DETAILED ACTION
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 01/30/2026.
4. Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are currently pending.
5. Claims 18-19 have been withdrawn.
6. Claims 1, 4, 12, and 14-19 have been amended.
7. Claim 13 has been cancelled.
8. Claims 20-22 have been added.
Drawings
9. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “surface layer integrally formed on the opaque quartz base material” [claims 1 and 14-17] and “screw member” [claim 21] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al (WO 2020/054038 with US 2021/0183645 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Aoyama et al (US 5,651,827) and Lehmann et al (US 2011/0120189).
Regarding claim 1:
Igawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (substrate processing apparatus, 101) [fig 7 & 0094] comprising: a process vessel (process vessel, 203) [fig 7 & 0094]; a substrate mounting table (217) provided in the process vessel (203) or in a processing space communicating with an inside of the process vessel (203) [fig 7 & 0094]; a lamp heater (lamp heater, 280) provided at a position facing a substrate placing surface of the substrate mounting table (facing the susceptor 217) [fig 7 & 0094]; and a plasma generator (212) provided at an outer periphery of the process vessel (203) and configured to excite a gas in the process vessel (203) by a plasma [fig 7 & 0044, 0093].
Igawa does not specifically disclose a process vessel at least a part of which is made of opaque quartz; wherein the opaque quartz comprises an opaque quartz base material containing air bubbles.
Aoyama teaches a process vessel (reactor vessel, 1) at least a part of which is made of opaque quartz (side portion 1b is opaque) [fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37]; wherein the opaque quartz (side portion 1b is opaque) comprises an opaque quartz base material containing air bubbles (40,000 bubbles/cm3) [fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify at least a part of the process vessel of Igawa to be made of opaque quartz, as in Aoyama, to guarantee insulation and uniformity in heating in the wafer heating region [Aoyama – col 11, lines 53-62].
Igawa modified by Aoyama does not specifically teach an inner surface of the process vessel made of the opaque quartz is provided with a surface layer integrally formed on the opaque quartz base material, the surface layer having a density of air bubbles lower than that of the opaque quartz base material or being a layer substantially free of air bubbles.
Lehmann teaches an inner surface of the process vessel (inner surface of outer layer 27) made of the opaque quartz (opaque quartz glass) is provided with a surface layer (inner layer, 26) integrally formed on the opaque quartz base material (27), the surface layer (26) having a density of air bubbles lower than that of the opaque quartz base material or being a layer substantially free of air bubbles (hardly show bubbles) [fig 2 & 0003, 0058-0059].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the opaque quartz base material of modified Igawa to include a surface layer integrally formed thereon, as in Lehmann, to prevent impurities from exiting out of the interior of the quartz glass component because even initially closed bubbles may open during the intended use of the quartz glass component [Lehmann - 0004].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Igawa teaches a portion of the process vessel corresponding to a range from an upper end to a lower end of the plasma generator is made of the opaque quartz (side portion 1b is opaque) [Aoyama - fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37].
Regarding claim 3:
Igawa teaches a driver (susceptor elevator, 268) capable of elevating and lowering the substrate mounting table (217) [fig 7 & 0032, 0093]; and a controller (controller, 221) configured to be capable of controlling the driver (268) such that a substrate (200) is located below the range from the upper end to the lower end of the plasma generator (below 212) while the substrate placed on the substrate placing surface is being processed [fig 7 & 0059, 0081, 0093].
Regarding claims 6-7:
Modified Igawa teaches the opaque quartz (side portion 1b is opaque) is capable of reflecting 50% or more of light of peak wavelength among light emitted from the lamp heater (transmittance of the side portion 1b was 10% or less) [Aoyama - fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37]; and wherein the opaque quartz (side portion 1b is opaque) is capable of reflecting 50% or more of light within a predetermined wavelength range equal to or lower than 5 μm (transmittance of the side portion 1b was 10% or less) [Aoyama - fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claims 6-7 are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Modified Igawa teaches the opaque quartz contains air bubbles with an average diameter of 30 μm or less (bubbles have a diameter in the range of 10 μm) [Aoyama - fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37]; and wherein the opaque quartz contains air bubbles with a density of 1×106/cm3 or more (bubbles have a density of 40,000 bubbles/cm3 or more) [Aoyama - fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 10-11:
Modified Igawa teaches a portion of the process vessel corresponding to a range from an upper end to a lower end of the plasma generator is made of the opaque quartz (side portion 1b is opaque) [Aoyama - fig 9 & col 10-11, lines 50-7 and col 11, lines 24-37].
