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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashima et al. (JP-H06151550-A) (“Kurashima”) in view of Chhibber et al. (US 2006/0120832) (“Chhibber”). Kurashima discloses:
Claim 1: a fork (figures 4-5; 13);
wherein the tool comprises a screen (upper W8) fixed or fixable to 6/W4); and
wherein said fork is further adapted to grip said one or more substrates (lower W6/W4; alternatively, intended use);
Claim 2: wherein said screen comprises a slab, in particular a flat slab;
Claim 3: wherein said slab is adapted to be in a horizontal position when, in use, said one or more substrates are gripped or supported by the fork and are in a horizontal position;
Claim 4: wherein said screen is adapted to store heat;
Claim 5: wherein said screen is adapted to shield from infrared radiation;
(For Claims 2-5:
upper W8- is slab-shaped and is perfectly adapted to accumulate heat and to screen from infrared radiation in some measure.)
Claim 7: wherein said fork is configured to directly grip or support a substrate support element by applying by contact lateral or vertical or inclined force to said substrate support element when in use (the fork supports the substrate; therefore, a vertical force is applied);
Claim 9: wherein said fork is made of quartz (para. [0003]/[0004]/[0009]);
Claim 10: Epitaxial reactor comprising the tool for handling substrates;
Claim 11: a reaction chamber, wherein said tool is adapted to be used to introduce or extract substrates into or from said reaction chamber;
Claim 12: a substrate positioning station, wherein said tool is adapted to be used to bring substrates from or to said positioning station, and wherein said positioning station is a load-lock chamber or a cooling station or a heating station;
Claim 13: adapted to handle substrates placed on substrate support elements;
For Claims 10-13:
(The additional features of Claims 10-13 are implicitly known from Kurashima in para. [0002]/[0005]/[0019] (“heat treatment process”/etc.).)
Kurashima does not directly show:
Claim 1: wherein said fork comprises two arms, each of said arms being L-shaped in cross- section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance;
wherein the two arms are configured to directly or indirectly grip or support one or more substrates by applying by contact lateral or vertical or inclined force when in use.
Chhibber shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: wherein said fork comprises two arms (110/120 has tines in FIG. 2-3/5A/5B), each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance (FIG. 2-3/5A/5B);
wherein the two arms are configured to directly or indirectly grip or support one or more substrates by applying by contact lateral or vertical or inclined force when in use (FIG. 2-3/5A/5B);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the contact between the one or more substrates in order to reduce contamination of the one or more substrates between the two arms and the one or more substrates (para. [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kurashima as taught by Chhibber and include Chhibber’s similar device having:
Claim 1: wherein said fork comprises two arms, each of said arms being L-shaped in cross- section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance;
wherein the two arms are configured to directly or indirectly grip or support one or more substrates by applying by contact lateral or vertical or inclined force when in use;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the contact between the one or more substrates in order to reduce contamination of the one or more substrates between the two arms and the one or more substrates.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashima in view of Chhibber and Webb et al. (US 2015/0380116) (“Webb”). Webb is analogous art since it deals with supporting substrates. Kurashima discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Kurashima does not directly show (Kurashima shows silicon carbide (SiC) in para. [0014] which is not graphite):
Claim 6: wherein said screen is made of graphite.
Webb shows a similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein said screen is made of graphite (paragraph [0041]; graphite is one of the material options of materials of screen parts);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of protecting the substrate and parts around substrate from outside influences, for example beams/heat beam, to reduce damage to the substrate and parts around substrate (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kurashima and Chhibber as taught by Webb and include Webb’s similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein said screen is made of graphite;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of protecting the substrate and parts around substrate from outside influences, for example beams/heat beam, to reduce damage to the substrate and parts around substrate.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Gogh et al. (US 2017/0125272) (“Gogh”; “D1”) in view of Inokuchi et al. (US 6217663) (“Inokuchi”; “D2”), Kurashima, and Chhibber. Gogh discloses:
Claim 14:
PNG
media_image1.png
634
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15:
The subject matter of Claim 15 is similar to Claim 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gogh does not directly show:
Claim 14: I2) Claim 14: providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms, each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance, wherein the fork is adapted to hold a screen;
The
PNG
media_image3.png
80
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 15: Claim 15: providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms, each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance, wherein the fork is adapted to hold a screen;
The
PNG
media_image3.png
80
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Inokuchi shows a similar device having:
Claim 14: See
PNG
media_image4.png
134
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 15: See
PNG
media_image4.png
134
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of restraining slipping from being generated to reduce the possibility of damage of the substrate (column 7, lines 45-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gogh as taught by Inokuchi and include Inokuchi’s similar device having:
Claim 14: The
PNG
media_image3.png
80
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 15: The
PNG
media_image3.png
80
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of restraining slipping from being generated to reduce the possibility of damage of the substrate.
Kurashima shows a similar device having:
Claim 14: I2) providing a tool including a fork (figures 4-5; 13) adapted to hold a screen (upper W8);
Claim 15: E3) providing a tool including a fork (figures 4-5; 13) adapted to hold provided with a screen (upper W8);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing multiple structures to be transferred for versatility in the use of the tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gogh as taught by Kurashima and include Kurashima’s similar device having:
Claim 14: I2) providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms adapted to hold a screen;
Claim 15: E3) providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms adapted to hold provided with a screen;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing multiple structures to be transferred for versatility in the use of the tool.
Chhibber shows a similar device having:
Claim 14: providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms (110/120 has tines in FIG. 2-3/5A/5B), each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance (FIG. 2-3/5A/5B);
Claim 15: providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms (110/120 has tines in FIG. 2-3/5A/5B), each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance (FIG. 2-3/5A/5B);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the contact between the one or more substrates in order to reduce contamination of the one or more substrates between the two arms and the one or more substrates (para. [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gogh and Kurashima as taught by Chhibber and include Chhibber’s similar device having:
Claim 14: providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms, each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance;
Claim 15: providing a tool including a fork with at least two arms, each of said arms being L-shaped in cross-section along a longitudinal length of each arm, said longitudinal length extending from a first longitudinal point along the arm to a second longitudinal point along the arm, the first longitudinal point and the second longitudinal point being separated by a finite longitudinal distance;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the contact between the one or more substrates in order to reduce contamination of the one or more substrates between the two arms and the one or more substrates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kurashima, Gogh, Chhibber, et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights