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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II Apparatus claims 1-17 and 19 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/8/2022.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 8, 2026, have been fully considered but remain unpersuasive. Because the previously presented claims recited “comprising,” they are open-ended and do not exclude additional, unrecited features. Consequently, the term “hollow” did not inherently exclude further features from being included within the hollow region. However, per the June 8, 2026, arguments, the Applicant has expressly defined the claimed "hollow" as being entirely empty or open, rather than encapsulating internal silica structures, materials or elements. These arguments operate as a prosecution disclaimer, providing definitive context to the term. Therefore, “hollow” is now construed to exclude any further internal elements.
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, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski et al. (US 6005225 A) in view of Saido et al. (US 20170037512 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. Kowalski et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus [Figs. 1-4] comprising: a substrate support column [4] capable of supporting a plurality of substrates [Fig. 1] (Kowalski, col. 1, line 10 - col. 11, line 52; Figs. 1-28);
a heat insulator [18] provided below a substrate support region [2] of the substrate support column (Kowlaski, col. 4, lines 59 - 61; Figs. 1-4); and
a process vessel [8/10/12] in which the substrate support column and the heat insulator are accommodated [Fig. 1], wherein the heat insulator comprises: a side wall portion 55] of a cylindrical shape facing an inner wall [8] of the process vessel [Figs. 1-4]; and
PNG
media_image2.png
260
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an upper end portion facing the substrate support region and capable of closing an upper end of the side wall portion [Figs. 2-4], and wherein at least a part of a surface of the upper end portion facing the substrate support region is constituted by an upper surface portion [61] (Kowlaski, col. 5, lines 56-57 made of a first material [silicon carbide] whose thermal conductivity is higher than that of a second material [quartz] constituting the upper end of the side wall portion [col. 5, lines 55 - 56] and the substrate support column (Kowlaski, col. 8, line 29 & Figs. 2-4).
Kowlaski may be silent upon wherein the heat insulator is of a hollow structure surrounded by the side wall portion and the upper end portion. To simply omit the material filling a heat insulator in a vertical furnace would be a obvious design choice to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention. Saido teaches a hollow insulator in an analogous vertical substrate processing apparatus. As taught in ¶33 of Saido, a hollow heat insulator allows for “[a]n inside of the thermal insulating unit 68 is configured to be purged with a purge gas.” Saido teaches a thermal insulating unit below the substrate retainer, then purges that insulated space so process gas is kept away from the heater and insulation. By concentrating heat near the bottom of the wafer stack while blocking contamination, the lower region heats faster and more uniformly [0048], [0085]-[0087]. In the preferred form, purge gas is introduced near the upper portion of the insulated space so it flows downward toward the bottom, improving protection of the heater region [0043], [0081]-[0084]. Some embodiments also provide dedicated exhaust ports to remove purge gas without diluting the process region [0089]-[0101].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heat insulator of Kowalski with a hollow heat insulator, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (allowing purging through the insulate space) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 2. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate support column [4] is configured to be capable of supporting the plurality of substrates while the plurality of substrates are horizontally oriented and spaced apart from one another [Figs. 1, 22, 23].
PNG
media_image3.png
788
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 3. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an inert gas supplier [20] through which an inert gas [col. 1, line 22] is supplied between the inner wall [8]of the process vessel and the side wall portion [55] [col. 1, line 22; Figs. 1-4].
CLAIM 4. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the upper surface portion [61] is provided so as to include at least a center of the upper end portion [Figs. 2- 4].
CLAIM 5. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 4, wherein an outer edge [outer edge of 59; col. 5, lines 55 - 56] of the upper end portion is made of the second material [quartz] [col. 5, lines 55 - 56; Figs. 2-4].
CLAIM 6. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the upper surface portion [61; col. 5, lines 56 - 57] is constituted by a plate-shaped structure made of the first material [silicon carbide] [col. 5, lines 56 - 57; Figs. 2-4].
CLAIM 7. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the plate-shaped structure is detachably provided on a support structure [59+63’] provided on the upper end portion [Figs. 2- 4].
CLAIM 8. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 7, wherein the support structure [59+63’] is provided with a recess area, and the plate-shaped structure is fitted into the recess [Figs. 2- 4].
CLAIM 9. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 7, wherein the support structure is made of the second material [quartz] [col. 5, lines 55 - 56; Figs. 2-4].
