas supply part configured to supply a process gas for the substrate processing; 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, 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 being directly communicated with the exhaust part and configured to minimize a volume of a space to be exhausted, wherein the exhaust part comprises: an exhaust body installed on at least a portion of an inner surface of the through-hole to support the substrate support shaft and having an opened upper portion to define an exhaust space communicating with the exhaust passage; 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. However, Juergensen teaches a top lid coupled to the upper portion of the chamber body to define an inner space (Juergensen, Fig. 3, [0023], space defined by housing cover 1 and housing wall 2). Juergensen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the drive mechanism of Toshima to incorporate the top lid drive mechanism arrangement of Juergensen as doing so would allow for height of the internal chamber to be varied during processing, or after the reactor housing has been closed (Juergensen, [0024]). Modified Toshima fails to teach a gas supply part configured to supply a process gas for the substrate processing; 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, 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 being directly communicated with the exhaust part and configured to minimize a volume of a space to be exhausted, wherein the exhaust part comprises: an exhaust body installed on at least a portion of an inner surface of the through-hole to support the substrate support shaft and having an opened upper portion to define an exhaust space communicating with the exhaust passage; 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. However, Kudoh teaches a gas supply part configured to supply a process gas for the substrate processing (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0052]-[0053], gas supply passage 71 is adjacent to mounting board 4, providing gas to spaces L1 and L2). Kudoh is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Toshima to incorporate the gas supply assembly of Kudoh as doing so enables for processing of substrates using gas instead of a liquid. Modified Toshima fails to teach 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, 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 being directly communicated with the exhaust part and configured to minimize a volume of a space to be exhausted, wherein the exhaust part comprises: an exhaust body installed on at least a portion of an inner surface of the through-hole to support the substrate support shaft and having an opened upper portion to define an exhaust space communicating with the exhaust passage; 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. However, Wen teaches 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 (Wen, Fig. 9, [0071], bottom 215 fixed to cover the opening at the lower end of the main body portion 211, and has gas outlet 216), 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 being directly communicated with the exhaust part and configured to minimize a volume of a space to be exhausted (Wen, Fig. 9, [0071]-[0074], gas flows from showerhead 214 downward, where wall of bottom 215 and base portion 221 of support 220 define a space that is made more narrow vs the opening defined by the lower end of main body portion 211, and gas outlet 216 is sidewall of bottom 215 is in communication with exhaust unit 240), wherein the exhaust part comprises: an exhaust body installed on at least a portion of an inner surface of the through-hole to support the substrate support shaft (Wen, Fig. 9, [0071]-[0074], bottom 215 is installed in contact with inner sidewall surface of main body 211, and base portion 221 of support 220 is mounted on bottom 215) and having an opened upper portion to define an exhaust space communicating with the exhaust passage (Wen, Fig. 9, [0071]-[0074], bottom 215 is open at the upper end, creating a space between it and bottom surface of mounting portion 222); 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 (Wen, Fig. 9, [0071]-[0074], gas outlet 216 is disposed in sidewall of bottom 215 and is in communication with exhaust unit 240). Wen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the bottom wall, exhaust port, and exhaust unit into the recess of Toshima in the manner taught by Wen as doing so would enable control of the pressure in the chamber via a pressure controller and vacuum pump in communication with the gas outlet (Wen, [0071]-[0074]). Regarding claim 2, Toshima teaches wherein the process chamber comprises an installation groove defined so that the substrate support is installed to be inserted into a bottom surface of the chamber body comprising the through-hole (Fig. 12, [0026], wafer W sits on cooling plate 31, in recess 210 of lower chamber 21). Regarding claim 3, Toshima teaches 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 define a sealed processing space in which the substrate support is disposed (Fig. 10, [0052], lower chamber 21 is covered by internal chamber 22 by movement of drive mechanism 43 to make sealed process space 20, where wafer W sits on cooling plate 31). Toshima fails to teach wherein the gas supply part is installed to be adjacent to an edge of the substrate support shaft so as to supply the process gas into the processing space. However, Kudoh teaches wherein the gas supply part is installed to be adjacent to an edge of the substrate support shaft so as to supply the process gas into the processing space (Kudoh, Fig. 4, [0052]-[0053], gas supply passage 71 is adjacent to mounting board 4, providing gas to spaces L1 and L2). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Toshima to incorporate the gas supply assembly of Kudoh as doing so enables for processing of substrates using gas instead of a liquid. Regarding claim 4, Toshima fails to teach an inner lid driving part installed to pass through the top lid so as to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part. However, Juergensen teaches an inner lid driving part installed to pass through the top lid so as to drive the vertical movement of the inner lid part (Juergensen, Fig. 3, [0023], threaded spindle 22 is mounted through housing cover 1 and moves pressure ring 23). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the drive mechanism of Toshima to incorporate the top lid drive mechanism arrangement of Juergensen as doing so would allow for height of the internal chamber to be varied during processing, or after the reactor housing has been closed (Juergensen, [0024]). Regarding claim 6, Toshima fails to teach an installation groove exhaust passage defined between the substrate support plate and the installation groove to connect the processing space to the exhaust passage. However, Wen teaches an installation groove exhaust passage defined between the substrate support plate and the installation groove to connect the processing space to the exhaust passage (Wen, Fig. 9, [0071]-[0074], bottom 215 is open at the upper end, creating a space between it and the bottom surface of mounting portion 222, where gas outlet 216 is in communication with the space, and the interior of main body 211 is in communication with the space, which includes area above wafer W). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the bottom wall, exhaust port, and exhaust unit into the recess of Toshima in the manner taught by Wen as doing so would enable control of the pressure in the chamber via a pressure controller and vacuum pump in communication with the gas outlet (Wen, [0071]-[0074]). Response to Arguments In the Applicant’s response filed 10/07/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Akimura, teach the claim limitations “wherein the exhaust part comprises: an exhaust body installed on at least a portion of an inner surface of the through-hole to support the substrate support shaft and having an opened upper portion to define an exhaust space communicating with the exhaust passage; 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” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Asakawa (US 20200203194 A1) teaches O-ring seal between pumping part and outside wall, where pumping part is disposed on top of sidewall Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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. /TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598946
FIXTURES AND METHODS FOR POSITIONING PROCESS KIT COMPONENTS WITHIN REACTION CHAMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12562348
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12512330
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12463020
SUPPORT UNIT, APPARATUS FOR TREATING SUBSTRATE WITH THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 4 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+75.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 8 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month