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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2023, 08/07/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6
Limitation “wherein the magnetic body is formed of carbon” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as carbon itself is not magnetic and therefore cannot provide the required ‘magnetic’ property to the “magnetic body”.
The office believes that the instant issue is potentially a translation issue, as the only support for the instant limitation comes from a single line discussing Fig5.
For the purpose of applying art, the office will read that the structure of “the magnetic body” is formed of carbon, but not necessarily required to be “magnetic” itself. The term “magnetic” for “magnetic body” will be considered a mere naming convention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A substrate processing apparatus” in claim 10
Corresponding structure
Control unit 100 as best seen Fig1
Or equivalents
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2010-206025) in view of Kunihiro (JP 2007-335709)
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).”
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, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections above
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the magnetic body is formed of carbon (base table 2 from Kato formed of carbon plate, in which the taught features of Kunihiro are placed).”
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 8
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotary table supports the holding tray via a heat conduction suppressor that suppresses a heat conduction between the rotary table and the holding tray (Kato: best seen Fig4, table 2 supports tray 201 via flange/decreased thickness region near hole 2a, the hole and the horizontal air gaping between the tray 201 and table implicitly provides thermal conduction suppression).”
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “The substrate heating apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the heat conduction suppressor includes: a flange provided on an outer periphery of the holding tray (Kato: best seen Fig4, table 2 flange/decreased thickness region near hole 2a is provided in contact on the outer periphery of the bottom surface of tray 201), and an engaging portion provided on the rotary table (Kato: best seen Fig4, bottom surface of tray 201 engages the provided surfaces of table 2), and the holding tray and the rotary table are in contact with each other at the flange and the engaging portion (Kato: contact interface best seen Fig4, “at” merely requires near).”
“at” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/at, definition 1, accessed 03/03/2026
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Kato by the teachings of Kunihiro discloses: “A substrate processing apparatus (Kato: Fig1, process controller 100) comprising the substrate heating apparatus according to claim 9 (see Claim 9).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2010/0055317 from Kato: very similar to instant application, Fig1-3 in particular
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571 272 9059. 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