Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/364,010

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Examiner
KENDALL, BENJAMIN R
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 467 resolved
-35.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
62.5%
+22.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 467 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 02/24/2026. 4. Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending. 5. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. 6. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al (US 2021/0217651) in view of Enomoto et al (US 2015/0203965) and Fujii (WO 2012/002499). 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 (rotary table, 321) rotatably provided in the vacuum chamber (311) [fig 1 & 0037]; a stage (stage, 321a) having a mounting surface (top surface of 321) on which a substrate (substrate, W) is mounted at a position spaced apart from a rotation center of the rotary table (321) [fig 1 & 0037-0038]. Taguchi does not specifically disclose a lift pin configured to be displaced relative to the stage through a through-hole of the stage to raise and lower the substrate; and a gas suctioning section configured to apply a suction force to the substrate via the through-hole when the lift pin is being lowered. Enomoto teaches a lift pin (lifting pins, 51) configured to be displaced relative to the stage (2) through a through-hole (22) of the stage (2) to raise and lower the substrate (wafer, W) [fig 1, 11-13 & 0065- 0066]; and a gas suctioning section (exhaust space, 45) configured to apply a suction force (suction path) to the substrate via the through-hole (22) when the lift pin (51) is being lowered [fig 1, 11-13 & 0065-0066, 0078]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stage of Taguchi to include a through-hole to interface with a lift pin and gas suctioning section, as in Enomoto, to prevent the substrate from floating up and from moving caused thereby in order to prevent friction between components in the vacuum chamber and the substrate. This makes it possible to reduce the generation of particles in order to prevent a decrease in the yield rate of semiconductor products manufactured [Enomoto – 0074]. Taguchi modified by Enomoto does not specifically disclose wherein the stage includes a groove on the mounting surface, the groove communicating with the through-hole and extending from the through-hole toward a center of the stage, wherein the groove includes a line segment portion linearly extending from the through-hole toward a center of the stage, an end of the line segment portion communicating with a side of the through-hole. Fujii teaches a stage (stage, 12) includes a groove (groove section, 13) on the mounting surface, the groove (groove section, 13) communicating with the through-hole (18) and extending from the through-hole toward a center of the stage (see fig 4-5) [fig 2, 4-5 & page 5, last full paragraph], wherein the groove (13) includes a line segment portion (the shape of the groove 13 is not particularly limited – a structure in which the radial groove portion 13 and the concentric groove portion 13 are combined may be adopted) linearly extending from the through-hole toward a center of the stage (see fig 5), an end of the line segment portion communicating with a side of the through-hole (18) [fig 2, 4-5 & page 7, fourth paragraph]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stage of modified Taguchi to include a groove on the mounting surface, as in Fujii, to reduce contact between the substrate and the stage thereby preventing temperature variation within the substrate surface [Fujii – paragraph spanning pages 5-6]. Regarding claims 3-4: Modified Taguchi teaches the groove (13) includes a portion communicating with the line segment portion (a structure in which the radial groove portion 13 and the concentric groove portion 13 are combined may be adopted) and forming a circle or an arc at a position spaced apart from the center of the stage (see fig 4) [fig 2, 4-5 & page 7, fourth paragraph]; and wherein the portion forming the circle or the arc is formed in an annular shape (see fig 4) [fig 2, 4-5 & page 7, fourth paragraph]. Regarding claim 5: Taguchi teaches the stage (321a) rotates relative to the rotary table (321) [fig 1 & 0038]. Regarding claims 6-7: Modified Taguchi teaches an accommodating part (62) configured to accommodate the lift pin (51) [Enomoto - fig 4 & 0053]; and a cylindrical member (57) configured to be raised together with the lift pin (51) on a back surface of the stage (back surface of the turntable 2) relative to the accommodating part (62) and to come into contact with the stage when the substrate is mounted on the stage (see fig 13) [Enomoto - fig 4, 13 & 0058, 0066], wherein the gas suctioning section (exhaust space, 45) transmits the suction force (suction path) to the through-hole (22) and the groove (13 of Fujii) via an inside of the accommodating part (62) and an inside of the cylindrical member (57) [Enomoto - fig 1, 11-13 & 0053, 0058, 0065-0066, 0078 and Fujii - fig 2, 4-5 & page 5, last full paragraph]; and wherein the gas suctioning section (45) is connected to an outer peripheral portion of the vacuum chamber (via 44) and transmits the suction force to the through-hole (22) disposed on an outer peripheral side of the rotary table (2) among a plurality of said through-holes (22) formed in the stage [Enomoto - fig 1, 11-13 & 0045, 0065-0066]. Response to Arguments 9. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that figure 12 of Fujii does not disclose the added limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Fujii does not specifically disclose the groove A or B communicates with the through-hole 18. In response, it is noted that figure 5 of Fujji specifically discloses the added limitations. Furthermore, Fujji sets forth “The shape of such a groove 13 is not particularly limited, and as shown in FIG. 4, for example, the groove 13 may be provided concentrically, or as shown in FIG. 5, for example, the groove 13 is radially provided May be used. Alternatively, a structure in which the radial groove portion 13 and the concentric groove portion 13 are combined may be adopted.” [fig 2, 4-5 & page 7, fourth paragraph]. Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harada (JP-H11297789) teaches a groove communicating with the through-hole [fig 5]. 11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. 12. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 24, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577654
MOLECULAR BEAM EPITAXY THIN FILM GROWTH APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573599
PLASMA PROCESSING DEVICE AND PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568800
CHEMICAL-DOSE SUBSTRATE DEPOSITION MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562354
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND TEMPERATURE CONTROLLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557584
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING STATION AND SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+23.8%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 467 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month