CTNF 18/383,637 CTNF 72022 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5, 6 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: https://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 the material having lower emissivity than a base material of the peripheral member is not discussed. 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 Fig. 5 the peripheral plate is a cylindrical shield adjacent to the refrigerator. (See Fig. 5) 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). 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 . 07-22-aia AIA 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 claim s 1, 5, 6 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 4 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 claim s 1, 5, 6 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) 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) 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 . 07-22-aia AIA 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 claim s 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 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. Conclusion 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 February 19, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 3 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 4 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 5 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 6 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 7 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 8 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/383,637 Page 9 Art Unit: 1794