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 III in the reply filed on 12/18/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/18/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yukitomo (WO 2017149663).
Regarding claim 1. Yukitomo teaches in fig. 1 a substrate processing apparatus ([9 10] a substrate processing apparatus 100) comprising: a process chamber (case 102 w/ reaction tube 103 is configured as a process chamber 201 [10], same as applicant’s fig. 1) in which a plurality of substrates (wafers 200 [11] fig. 1) accommodated in a substrate retainer (held in boat 217 [11] fig. 1) are processed ([25, 29-31]); an electromagnetic wave generator (655 microwave oscillator [22]) configured to supply an electromagnetic wave into the process chamber ([22]); and a gas supplier ([19] nozzles 105) configured to supply a cooling gas (supplies N2, [19] which is used as the cooling gas [43]; it is noted the type of gas and its use are intended uses and do not structurally limit nor patentably distinguish from the prior art, MPEP 2114) to between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates (fig. 1 the gas flow is parallel along the stack of wafers in the boat and thus gas flows laminarly between and through the adjacent stacked wafers, same as applicant fig. 1 [19]) via a plurality of gas supply ports (Multiple gas supply holes 105a are provided [19]) provided so as to correspond to an interval of the plurality of substrates accommodated in the substrate retainer (as supply holes 105a are provided extending from the lower to the upper part of the reaction tube 103, i.e. encompassing the full vertical interval/extend of the stack of wafers in 217 [19] fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of the plurality of gas supply ports is set to be equal to the number of the plurality of substrates (the wafers are workpieces and not part of the apparatus structure, MPEP 2115 2114; and can be exchanged in number, size, type according to desired intended use; eg using the same number of wafers as the number of gas holes, and/or using multiple small wafers per stage if there are not enough wafers for the number of holes; the claim does not require a set number for supply ports but that they depend on an intended use, i.e. number of wafers used for processing).
Regarding claim 3. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of gas supply ports are open such that the cooling gas is capable of being supplied through the plurality of gas supply ports in a direction directed to a position deviated from a center toward an edge of each of the plurality of substrates (as disc previously, fig. 1 is same as applicant’s fig. 1, i.e. the nozzles open from left to right flowing gas through and parallel/horizontal to the wafer stack to the right, which is deviated right from the center of 103, and towards the right edge of all the wafers in the stack fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a flow velocity of the cooling gas is set to be 0.2 m/s or more and 40.0 m/s or less (there is no clear association with any apparatus structure or controller controlling apparatus structure to perform this; eg the flow velocity of the N2 gas can be set in a simulation for engineering design software, in another apparatus or part of a process recipe design calculation; as discussed previously, the cooling gas is an intended use that can be exchanged and does not structurally limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 5. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a flow rate of the cooling gas is set to be 1 slm or more and 50 slm or less (similar to the issues discussed in claim 4; further, Yukitomo teaches in fig. 5 [43] the N2 slm being 5-15 which within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller (121 [23-29]) configured to be capable of controlling a turn-on operation and a turn-off operation for the electromagnetic wave generated by the electromagnetic wave generator ([23 24 29 38 39] everything is controlled by 121, including 655 which is controlled to output microwaves in an on-off operation i.e. pulsing fig. 5ab).
Regarding claim 8. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 7, further comprising a rotator (eg shaft 255/drive mech 267 that rotate [15]) configured to rotate the plurality of substrates (fig. 1 [15]) accommodated in the substrate retainer ([15]), wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotator ([27]).
Regarding claim 9. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the electromagnetic wave generator ([27]) and the rotator ([27]) such that a cycle of the turn-on operation and the turn-off operation for the electromagnetic wave is asynchronous with a rotation of the plurality of substrates (there is no synchronization because the controlled rotation is a constant movement throughout the process with no indication of intermittent moves [35] while the controlled microwaves applied in the process [37-43] are pulsed, fig. 5a; hence the pulsed application of microwaves are asynchronous/staggered with respect to the continuous rotation).
Regarding claim 10. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave generator is provided on a side wall of the process chamber (655 on side wall of 102, fig. 1, the same as applicant fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave comprises a microwave (as disc previously [14]).
Regarding claim 12. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of gas supply ports are provided along a direction in which the plurality of substrates are accommodated in the substrate retainer (as disc in claim 1, the holes along 105 extend along the vertical direction in which 105 extends, fig. 1, also same direction as the vertically stacked in 200 in 217 fig. 1, same as applicant fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukitomo (WO 2017149663) in view of Nakashima (US 20080173238).
Regarding claim 6. Yukitomo teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a diameter of each of the plurality of gas supply ports is set to be 0.2 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less. However, Nakashima teaches in [10] that the diameter of the gas supply holes in a gas nozzle 26 affects the flow rate of the process gas and gas pressure differences among the holes, and thus is a result effective variable. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the diameter of the plurality of gas supports to control the flow rate of the process gas and gas pressure differences among the holes. For optimization of result effective variables/parameters, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718