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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 05/04/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 are pending:
Claims 8 are canceled
Claim 11 are new
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112b rejection of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112f interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112f interpretation of record has been withdrawn.
In particular, due to the amendment of structure.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by Kato (JP 2010-206025) in view of Kunihiro (JP 2007-335709) have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 8-9, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply the Kunihiro teaching of induction heating due to the size difference between Kato and Kunihiro.
The office respectfully disagrees. The rejection of record relies upon Kunihiro to teach that induction heating is a known in the art heating style alternative, and the mere change of heating style does not “require a fundamental redesign of the entire apparatus’s mechanical architecture”. The fact that there are some engineering modifications that would be required to occur to make such a modification does not make such modification ‘undo’ nor does it change the fundamental operation of the base arrangement of Kato.
Applicant asserts, page 9-11, that the amendments to reduced contact area for the purpose of heat suppression overcomes the rejection of record.
The office respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the art rejection section below, the hole 2a of Kato reduces the contact area within the bounds of the BRI of the claim language presented.
Applicant asserts, page 11-12, that new claim 11 is allowable based on the thermal isolation limitations.
The office respectfully notes that the thermal isolation limitations are new matter, as discussed in the corresponding section below, and thus are considered moot in the context of art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11
Limitation “wherein each of the plurality of holding trays is supported by the rotary table via a heat conduction suppressing structure such that each holding tray is thermally isolated from the rotary table” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the subject matter of the cited limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the cited limitation.
The specification provides support for thermal insulating, by at least Para58-59, however thermal isolation was not disclosed. The phrase “isol”, as a part of the terms “isolate/isolated/isolation/isolating”/etc is only recited once in Para15 in the context of atmosphere isolation – not in a thermal context as claimed.
Further, Fig4/5 discloses that holding trays 25 are in contact with tables 2 via flange 205, and Para55/62 explicitly discloses said contact area, and therefore the trays and the table are not thermally isolated due to at least some thermal transfer due to conduction via flange 255 and thermal radiation via the gap near label 24.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2010-206025) in view of Kunihiro (JP 2007-335709)
Claim 1
Kato discloses:
“A substrate heating apparatus comprising:
an … heating coil (Fig1, heater unit 7);
a holding tray (best seen Fig2-4, tray 201) including a substrate holder (best seen Fig2-4, mounting area 24) that places and holds a substrate thereon (best seen Fig4, wafer W in mounting area 24), and configured to be …-heated by the … heating coil (Fig1, heating arrangement best seen); and
a rotary table (Fig1-4, table 2) configured to support the holding tray (best seen Fig2-4/10, tray 201 in table 2) and provided to be freely rotatable (Fig1/3, table 2 rotates about shaft 22),
wherein the holding tray (tray 201) is supported by the rotary table (table 2) via a heat conduction suppressing structure (naming convention for structure, further the hole and the horizontal air gaping between the tray 201 and table 2 implicitly provides thermal conduction suppression) comprising a flange provided on an outer periphery of the holding tray (best seen Fig4, thick flange region of tray 201) and an engaging portion provided on the rotary table (best seen Fig4, recessed part 202 of table 2 portion that engages with thick flange of tray 201), and
the flange (thick flange region of tray 201) and the engaging portion (recessed part 202) are configured to reduce a contact area between the rotary table and the holding tray (Fig4, contact area reduced by hole 2a) to suppress heat conduction from the holding tray to the rotary table (reduced contact area implicitly decreases heat conduction due to decreased contact area).”
Kato is silent to the heater unit using induction heating.
Kunihiro teaches (Fig1-4, induction coils 4, heating plate 1, spin table 21) that it is known in the art to select an induction heating coil to provide heat to a heating plate 1 that is on a rotating table.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the simple substitution of the heater coils of Kato for the induction heating coil arrangement as taught by Kunihiro, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art rotating table heating plate heating arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Kato with a working alternative heater coil arrangement.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the holding tray (Kato: tray 201; Kunihiro: tray 21) includes an insulating body (Kunihiro: body of shield plate 2 and tray 21) where the substrate holder is formed (Kunihiro: best seen Fig2/4, shield plate 2 insulates heating plate 1 within tray/table 21; shield plate formed of Aluminum Nitride or Al2O3), and a magnetic body disposed (Kunihiro: heating plate 1) in the insulating body (best seen Fig2/4, heating plate 1 is within tray/table 21 and arranged interior to shield plate 2; heating plate formed of “iron, nickel, tin, or an alloy containing any of these”).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the magnetic body (Kunihiro: heating plate 1) is disposed below a placement surface (Kunihiro: surface that holds wafer W) of the substrate holder on which the substrate is placed (Kunihiro: Fig1-4, heating plate 1 is below shield plate 2 surface with holds wafer W).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the insulating body (Kunihiro: shield plate 2) is formed of AlN or Al2O3 (Kunihiro: best seen Fig2/4, shield plate 2 insulates heating plate 1 within tray/table 21; shield plate formed of Aluminum Nitride or Al2O3), and the magnetic body (Kunihiro: heating plate 1) is formed of Fe or SUS430 (Kunihiro: best seen Fig2/4, heating plate 1; heating plate formed of “iron, nickel, tin, or an alloy containing any of these”).”
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the magnetic body is formed of magnetic material such as carbon (base table 2 from Kato formed of carbon plate, magnetic recitation is a corresponding material property).”
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the holding tray includes a magnetic body where the substrate holder is formed (limitation is within the scope of the combination as discussed in Claim 1).”
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotary table is formed of quartz (Kato: table 2 is made of quartz).”
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2010-206025) in view of Kunihiro (JP 2007-335709), and in further view of Heiss (US 2025/0188595)
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses:
“The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the rotary table (Kato: table 2) includes an accommodating portion (Kato: recessed part 202) configured to accommodate the holding tray (Kato: tray 201 in recessed part 202);
the flange (Kato: thick flange region of tray 201) …”
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro is silent to the flange of the tray extending along the outer periphery and engaging in a stepped arrangement with the table as claimed.
Heiss teaches (best seen Fig2/8, substrate 3, stepped flange 28, engagement device 24; Para48) that it is known to form a stepped outer flange to a substrate for engaging with a holder to provide the advantage of improved locating and access to the substrate.
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 the tray-table engagement interface of the modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro to include a stepped engagement interface as taught by Heiss, as Heiss teaches that such a stepped engagement interface provides the advantage of improved physical locating and access to the inset tray/component, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro with a working and known stepped flange engagement interface between the tray and table as taught by Heiss.
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro and Heiss discloses:
“A substrate processing apparatus (Kato: Fig1, process controller 100) comprising:
a chamber (Kato: chamber 1);
a gas supply nozzle (Kato: gas supply pipe 51) provided above the rotary table to supply a process gas into the chamber (Kato: arrangement best seen Fig1, gas supply pipe 51 vertically above table 2 to supply chamber 1); and
the substrate heating apparatus according to claim 9 (see Claim 9),
wherein the rotary table and the induction heating coil are disposed within the chamber (Kato: table 2 and heating unit 7 are within chamber 1).”
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights