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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 10, the word “accordion-like” is indefinite. What is the definite shape? Geometric wording would help to define it better such as pleats, bellows, etc.
Claim 8, line 2, the word “accordion-like” is indefinite. What is the definite shape? Geometric wording would help to define it better such as pleats, bellows, etc.
Claim 9, line 3, “extremely” lacks basis for comparison.
Claim 9, line 3, “low” lacks basis for comparison.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0135434 A1) in view of The Engineering ToolBox (2003). Emissivity Coefficients of Common Materials: Data & Reference Guide. [online] Available at: ttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d 447.html and Ma et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0306532 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawasai et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a processing container (Fig. 1 - 10); a stage having an electrostatic chuck that attracts and holds a substrate inside the processing container (Paragraph 0040 - stage 56, electrostatic chuck 56a, chuck electrode 56b), the stage being configured to be rotatable (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0056, 0058, 0059); a refrigerator arranged at a lower side of the stage and configured to cool the electrostatic chuck while being in contact with or separated from the stage (Paragraph 0032 - chiller 52), a lift configured to vertically move the refrigerator (Paragraph 0109); and a peripheral plate provided around the refrigerator and coated with a material (Figs. 5-7. Especially Fig. 6 showing the peripheral plate 582 with coating of aluminum; Paragraph 0090 - Aluminum may be preferably used as the radiant heat shield 587 Alternatively, a base made of resin or the like on which aluminum is deposited or to which an aluminum foil is attached may be used as the radiant heat shield 587. The radiant heat shield 587 may be formed by directly depositing, e.g., aluminum on the outer pipe 582 or directly attaching, e.g., an aluminum foil to the outer pipe 582.)
The difference between Nakagawasai et al. and claim 1 is that wherein the peripheral plate is an accordion-like or cylindrical structure arranged to surround a space between the refrigerator and the stage to define a thermal barrier is not discussed (Claim 1), the peripheral plate is configured to block radiative heat transfer from an external space of the peripheral plate to the refrigerator during cooling of the stage is not discussed (Claim 1) and the material having lower emissivity than a base material of the peripheral member is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding wherein the peripheral plate is an accordion-like or cylindrical structure arranged to surround a space between the refrigerator and the stage to define a thermal barrier (Claim 1), Nakagawasai et al. discussed above teach a cylindrical radiant heat shield 587 which serves as a thermal barrier. (Paragraph 0090; Figs. 5-7) The radiant heat shield 587 can be structured as shown in the diagram based on the description from paragraph 0090.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the peripheral plate is configured to block radiative heat transfer from an external space of the peripheral plate to the refrigerator during cooling of the stage (Claim 1), the aluminum of the shield 587 blocks radiant heat.
Regarding the material having lower emissivity than a base material of the peripheral member (Claim 1), Nakagawasai et al. teach utilizing a coating of aluminum or foil on a base material of resin attached to the peripheral plate. (See Nakagawasai et al. discussed above)
The Engineering ToolBox (2003) teach that aluminum foil has an emissivity of 0.04. (Table)
Ma et al. teach that an aluminum coating (i.e. evaporated aluminum film) has an emissivity of 0.03. (See Table 1)
The Engineering ToolBox (2003) teach that resins such as plastics, polypropylene, PTFE, polyethylene, PVC have emissivity ranging from 0.90-0.97.
Based on these teachings the Aluminum has a lower emissivity than Resins and in Nakagawasai et al. that would mean that the limitation of the claim would be met because the material (i.e. deposited aluminum) has a lower emissivity than a base material (i.e. resin) of the peripheral member.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the peripheral plate is a cylindrical shield adjacent to the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawasai et al. teach in Figs. 5-7 the peripheral plate is a cylindrical shield adjacent to the refrigerator. (See Fig. 5-7)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a rotator configured to rotate the stage; and a stand provided between the rotator and the stage and configured to transmit rotation of the rotator to the stage, wherein the peripheral plate is a cylindrical shield surrounding an inner periphery and/or an outer periphery of the stand.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawasai et al. a rotator configured to rotate the stage (Fig. 1 - 68); and a stand (Fig. 5 - 581) provided between the rotator (Fig. 1 - 68) and the stage (Fig. 1 - 58) and configured to transmit rotation of the rotator to the stage, wherein the peripheral plate (Fig. 5 - 582) is a cylindrical shield surrounding an inner periphery and/or an outer periphery of the stand (Fig. 5 -581).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the coating on the peripheral plate is configured to reduce a recovery time required for the temperature of the stage to return to a set extremely low temperature after processing of a substrate.
Regarding claim 9, since Nakagawasai et al. teach utilizing aluminum as the reflective material it would reduce the time to reach a temperature. (See Nakagawasai et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of The Engineering ToolBox and Ma et al. is that it allows controlling the emissivity of the materials utilized. (See Engineering ToolBox Title and Ma et al. Table 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Nakagawasai et al. by utilizing the teachings of The Engineering ToolBox and Ma et al. because it allows controlling the emissivity of the materials utilized.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. '434 in view of Engineering ToolBox and Ma et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Canon Anelva Corp. (GB 2477446).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the material having lower emissivity than the base material of the peripheral plate is gold.