The claim limitations “wherein reducing a surface roughness is performed on a portion of an inner surface of the process vessel made of the opaque quartz” and “wherein the reducing the surface roughness comprises a baking finish process” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 14-15:
Modified Igawa teaches the surface layer (26) is 100 µm or more (2.5 mm) [fig 2 & 0003, 0058-0059].
The claim limitations “the surface layer is formed by performing a baking finish process” are merely product-by-process limitations. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
13. Claim(s) 4-5, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al (WO 2020/054038 with US 2021/0183645 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Aoyama et al (US 5,651,827) and Lehmann et al (US 2011/0120189) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Robinson et al (US 2003/0116280).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4-5:
Igawa teaches a flange provided at at least one of an upper end portion or a lower end portion of the process vessel attached to a manifold (see fig 7) [fig 7].
Igawa does not specifically teach the flange attached to a manifold via a seal.
Aoyama teaches a flange (flange, 2) attached to a manifold via a seal (O-ring, 4) [fig 9 & col 8, lines 37-45].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flange of Igawa to be attached to the manifold via a seal, as in Aoyama, to seal air-tight the process vessel [Aoyama - col 8, lines 37-45].
Igawa modified by Aoyama and Lehmann does not specifically teach at least a part of the flange is made of the opaque quartz; and wherein a joint surface of the flange attached to the manifold is made of the opaque quartz.
Robinson teaches at least a part of the flange (flange, 115) is made of the opaque quartz (can be made from opaque quartz) [fig 2 & 0045]; and wherein a joint surface of the flange attached to the manifold is made of the opaque quartz (flange can be made from opaque quartz) [fig 2 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flange of modified Igawa to be made of the opaque quartz, as in Robinson, to further reduce the transfer of heat to the seal thereby reducing potential for contamination due to a thermally degraded seal [Robinson – 0043, 0045].
Regarding claims 12 and 20:
Igawa teaches a flange provided at at least one of an upper end portion or a lower end portion of the process vessel attached to a manifold (see fig 7) [fig 7].
Igawa does not specifically teach the flange attached to a manifold via a seal.
Aoyama teaches a flange (flange, 2) attached to a manifold via a seal (O-ring, 4) [fig 9 & col 8, lines 37-45].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flange of Igawa to be attached to the manifold via a seal, as in Aoyama, to seal air-tight the process vessel [Aoyama - col 8, lines 37-45].
Igawa modified by Aoyama and Lehmann does not specifically teach a joint surface of the flange attached to the manifold is made of the opaque quartz.
Robinson teaches a joint surface of the flange (flange, 115) attached to the manifold is made of the opaque quartz (flange can be made from opaque quartz) [fig 2 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flange of modified Igawa to be made of the opaque quartz, as in Robinson, to further reduce the transfer of heat to the seal thereby reducing potential for contamination due to a thermally degraded seal [Robinson – 0043, 0045].
The claim limitations “wherein reducing a surface roughness is performed on the joint surface” and “wherein the reducing the surface roughness comprises a baking finish process” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
14. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al (WO 2020/054038 with US 2021/0183645 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Aoyama et al (US 5,651,827) and Lehmann et al (US 2011/0120189) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Honma et al (US 7,674,336).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Igawa does not specifically teach the thickness of the surface layer is 1,000 μm or less.
Honma teaches a thickness of the surface layer (thickness of 56) is 1,000 μm or less (1 mm to 2 mm) [fig 7 & col 11, lines 1-23].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of the surface layer of modified Igawa with the thickness of Honma because such a thickness effectively prevents the opaque quartz from being eroded [Honma - col 11, lines 1-23].
15. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al (WO 2020/054038 with US 2021/0183645 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Aoyama et al (US 5,651,827) and Lehmann et al (US 2011/0120189) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Robinson et al (US 2003/0116280) and Honma et al (US 7,674,336).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 17:
Igawa teaches a flange provided at at least one of an upper end portion or a lower end portion of the process vessel attached to a manifold (see fig 7) [fig 7].
Igawa does not specifically teach the flange attached to a manifold via a seal.
Aoyama teaches a flange (flange, 2) attached to a manifold via a seal (O-ring, 4) [fig 9 & col 8, lines 37-45].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flange of Igawa to be attached to the manifold via a seal, as in Aoyama, to seal air-tight the process vessel [Aoyama - col 8, lines 37-45].
Igawa modified by Aoyama and Lehmann does not specifically teach a joint surface of the flange attached to the manifold is made of the opaque quartz comprising an opaque quartz base material.
Robinson teaches a joint surface of the flange (flange, 115) attached to the manifold is made of the opaque quartz comprising an opaque quartz base material (flange can be made from opaque quartz) [fig 2 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flange of modified Igawa to be made of the opaque quartz, as in Robinson, to further reduce the transfer of heat to the seal thereby reducing potential for contamination due to a thermally degraded seal [Robinson – 0043, 0045].
Igawa modified by Aoyama, Lehmann, and Robinson does not specifically teach the joint surface is provided with a surface layer integrally formed on the opaque quartz base material, the surface layer having a density of air bubbles lower than that of the opaque quartz base material or being a layer substantially free of air bubbles.
Honma teaches a joint surface is provided with a surface layer (layer, 56) integrally formed on the opaque quartz base material (opaque layer, 55), the surface layer (56) having a density of air bubbles lower than that of the opaque quartz base material or being a layer substantially free of air bubbles (made of transparent quartz vs opaque quartz) [fig 7 & col 11, lines 1-23].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the joint surface of modified Igawa to be provided with the surface layer of Honma to prevent the opaque quartz from being eroded [Honma - col 11, lines 1-23].
16. Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al (WO 2020/054038 with US 2021/0183645 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Aoyama et al (US 5,651,827), Lehmann et al (US 2011/0120189), and Robinson et al (US 2003/0116280) as applied to claims 4-5, 12, and 20 above, and further in view of Ohkase et al (US 6,111,225).
The limitations of claims 4-5, 12, and 20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 21-22:
Modified Igawa teaches the process vessel (203) includes at least a side wall of a cylindrical shape (side wall of 210) and a ceiling (upper portion of 210) [fig 7 & 0027].
Modified Igawa does not specifically teach a ceiling serving as the flange that protrudes radially inward from an upper end portion of the side wall; and wherein the seal is configured to be accommodated in an annular groove provided at a lower surface of the manifold, and wherein the seal is configured to be in close contact with both an upper surface of the ceiling and the lower surface of the manifold.
Ohkase teaches a ceiling serving as the flange (ceiling portion of the processing vessel 4) that protrudes radially inward from an upper end portion of the side wall (see fig 2) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 6-16]; and wherein the seal (seal 24) is configured to be accommodated in an annular groove (groove between 8B and 4) provided at a lower surface of the manifold (8B), and wherein the seal (24) is configured to be in close contact with both an upper surface of the ceiling (ceiling portion of the processing vessel 4) and the lower surface of the manifold (8B) [fig 2 & col 5, lines 1-10].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ceiling of modified Igawa to serve as a flange with a seal in close contact therewith, as in Ohkase, to seal the process vessel in an airtight manner [Ohkase - col 5, lines 1-10].
The claim limitations “wherein the ceiling is configured to be fixed to the manifold by a screw member” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 13-17 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 13-17 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim(s) 3 and the amendments to claim(s) 14-17.
18. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Lehmann et al (US 2011/0120189) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okase (US 5,862,302), Yang et al (US 2010/0006539), Harada (US 2010/0227478), and Pyro-LD80 (Technical Data Sheets) teach a process vessel at least a part of which is made of opaque quartz [fig 3A, fig 6A, fig 2, and page 2, respectively].
20. 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896