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 § 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) 1-11, 13, 15-16, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata et al. (JP 2016-181661 A) in view of Kim (KR 10-2005-0035449A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kawabata et al. teach substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 6) comprising: a reaction tube (203) provided with a protrusion (Paragraph 0024 - gas pipe 10 and/or Paragraph 0026 - exhaust pipe 231), wherein a substrate is processed in the reaction tube (Paragraph 0036); a first heater configured to heat the reaction tube (Paragraph 0023 - heater 207); a second heater configured to heat the protrusion (Paragraphs 0024, 0026 - heater 310 for the gas pipe and/or exhaust pipe); and a heat insulator provided at the protrusion (Paragraph 0010 - 315 - Also it is insulated with a stationary gas in the space 315.)
The difference between Kawabata et al. and claim 1 is that a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air.
Regarding a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air (Claim 1), Kim teach that a cover should be provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of a heater and a protrusion from an outside air. (Figs. 1-3, See Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion comprises a gas supply side protrusion disposed at a gas supply side through which a gas is supplied.
Regarding claim 2, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the protrusion comprises a gas supply side protrusion disposed at a gas supply side through which a gas is supplied. (Paragraph 0025; Fig. 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided at the gas supply side protrusion.
Regarding claim 3, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided at the gas supply side protrusion. (Paragraph 0024, Paragraph 0010; Figs. 1, 2, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided in contact with the gas supply side protrusion.
Regarding claim 4, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided in contact with the gas supply side protrusion. (Paragraph 0024, Paragraph 0010; Figs. 1, 2, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided outside the gas supply side protrusion.
Regarding claim 5, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided outside the gas supply side protrusion. (Paragraph 0024, Paragraph 0010; Figs. 1, 2, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein an inlet port is provided on the heat insulator so as to prevent contacting the gas supply side protrusion.
Regarding claim 6, Kawabata et al. teach wherein an inlet port is provided on the heat insulator so as to prevent contacting the gas supply side protrusion. (See Fig. 1, 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion comprises a gas exhaust side protrusion disposed at a gas exhaust side through which a gas is exhausted.
Regarding claim 7, Kawabata et al. teaches wherein the protrusion comprises a gas exhaust side protrusion disposed at a gas exhaust side through which a gas is exhausted. (Paragraphs 0026)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided at the gas exhaust side protrusion.
Regarding claim 8, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided at the gas exhaust side protrusion. (Paragraph 0026, Paragraph 0010; Figs. 1, 2, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided outside the gas exhaust side protrusion.
Regarding claim 9, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided outside the gas exhaust side protrusion. (Paragraph 0026, Paragraph 0010; Figs. 1, 2, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided in contact with the gas exhaust side protrusion.
Regarding claim 10, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided in contact with the gas exhaust side protrusion. (Paragraph 0026, Paragraph 0010; Figs. 1, 2, 6) DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein an outlet port is provided on the heat insulator so as to prevent contacting the gas exhaust side protrusion.
Regarding claim 11, Kawabata et al. teach wherein an outlet port is provided on the heat insulator so as to prevent contacting the gas exhaust side protrusion. (See Figs. 1, 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat insulator is provided between the protrusion and the cover.
Regarding claim 13, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the heat insulator is provided between the protrusion and the cover. (Fig. 1 - 315 between 300 and 314)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a substrate retainer configured to accommodate the substrate and one or more substrates in a multistage manner in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 15, Kawabata et al. teach a substrate retainer configured to accommodate the substrate and one or more substrates in a multistage manner in a vertical direction. (Paragraph 0019 - 217)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate and the one or more substrates are arranged in a height direction between an upper end and a lower end of the protrusion.
Regarding claim 16, Kawabata et al. teach wherein the substrate and the one or more substrates are arranged in a height direction between an upper end and a lower end of the protrusion. (See Fig. 6)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Kawabata et al. teach a substrate processing method comprising: (a) transferring a substrate into a reaction tube of a substrate processing apparatus comprising: the reaction tube provided with a protrusion, wherein the substrate is processed in the reaction tube; a first heater configured to heat the reaction tube; a second heater configured to heat the protrusion; and a heat insulator provided at the protrusion;
(b) supplying a gas onto the substrate; and
(c) processing the substrate. (Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0039-0043)
The difference between Kawabata et al. and claim 1 is that a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air.
Regarding a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air (Claim 1),
Kim teach that a cover should be provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of a heater and a protrusion from an outside air. (Figs. 1-3, See Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer, to perform a process comprising the substrate processing method of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Kawabata et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer, to perform a process comprising the substrate processing method of claim 18. (Paragraphs 0031- 0035)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Kawabata et al. teach a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: (a) transferring a substrate into a reaction tube of a substrate processing apparatus comprising: the reaction tube provided with a protrusion, wherein the substrate is processed in the reaction tube; a first heater configured to heat the reaction tube; a second heater configured to heat the protrusion; and a heat insulator provided at the protrusion;
(b) supplying a gas onto the substrate; and (c) processing the substrate. (Fig. 6; Paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0039-0043)
The difference between Kawabata et al. and claim 1 is that a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air.
Regarding a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air (Claim 1),
Kim teach that a cover should be provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of a heater and a protrusion from an outside air. (Figs. 1-3, See Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a side surface of the reaction tube provided with protrusion is positioned to face at least an entirety of a substrate processing region.
Regarding claim 21, Kawabata et al. teach wherein a side surface of the reaction tube provided with protrusion is positioned to face at least an entirety of a substrate processing region. (Fig. 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a space defined by the cover, the first heater and the protrusion is filled with the heat insulator.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kawabata et al. with Kim teach this feature.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cover is connected to a flange provided at the protrusion and to an outer wall of the first heater.
Regarding claim 23, Kim teach wherein the cover is connected to a flange provided at the protrusion. The cover used in Kawabata et al. would be indirectly connected to the heater. (See Kim and Kawabata et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kim is that it prevents air leakage or flowing into the pipe. (See Machine Translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kawabata et al. by utilizing the features of Kim because it allows for preventing air leakage or flowing into the pipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art of record does not teach a cover provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of the first heater and the protrusion from an outside air, it is argued that Kim teach that a cover should be provided to isolate a gap between an outer wall of a heater and a protrusion from an outside air. (Figs. 1-3, See Machine Translation)
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
September 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights