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. Election/Restrictions Claims 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 2, 2026. It should be noted that: I. Claims 1-17, drawn to an apparatus, classified in H10P 72/04 II. Claims 18 and 19, drawn to a method, classified in C23C 16/45563 III. Claims 20, drawn to computer readable medium, classified in C23C 16/52 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2019/0316254 A1). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: Regarding claim 1, Kang et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1) , comprising: a substrate support (Paragraph 0039 – 130) configured to support a plurality of first substrates and a second substrate having a smaller surface area than each of the plurality of first substrates in multiple stage s (Paragraph 0056 – dummy substrates and substrates with greater surface area) ; a process chamber configured to accommodate the substrate support that supports the plurality of first substrates and the second substrate (Fig. 1) ; a processing gas nozzle installed so as to extend along a direction of a substrate arrangement region where the plurality of first substrates and the second substrate are arranged, and configured to supply a processing gas toward the substrate arrangement region (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0063 – 142, 143, 144) ; and at least one dilution gas nozzle (146) installed so as to extend along the direction, configured not to supply a dilution gas toward a first region (Central region) of the substrate arrangement region, which includes a region where the plurality of first substrates are arranged and does not include a region where the second substrate (dummy wafers) is arranged, and configured to supply the dilution gas toward at least one second region (Upper treatment space) of the substrate arrangement region, which is a region other than the first region (Central treatment space) and includes the region where the second substrate (Dummy wafers) is arranged . (Paragraphs 0056, 0060-0062) DEPENDENT CLAIM 2: Regarding claim 2, Kang et al. teach further comprising a dilution gas supply system configured to supply the dilution gas to the at least one second region (Upper treatment space) through the at least one dilution gas nozzle. (Figs. 1, 3 discussed above; Paragraphs 0056, 0060-0062) DEPENDENT CLAIM 3: Regarding claim 3, Kang et al. teach further comprising a controller configured to control the dilution gas supply system to supply the dilution gas so that, while the processing gas is supplied to the substrate arrangement region through the processing gas nozzle, a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the at least one second region is larger than a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the first region. (Paragraph 0065 – control unit to control dilution gas) DEPENDENT CLAIM 5: Regarding claim 5, Kang et al. teach wherein a gas discharge hole facing with the at least one second region is installed at a side surface of the at least one dilution gas nozzle such that the dilution gas is supplied toward the at least one second region through the gas discharge hole. (See Fig. 3 discussed above) DEPENDENT CLAIM 6: Regarding claim 6, Kang et al. teach wherein the at least one dilution gas nozzle includes a gas discharge hole formed at a position corresponding to the at least one second region, and does not include a gas discharge hole formed at a position corresponding to the first region. (See Fig. 3 discussed above) DEPENDENT CLAIM 7: Regarding claim 7, Kang et al. teach wherein the at least one dilution gas nozzle includes the gas discharge hole formed at a position corresponding to the at least one second region, and does not include another gas discharge hole formed at a position corresponding to the first region. (See Fig. 3 discussed above) DEPENDENT CLAIM 8: Regarding claim 8, Kang et al. teach wherein the at least one second region further includes a region where another part of the plurality of first substrates are arranged. (Paragraph 0056) DEPENDENT CLAIM 9: Regarding claim 9, Kang et al. teach wherein the at least one second region further includes a region where another part of the plurality of first substrates are arranged. (Paragraph 0056) DEPENDENT CLAIM 10: Regarding claim 10, Kang et al. teach further comprising a second dilution gas nozzle configured to supply the dilution gas toward the first region and not to supply the dilution gas toward the at least one second region. (See Fig. 3 interpretation below) DEPENDENT CLAIM 11: Regarding claim 11, Kang et al. teach further comprising: a plurality of dilution gas supply systems configured to respectively supply the dilution gas to the at least one dilution gas nozzle and the second dilution gas nozzle; and a controller configured to control the plurality of dilution gas supply systems to supply the dilution gas through the at least one dilution gas nozzle and the second dilution gas nozzle so that a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the at least one second region is larger than a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the first region. (See Fig. 3; Paragraph 0065) DEPENDENT CLAIM 12: Regarding claim 12, Kang et al. teach wherein the at least one second region includes a plurality of second regions, and the substrate arrangement region includes the plurality of second regions, wherein the at least one dilution gas nozzle includes a plurality of dilution gas nozzles, and wherein the plurality of dilution gas nozzles are installed such that each of the plurality of dilution gas nozzles respectively corresponds to each of the plurality of second regions. DEPENDENT CLAIM 13: Regarding claim 13, Kang et al. teach wherein the substrate arrangement region includes at least a first zone on a first end of the substrate arrangement region, a second zone on a central portion of the substrate arrangement region, and a third zone on a second end of the substrate arrangement region, and wherein the second zone corresponds to the first region, the first zone corresponds to a first one of the at least one second region, and the third zone corresponds to a second one of the at least one second region. (See Fig. 3) DEPENDENT CLAIM 14: Regarding claim 14, Kang et al. teach wherein the substrate arrangement region includes at least a first zone on a first end of the substrate arrangement region, a second zone on a central portion of the substrate arrangement region, and a third zone on a second end of the substrate arrangement region, and wherein a first one of the at least one dilution gas nozzle is configured to supply the dilution gas toward the first zone and not to supply the dilution gas toward the second zone, and a second one of the at least one dilution gas nozzle is configured to supply the dilution gas toward the third zone and not to supply the dilution gas toward the second zone. (See Fig. 3) DEPENDENT CLAIM 16: Regarding claim 16, Kang et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate support (Paragraph 0039 – 130) configured to support a plurality of first substrates and a second substrate having a smaller surface area than each of the plurality of first substrates in multiple stages (Paragraph 0056 – dummy substrates and substrates with greater surface area); a process chamber configured to accommodate the substrate support that supports the plurality of first substrates and the second substrate (Fig. 1); a processing gas nozzle installed so as to extend along a direction of a substrate arrangement region where the plurality of first substrates and the second substrate are arranged, and configured to supply a processing gas toward the substrate arrangement region (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0063 – 142, 143, 144); and at least one dilution gas nozzle (146) installed so as to extend along the direction, configured not to supply a dilution gas toward a first region of the substrate arrangement region, which includes a region where the plurality of first substrates are arranged and does not include a region where the second substrate (dummy wafers) is arranged, and configured to supply the dilution gas toward at least one second region (Upper treatment space) of the substrate arrangement region, which is a region other than the first region and includes the region where the second substrate (Dummy wafers) is arranged. (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0056, 0060-0062) A second dilution gas nozzle installed so as to extend along the direction, and configured to supply the dilution gas toward the first region and not to supply the dilution gas toward the at least one second region. (See Fig. 3 interpretation), Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 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. Claim (s) 4, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2019/0316254 A1) in view of Isobe et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0067159 A1). DEPENDENT CLAIM 4: The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a processing gas supply system configured to supply the processing gas to the substrate arrangement region through the processing gas nozzle; and a controller configured to control the processing gas supply system and the dilution gas supply system to supply the processing gas and the dilution gas so that, while the processing gas is supplied to the substrate arrangement region, a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the at least one second region is larger than a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the first region. Regarding claim 4: Isobe et al. teach a controller for controlling the processing gas and the dilution gas. (Paragraphs 0062-0067) Isobe et al. teach controlling the dilution gas such that dilution gas is greater than the dilution gas in the first region. (Paragraph 0065 – Thus, the substrate treatment apparatus 100 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment further includes a control part (not illustrated) connected to the dilution gas supply part 145 to control the amount of the dilution gas supplied by the dilution gas supply part 145 , and the control part may control such that the amount of the dilution gas supplied by the lower dilution gas supply part 147 is greater than the amount of the dilution gas supplied by the upper dilution gas supply part 146 . ) DEPENDENT CLAIM 15: The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a second dilution gas nozzle configured to supply the dilution gas to the second zone and not to supply the dilution gas to the first zone and the third zone. Regarding clam 15, Isobe et al. teach providing dilution to a second zone and not to a first or third zone via nozzle 420. (Paragraph 0052; Fig. 1) IN DEPENDENT CLAIM 17: Regarding claim 17, Kang et al. teach all the elements of the claimed invention in Claim 17 as discussed above except for a controller configured to control the processing gas supply system and the dilution gas supply system to supply the processing gas and the dilution gas so that, while the processing gas is supplied to the substrate arrangement region, a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the at least one second region is larger than a flow rate of the dilution gas supplied to the first region. Regarding claim 17: Isobe et al. teach a controller for controlling the processing gas and the dilution gas. (Paragraphs 0062-0067) Isobe et al. teach controlling the dilution gas such that dilution gas is greater than the dilution gas in the first region. (Paragraph 0065 – Thus, the substrate treatment apparatus 100 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment further includes a control part (not illustrated) connected to the dilution gas supply part 145 to control the amount of the dilution gas supplied by the dilution gas supply part 145 , and the control part may control such that the amount of the dilution gas supplied by the lower dilution gas supply part 147 is greater than the amount of the dilution gas supplied by the upper dilution gas supply part 146 . ) The motivation for utilizing the features of Isobe et al. is that it allows controlling the gas flow rates. (Paragraph 0066) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kang et al. by utilizing the features of Isobe et al. because it allows for controlling gas flow rates. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1340 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off. 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, James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8902 . 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. /RODNEY G MCDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 RM March 25, 2026