CLAIM 10. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises silicon carbide [col. 5, lines 55 - 57], and the second material comprises quartz [col. 5, lines 55 - 56; col. 8, line 29].
CLAIM 13. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an inert gas supplier [20] through which an inert gas [col. 1, line 22] is supplied to at least one of an outer space of the heat insulator or an inner space of the beat insulator [Fig. 1] [col. 1, line 22; Fig. 1].
CLAIM 14. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 12, further comprising an inert gas supplier [20] through which an inert gas [col. 1, line 22] is supplied an inner space of the heat insulator [Fig. 1] [col. 1, line 22; Fig. 1] through the opening provided with the side wall portion (Kowalski as modified by Saido. Omitting the material from inside the heat insulator to allow for purging through the heat insulator will result in the recited configuration.).
CLAIM 15. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate support column [4] is vertically installed on a base structure [16] located at a lowermost portion of the heat insulator [1s] [fig. 1].
CLAIM 16. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a heater [36] provided at a position facing the substrate support region [2] and outside of the heat insulator [18] [fig. 1].
CLAIM 17. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido discloses a substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a film-forming gas supplier [20 or 28] [Fig. 1] through which a film-forming gas is supplied into the process vessel, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of a film [SiN, col. 1, line 11] deposited on the inner wall of the process vessel and the upper surface portion by supplying the film-forming gas into the process vessel is closer to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the first material [silicon carbide] than to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the second material [quartz] [col. 1, line 11; Fig. 1]. (NOTE: The recited properties and materials of the deposited film do not structurally differentiate the claimed substrate processing apparatus from the prior art apparatus, as they relate to the manner of intended operation rather than a physical modification of the apparatus itself.)
CLAIM 19. Kowalski et al. in view of Saido teaches the substrate processing apparatus of Claim 1, wherein no heater or heat insulator is accommodated inside the hollow structure (Kowalsik as modified by Saido regarding claim 1. Saido teaches that an insulator may be hollow. Consequently, there is no need to add a second heater within the interior space of the heat insulator. Notably, Kowalsik does not disclose a second heater. Simply omitting the filling material, as suggested by Saido, creates an open space that enables purging, thereby providing the known functional benefits disclosed in Saido.).
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) 12 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski et al. in view of Saido et al. in view of Hisakado et al. (US 20210147978 A1)
CLAIM 12. Kowalski in view of Saido discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, but is silent regarding the feature wherein the side wall portion of the heat insulator is provided with an opening through which an outer space of the heat insulator communicates with an inner space of the heat insulator or
Hisakado et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising a heat insulating assembly (22) that includes a heat insulator retainer (38) and a cylinder (39). Hisakado specifically teaches that the heat insulating assembly is provided with exhaust holes (37A) [¶ 0041]. According to Hisakado, a purge gas flows through the inner space of the heat insulating assembly (between the retainer 38 and the cylinder 39) and is subsequently "exhausted out of the heat insulating assembly 22 through the exhaust holes 37A" into the surrounding space (the furnace opening/process chamber) [¶ 0041]. Thus, Hisakado teaches a heat insulator side wall provided with an opening that allows the inner space of the insulator to communicate with the outer space.
PNG
media_image4.png
560
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
598
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the heat insulator side wall of Kowalski with an opening as taught by Hisakado. The motivation for this modification would be to facilitate the removal of gases from the interior of the heat insulating assembly. Applying this known technique of providing exhaust apertures in a thermal insulating structure to a known substrate processing apparatus ready for improvement yields the predictable result of preventing the accumulation of stagnant gases or contaminants within the insulating assembly and ensuring efficient purging of the furnace regions. Such a combination of known elements according to established functions is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
CLAIM 21. Kowalski in view of Saido discloses the substrate processing apparatus of Claim 14, however it may be unclear wherein the inert gas supplier is provided outside the heat insulator and is configured to supply the inert gas to a space between the inner wall of the process vessel and the side wall portion.
As demonstrated in the figures 1 of Saido and figure 1 of Hisakado, vertical processing chambers are routinely configured to allow gas be supplied to the specified relative locations. As shown in the figures, gas supply ports flow gas through the specified regions.
Specifically, the secondary reference discloses a gas supply pipe and associated fluid paths structurally arranged to introduce gas along the outer and inner sides of the central components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position and configure the inert gas supplier to flow into the designated spaces between the wall and the insulation assembly to achieve the expected fluid distribution.
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
6/19/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights