DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 02/03/2026.
4. Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
5. Claim 6 has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al (US 2021/0217651).
Regarding claim 1:
Taguchi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (film deposition apparatus, 300) [fig 1 & 0021] comprising: a vacuum chamber (vacuum chamber, 311) [fig 1 & 0022]; a rotary table (321/610/620) rotatably provided in the vacuum chamber (311) [fig 1, 6 & 0037, 0075, 0080]; a stage (321a/510/520) that has a rotation center at a position spaced apart from a rotation center of the rotary table and that is rotatable relative to the rotary table (configured to be rotatable with respect to the rotary table) [fig 1, 5B & 0037-0038, 0052, 0059]; and a support (550 or 650) configured to support at least either the rotary table (321/610/620) or the stage (321a/510/520), the support (550 or 650) having a thermal expansion coefficient (made of a metallic material) greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the rotary table or the stage (made of a material such as quartz or a ceramic) that is supported [fig 5B, 6 & 0050, 0062, 0066, 0073, 0082, 0086], wherein the rotary table (321/610/620) or the stage (321a/510/520) includes a protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) that protrudes toward the support (550 or 650) [fig 5B, 6 & 0050, 0066, 0073, 0086], wherein the support (550 or 650) includes a base portion (portion of 552 or 652 radially inward of outer wall of 510 or 610, respectively) that supports the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520), an insertion portion (551 or 651) that protrudes from a center of the base portion (portion of 552 or 652 radially inward of outer wall of 510 or 610, respectively) and that is inserted into the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520), and an outer edge protruding portion (portion of 552 or 652 radially outward of outer wall of 510 or 610, respectively) that protrudes from the base portion (portion of 552 or 652 radially inward of outer wall of 510 or 610, respectively) outside an outer circumferential surface of the protruding portion (outside wall of 510 or 610) [fig 5B, 6 & 0067-0068, 0087-0088], an outer clearance (see annotated fig 6) formed between the outer edge protruding portion (portion of 552 or 652 radially outward of outer wall of 510 or 610, respectively) and the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) and an inner clearance (G12 or G22) formed between the insertion portion (551 or 651) and the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) [fig 5B, 6 & 0067, 0087].
PNG
media_image1.png
274
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Taguchi fails to explicitly disclose “wherein an outer clearance formed between the outer edge protruding portion and the protruding portion is set to be smaller than an inner clearance formed between the insertion portion and the protruding portion at a first temperature, and the outer clearance becomes greater than the inner clearance at a second temperature higher than the first temperature”.
However, as set forth above, it is known in the art to use an outer clearance and an inner clearance. Furthermore, Taguchi teaches clearances (e.g. 0.1 to 5.0 mm) may be used to absorb a thermal expansion difference to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [0060-0061, 0069-0070, 0081-0082, 0089-0090]. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary, through routine experimentation, the dimensions of the outer clearance and inner clearance in order to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [Taguchi - 0069-0070, 0089-0090]. Further, the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the claimed relationship between the outer clearance and the inner clearance. It has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2:
The claim limitations “wherein the first temperature is in a range of 20°C to 40°C, and wherein the second temperature is in a range of 300°C to 600° C” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3:
Taguchi teaches the inner clearance (G12 or G22) is in a range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm (e.g. 0.1 to 5.0 mm) [fig 5B, 6 & 0060, 0081].
Taguchi fails to explicitly disclose “the outer clearance is in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm”.
However, Taguchi teaches clearances (e.g. 0.1 to 5.0 mm) may be used to absorb a thermal expansion difference to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [0060-0061, 0069-0070, 0081-0082, 0089-0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the clearance dimensions disclosed in Taguchi as suitable dimensions for the outer clearance in order to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [Taguchi - 0069-0070, 0089-0090].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4:
Taguchi teaches the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) is made of a ceramic (made of a material such as ceramic), and wherein the support (550 or 650) is made of a metal (made of a metallic material) [fig 5B, 6 & 0062, 0066, 0082, 0086].
Regarding claim 5:
Taguchi teaches the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) is sandwiched between a connection member (530 or 630) fixed to the insertion portion (551 or 651) and the base portion (portion of 552 or 652 radially inward of outer wall of 510 or 610, respectively), so that the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) is sandwiched in an axial direction of the protruding portion (610/620 or 510/520) [fig 5B, 6 & 0059, 0080].
9. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al (US 2021/0217651) as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Sato (US 6,074,696).
The limitations of claims 1-5 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 6:
Taguchi does not specifically teach the outer clearance is formed between an inner circumferential surface of the outer edge protruding portion and the outer circumferential surface of the protruding portion.
Sato teaches an outer clearance is formed between an inner circumferential surface of the outer edge protruding portion and the outer circumferential surface of the protruding portion (see annotated figure 1) [fig 1].
PNG
media_image2.png
719
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the outer edge protruding portion of Taguchi with the shape of Sato (resulting in the outer clearance being formed as claimed) because such a shape is known to effectively be used as an outer edge protruding portion [Sato – fig 1]. As such, this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Taguchi does not teach or suggest the space between the penetration portion 522 and the first holder 510 is used to prevent stress.
In response, it is noted that such is obvious in view of the teachings of Taguchi. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Specifically, Taguchi teaches clearances (e.g. 0.1 to 5.0 mm) may be used to absorb a thermal expansion difference to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [0060-0061, 0069-0070, 0081-0082, 0089-0090]. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary, through routine experimentation, the dimensions of the outer clearance and inner clearance in order to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [Taguchi - 0069-0070, 0089-0090].
Applicant argues that Taguchi fails to teach or suggest varying dimensions in consideration of temperature.
It is noted that this is an apparatus claim and must be differentiated from the prior art in terms of structure. The materials of Taguchi which form the outer and inner clearances are the same materials as the instant application. If the prior art discloses the same materials as in the instant application, it is regarded as having the same properties and would meet the limitations of the claim despite not explicitly disclosing said properties (i.e. expansion and contraction due to temperature change). See MPEP 2112.01 as well as: In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp. V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant argues that the claimed relationship between the outer clearance and the inner clearance is critical.
In response, it is noted that applicant fails to establish that the claimed relationship is critical because applicant fails to establish that the claimed relationship achieves unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.05(III)(A)]. Specifically, applicant has failed to establish that the results are different, let alone unexpected, relative to the disclosed ranges of Taguchi [MPEP 716.02(e)]. As set forth in the body of the rejection above, Taguchi teaches clearances (e.g. 0.1 to 5.0 mm) may be used to absorb a thermal expansion difference to prevent generation of stress between adjacent structures [0060-0061, 0069-0070, 0081-0082, 0089-0090]. Therefore, it would be obvious to select any value of 0.1 to 5.0 mm for both the outer clearance and the inner clearance. One such value is an outer clearance of 0.1 mm and an inner clearance of 0.2 mm. According to applicant’s own disclosure, these values achieve the claimed relationship between the outer clearance and the inner clearance [see instant claim 3].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang (US 2016/0091014) teaches an outer edge protruding portion [fig 6B].
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896