Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/375,958

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS, SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 02, 2023
Examiner
WILSON, GREGORY A
Art Unit
3762
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
965 granted / 1181 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1210
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1181 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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) 21-25, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (7,980,003) in view of Kumar et al (2017/0009346). Aoki et al discloses a substrate processing apparatus (CHP) including a heat processing unit (120) configured to perform a heat process on a substrate having a film formed on the substrate (column 13, line 67 – column 14, line 5) wherein the heat processing unit includes a heater (121) configured to support and heat the substrate (SEE Figure 7); a chamber (123) configured to cover the substrate supported on the heater; a gas ejector (d) having a head (133) in which a plurality of ejection holes (133a) scattered along a surface facing the substrate supported on the heater is formed, and configured to eject a gas from the plurality of ejection holes toward a surface of the substrate (SEE Figure 7 and column 12, lines 6-23); an exhauster (135, 151) configured to evacuate a processing space inside the chamber (column 12, lines 36-37). Aoki et al does not specifically provide further detail with regards to the gas being ejected toward the substrate, specifically being mixed, however, Kumar et al teaches that it is commonly known in the art that during processing of a substrate wherein a process gas is provided to the surface of a substrate being supported on a heated pedestal and the process gas is supplied via a showerhead (102), that the gas is an adjusted gas generated by mixing one component and another component and adjusted such that a concentration of the one component becomes a predetermined value (SEE for example [0047] & [0088]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the applicants claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains to have modified the gas ejector of Aoki et al such that gas provided to the substrate from the showerhead was a gas that was adjusted by the mixing of multiple gases resulting in a concentration of one of the gases to a predetermined value as was commonly known in the art as taught by Kumar et al and arrived at the applicants claimed invention for the purpose of accommodating the state of the substrate (or the film on the substrate) being processed. In re claim 22, Aoki et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Kumar et al teaches that the one component is oxygen (SEE [0047]). In re claim 23, Aoki et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Aoki et al further discloses that when the heat process is performed, the chamber forms a communication portion (141) connecting the processing space and an external space (151a) of the chamber. In re claim 24, Aoki et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Aoki et al further discloses that the exhauster is an outer peripheral exhauster (151) (SEE Figure 7) configured to evacuate the processing space inside the chamber from an outer peripheral region located further outward than a peripheral edge of the substrate supported on the heater. In re claim 25, Aoki et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Kumar et al teaches the use of a gas supply unit (200A) configured to generate the adjusted gas by mixing a first gas containing the one component (202) and a second gas containing the another component (218), and to supply the adjusted gas to the gas ejector, wherein the gas supply unit is arranged in a separate space partitioned from a space in which the heat processing unit is arranged (SEE Figures 2A, 2B and 6 of Kumar et al). In re claim 28, Aoki et al as modified by Kumar et al would result in a structure capable of carrying out the method of the applicants claimed invention including a substrate processing method having the steps of performing a heat process on a substrate (W) having a film formed on the substrate (120 of Aoki et al), wherein the performing the heat process on the substrate comprises: causing the substrate to be supported on and heated by a heater (121) in a state in which the substrate is covered by a chamber (123); evacuating a processing space inside the chamber (via 135, 151); and ejecting a gas toward a surface of the substrate from a plurality of ejection holes scattered along a surface facing the substrate supported on the heater (via showerhead “d”). Aoki et al does not specifically provide further detail with regards to the gas being ejected toward the substrate, specifically being mixed, however, Kumar et al teaches that it is commonly known in the art that during processing of a substrate wherein a process gas is provided to the surface of a substrate being supported on a heated pedestal and the process gas is supplied via a showerhead (102), that the gas is an adjusted gas generated by mixing one component and another component and adjusted such that a concentration of the one component becomes a predetermined value (SEE for example [0047] & [0088]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the applicants claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains to have modified the gas ejector of Aoki et al such that gas provided to the substrate from the showerhead was a gas that was adjusted by the mixing of multiple gases resulting in a concentration of one of the gases to a predetermined value as was commonly known in the art as taught by Kumar et al and arrived at the applicants claimed invention for the purpose of accommodating the state of the substrate (or the film on the substrate) being processed. In re claim 29, Aoki et al as modified by Kumar et al would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Aoki et al further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes an apparatus to execute the substrate processing method of Claim 28 (SEE column 2, lines 23-26). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 26 & 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Al-Bayati et al (2005/0136604) in [0167] & Figure 12 and Kang et al (9,287113) in Figure 6, also teach that the gas being provided by the showerhead to a substrate, first being adjusted by mixing multiple gases such that a concentration of one of the gas components becomes a predetermined value is not novel. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm. 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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. /GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 November 20, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 02, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595965
CHILLING UNIT, HEAT TREATMENT APPARATUS INCLUDING SAME, AND HEAT TREATMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595962
CATHODE MATERIAL DRYING DEVICE AND CATHODE MATERIAL DRYING PRODUCTION LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595906
THERMAL REGENERATIVE FLUID PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584655
Pressure Water Heater
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578743
COOLING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DECOATERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+6.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1181 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