Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/483,050

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 09, 2023
Examiner
HAGEMAN, MARK C
Art Unit
3652
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
563 granted / 765 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
789
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 765 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 1-12 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 includes “: a first transfer device and a second transfer device configured to transfer the container.” This language is indefinite as it is not clear whether “configured to transfer the container” applies to both the first and second transfer devices or only the second transfer device. Clarification is necessary. Claim 4 includes “the plurality of first storage shelves is arranged side by side in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and wherein the plurality of second storage shelves is arranged side by side in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction.” This is unclear as it is not apparent how many shelves are required or what configuration of shelves is required. For instance, a plurality only requires two shelves but any two shelves can only be horizontally side by side (next to one another) or vertically side by side (one above the other) but not both. The claim has been interpreted to require at least two shelves side by side in either the horizontal or the vertical direction. If the applicant intends to require both, it should be made clear including how many shelves are necessary (at least 3 shelves would be required to have a pair side by side and another pair one above the other). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,305,818 to Kamikawa. Regarding claim 1 Kamikawa discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a loading/unloading part (20) having a first side surface (left side in figure 3) into or from which a container accommodating a substrate is loaded or unloaded and a second side (right side of 20 in figure 3) surface opposite to the first side surface; a substrate transfer part (45 and figure 2) extending in a first direction orthogonal to the second side surface; and a plurality of batch processors (41, 42 and 43, figure 4 and col. 6 lines 48-60) adjacent to each other in a length direction of the substrate transfer part (figures 2 and 4), wherein the loading/unloading part comprises: a first transfer device (104a) and a second transfer device (23a/23b) configured to transfer the container; a first area accessible to the first transfer device and having a plurality of first storage shelves configured to store the container (see figure 4 with multiples instances of 212 and 221); a second area accessible to the second transfer device and having a plurality of second storage shelves configured to store the container (see figure 8 and 24/241); and a movable shelf (212) configured to be movable between the first area and the second area. Regarding claim 2 Kamikawa discloses the first area and the second area are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction, and wherein the movable shelf is movable in the horizontal direction (see figures 7 and 8, movement of 212). Regarding claims 3, 5, 11 and 12 Kamikawa discloses a second movable shelf (section of 104b that engages pods, see figure 8) movable between the first area or the second area and another substrate processing apparatus provided adjacent to the substrate processing apparatus (transport of pod between adjacent machines, see figure 1, transfer between instances of 103 via 102). Regarding claim 4 Kamikawa discloses the plurality of first storage shelves is arranged side by side in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and wherein the plurality of second storage shelves is arranged side by side in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (see figures 4 and 5). Regarding claim 10 Kamikawa discloses the first transfer device is incapable of accessing the second area, and wherein the second transfer device is incapable of accessing the first area (see figure 8, 104a limited to 21 whereas 23a and b are limited to area inside the housing). 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. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa in view of US 11,121,014 to de Ridder. Regarding claim 6, Kamikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim except the loading/unloading part includes a third storage shelve accessible from the substrate transfer part and accommodating a dummy substrate. De Ridder teaches a substrate processing system including the loading/unloading part includes a third storage shelve accessible from the substrate transfer part and accommodating a dummy substrate (10 and col. 4 lines 25-30) in order to efficiently store dummy wafers which are used as fillers during batch processing (col 1 lines 33-35 and lines 53-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Kamikawa to include the loading/unloading part includes a third storage shelve accessible from the substrate transfer part and accommodating a dummy substrate, as taught by de Ridder, in order to efficiently store dummy wafers which are used as fillers during batch processing. Regarding claim 7 see discussion above regarding claims 3, 5, 11 and 12. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa in view of US 6,896,513 to Bachrach. Regarding claim 8, Kamikawa discloses the loading/unloading part includes a driver (215/217) configured to move the movable shelf between the first area and the second area (see figure 7), but does not disclose the driver includes a rodless cylinder. Bachrach teaches a device including a driver includes a rodless cylinder for linear motion (col. 4 lines 50-25) as one of numerous alternative forms of actuators that can be used to provide linear actuation (col. 4 lines 50-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Kamikawa to include the driver includes a rodless cylinder, as taught by Bachrach, in order to provide linear actuation. Additionally, doing so merely entails replacing one known actuator with another known actuator to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 9 see discussion above regarding claims 3, 5, 11 and 12. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited prior art show other stocker arrangements with multiple transfer devices. Specific attention is drawn to US 7,637,707 to Perlov which shows two storage/stockers with their own transfer devices connected by a separate third device (see figure 9). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST). 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. /MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595129
STATION FOR PRESENTING CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583673
AN ACCESS STATION FOR AN AUTOMATED STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577088
INDUSTRIAL TRUCK COMPRISING A LOAD FRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577046
A Load Handling Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576671
TIRE HANDLER HAVING TIRE LAY FLAT CAPABILITY
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
74%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+16.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 765 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