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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 7/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 13, 16, and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are canceled. New claims 20-24 are presented.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “vacuum thermal-insulation effect” in line 2. This term is defined by Applicant in paragraph [0022]:
Here, “having a vacuum thermal-insulation effect” means that the isolator 44 is not only made of a vacuum thermal-insulation material, which is a thermal insulation material with the interior maintained in a vacuum state, but also made of a material having an effect equivalent to the vacuum thermal-insulation material.
However, it is not clear if the claim limitation “structure with a vacuum thermal-insulation effect” requires the structure to be both made of a vacuum thermal-insulation material and made of a material having an effect equivalent to the vacuum thermal-insulation material, or if the definition means both made of a vacuum thermal-insulation material and made of a material having an effect equivalent to the vacuum thermal-insulation material and therefore requires only one or the other.
Furthermore, it is not clear what effect is required by the recitation “having an effect equivalent to the vacuum thermal-insulation material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Ridder et al. (US 2020/0365433 A1), hereafter referred to as Ridder.
Consider claim 1. Ridder teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (56) in which a substrate is processed; a plurality of substrate supports (12 and 14) configured to support the substrate; a rotatable table (16) including a plurality of supports (18 and 20) configured to support the plurality of substrate supports; and a heat conduction insulator (46) configured to suppress heat conduction between the plurality of supports.
Consider claim 2. Ridder teaches a transfer mechanism (“wafer boat lift assembly”) configured to transfer one substrate support, among the plurality of substrate supports, between the process chamber and the rotatable table.
Consider claim 3. Ridder teaches that the process chamber is located above the rotatable table (see fig. 3).
Consider claim 4. Ridder teaches that the heat conduction insulator is an isolator (46) configured to thermally isolate the plurality of substrate supports from each other.
Consider claim 5. Ridder teaches that the isolator is configured to thermally isolate at least an area, on which the substrate is mounted, of the plurality of substrate supports (see fig. 1).
Consider claim 6. Ridder teaches that the isolator is formed into a plate shape (see fig. 1).
Consider claim 7. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, Ridder teaches that the isolator has a structure with a vacuum thermal-insulation effect (isolating effect equivalent to a vacuum thermal-insulation material).
Consider claim 20. Ridder teaches that one substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is configured to support a processed substrate, and another substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is configured to support an unprocessed substrate (see paragraphs [0052]-[0065]).
Consider claims 21-23. Ridder’s heat conduction insulator is capable of performing the recited functional limitations: thermally isolating the processed substrate and the unprocessed substrate from each other, suppressing heat conduction from the processed substrate to the unprocessed substrate, and suppressing oxidation of a surface of the unprocessed substrate or growth of crystal grains on the surface of the unprocessed substrate (see fig. 1).
Consider claim 24. Ridder teaches that above the rotatable table: a first area (proximate 14 in fig. 3) where the substrate is transferred to one substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports; and a second area (proximate 12 in fig. 3) where another substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is transferred between the process chamber and the rotatable table, wherein the process chamber is located above the second area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridder (US 2020/0365433 A1) in view of Nitadori (US 2012/0270170 A1).
Consider claims 8 and 9. Ridder does not explicitly teach an inert gas supplier. Nitadori teaches an inert gas supplier (8A, 8B) provided at a rotatable table (5) and configured to supply an inert gas to a plurality of substrate supports (3A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ridder’s rotation table with an inert gas supplier as taught by Nitadori such that the inert gas supplier rotates together with the plurality of substrate supports in order to provide a cooling gas if it is desired to cool the substrates before or after processing.
Consider claim 10. Ridder teaches above the rotatable table, a first area (proximate 14 in fig. 3) where the substrate is transferred to one substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports; and a second area (proximate 12 in fig. 3) where another substrate support of the plurality of substrate supports is transferred between the process chamber and the rotatable table.
Consider claim 12. The inert gas supplier of Ridder in view of Nitadori is capable of performing the recited functional limitations: when a substrate support in the second area among the plurality of substrate supports supports an unprocessed substrate, the inert gas supplier is configured to be capable of stopping the supply of the inert gas (via 100 and V in Nitadori; see paragraph [0077]) to a substrate support in the first area until the substrate support in the second area is transferred to the process chamber. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various substrate holders having heat conduction insulators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights