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 RCE dated 04/28/2026.
4. Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending.
5. Claim 1 has been amended.
6. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
7. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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), Fujii (WO 2012/002499), and Sheydayi et al (US 2004/0154647).
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].
Taguchi modified by Enomoto and Fujii does not specifically disclose a depth of the groove is longer than a width of the groove.
Sheydayi teaches a depth of the groove (vacuum groove 104 preferably has a minimum depth of 0.050 inch) is longer than a width of the groove (width range of 0.010-0.030 inches) [fig 1A-2 & 0019].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the groove of modified Taguchi with the dimensions of Sheydayi because said dimensions are effective for a vacuum groove to suction a substrate to the stage [Sheyfayi - 0019].
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) [Fujii - 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) [Fujii - 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
10. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 3-7 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Sheydayi et al (US 2004/0154647) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
11. 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].
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
Prosecution Insights