Regarding claim 2, Canon Anelva Corp. teach utilizing gold as a way to prevent temperature increase. (Paragraph 0049, line 16)
Nakagawasai et al. already teach using aluminum for preventing temperature increase. (See Nakagawasai et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Canon Anelva Corp. is that it prevents temperature increase. (Paragraph 0049, line 16)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have replaced the aluminum of Nakagawasai et al. with gold as suggested by Canon Anelva Corp because both films prevent temperature increase and would be equivalent for performing that capability.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. '434 in view of Engineering ToolBox and Ma et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Nakagawasai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0131625 A1) and Okada (JP 2000-291799).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the peripheral plate is a bellows surrounding a periphery of the refrigerator and further metes the emissivity requirements.
Regarding claim 3:
Nakagawasai et al. '434 teach a bellows surrounding the periphery of the refrigerator. (See Fig. 10; Paragraph 0104)
Nakagawasai et al. '625 teach providing radiant film such as aluminum on the bellows. (Paragraph 0082, Fig. 6)
Okada teaches that bellows can be made of SUS301 (i.e. stainless steel). (See Abstract) Engineering ToolBox teaches that SUS301 has an emissivity of 0.54-0.63. (See Table) Ma et al. teach that an aluminum coating (i.e. evaporated aluminum film) has an emissivity of 0.03. (See Table 1)
Aluminum film has a lower emissivity than SUS301.
Therefore the combination of these references suggest the claimed subject matter.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bellows is provided between a lower surface of the stage and a bottom surface of the processing container.
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawasai et al. '434 teach wherein the bellows is provided between a lower surface of the stage and a bottom surface of the processing container. (See Fig. 10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the peripheral plate is a bellows having an accordion-like structure that expands and contracts in response to the vertical movement of the refrigerator by the lift to continuously surround a space between the refrigerator and the stage.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above the peripheral plate can be a bellow with an aluminum coating. (See discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nakagawasai et al. '625 is that it allows for heat shielding. (Paragraph 0082)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Okada is that it allows for a bellows that is durable. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Nakagawasai et al. '625 and Okada because it allows for providing a heat shield bellows with durability.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawasai et al. '434 in view of Engineering ToolBox and Ma et al. and further in view of Nakagawasai et al. '625 and Okada (JP 2000-291799) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Tashiro et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2019/103301 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a rotator configured to rotate the stage, wherein the bellows is provided between a fixing part that fixes the rotator and a refrigerator support that supports the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 7, Tashiro et al. teaches further comprising a rotator configured to rotate the stage (Paragraph 0020), wherein the bellows (Paragraph 0023 - item 7) is provided between a fixing part (21a) that fixes the rotator (Paragraph 0020 - item 25) and a refrigerator support that supports the refrigerator ((Fig. 1 - item 6)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tashiro et al. is that it allows for a workpiece holder that has coolant tight construction. (Paragraph 0004)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Tashiro et al. because it allows for a workpiece holder that has coolant tight construction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach wherein the peripheral plate is an accordion-like or cylindrical structure arranged to surround a space between the refrigerator and the stage to define a thermal barrier, the peripheral plate configured to block radiative heat transfer from an external space of the peripheral plate to the refrigerator during cooling of the stage and the material having lower emissivity than a base material of the peripheral member, it is argued that Nakagawasai et al. teach a cylindrical radiant heat shield 587 which serves as a thermal barrier. (Paragraph 0090; Figs. 5-7) The radiant heat shield 587 can be structured as shown in the diagram based on the description from paragraph 0090.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The peripheral plate is configured to block radiative heat transfer from an external space of the peripheral plate to the refrigerator during cooling of the stage. The aluminum of the shield 587 blocks radiant heat.
Nakagawasai et al. teach utilizing a coating of aluminum or foil on a base material of resin attached to the peripheral plate. (See Nakagawasai et al. discussed above)
The Engineering ToolBox (2003) teach that aluminum foil has an emissivity of 0.04. (Table)
Ma et al. teach that an aluminum coating (i.e. evaporated aluminum film) has an emissivity of 0.03. (See Table 1)
The Engineering ToolBox (2003) teach that resins such as plastics, polypropylene, PTFE, polyethylene, PVC have emissivity ranging from 0.90-0.97.
Based on these teachings the Aluminum has a lower emissivity than Resins and in Nakagawasai et al. that would mean that the limitation of the claim would be met because the material (i.e. deposited aluminum) has a lower emissivity than a base material (i.e. resin) of the peripheral member.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach utilizing a bellows as the radiant heat shield, Nakagawasai et al. '434 teach a bellows surrounding the periphery of the refrigerator. (See Fig. 10; Paragraph 0104) Nakagawasai et al. '625 teach providing radiant film such as aluminum on the bellows. (Paragraph 0082, Fig. 6)
Okada teaches that bellows can be made of SUS301 (i.e. stainless steel). (See Abstract) Engineering ToolBox teaches that SUS301 has an emissivity of 0.54-0.63. (See Table) Ma et al. teach that an aluminum coating (i.e. evaporated aluminum film) has an emissivity of 0.03. (See Table 1)
Aluminum film has a lower emissivity than SUS301.
Therefore the combination of these references suggest a bellows as a heat shield.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights