DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 05/13/2026 without traverse of Group I, species I-2, claims 1-4 & 6-7 for further examination. Claims 5 & 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 & 07/10/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-4 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 2, line 5 recites the limitation “the valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the valve” as “a valve”. To correct this problem, amend line 5 to recite “a valve”.
As regards to claim 2, line 6 recites the limitation “the degree”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the degree” as “a degree”. To correct this problem, amend line 6 to recite “a degree”.
As regards to claim 2, line 8 recites the limitation “the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the temperature” as “a temperature”. To correct this problem, amend line 8 to recite “a temperature”.
As regards to claim 2, line 10 recites the limitation “the setting temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the setting temperature” as “a setting temperature”. To correct this problem, amend line 10 to recite “a setting temperature”.
As regards to claim 3, line 3 recites the limitation “the valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the valve” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 2, line 5 to recite “a valve”.
As regards to claim 3, line 3 recites the limitation “the degree”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the degree” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 2, line 6 to recite “a degree”.
As regards to claim 3, line 4 recites the limitation “the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the temperature” as “a temperature”. To correct this problem, amend line 4 to recite “a temperature”.
As regards to claim 4, line 3 recites the limitation “the valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the valve” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 2, line 5 to recite “a valve”.
As regards to claim 4, line 4 recites the limitation “the degree”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the degree” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 2, line 6 to recite “a degree”.
As regards to claim 4, line 4 recites the limitation “the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the temperature” as “a temperature”. To correct this problem, amend line 4 to recite “a temperature”.
Claim 6 is rejected at least based on dependency from claim 2.
As regards to claim 7, line 3 recites the limitation “the valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the valve” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 2, line 5 to recite “a valve”.
As regards to claim 7, line 4 recites the limitation “the degree”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the degree” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 2, line 6 to recite “a degree”.
Claim Rejections
7. 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 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.
8. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-4 & 6-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (US 2021/0074574 A1) hereinafter Ji (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Ji are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Ji discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-10B), comprising:
a process chamber (20) having a reaction space (see fig 9) formed therein ([0008]-[0009]; [0036]; [0046]; [0090]; [0092]-[0093]; [0095]; [0097]-[0098]; fig 2, 9-10B);
a substrate support (100) installed in the reaction space (see fig 9) to support a plurality of substrates (S), the substrate support (100) comprising a susceptor plate (180), a plurality of vacuum holes ([0030]: plural vacuum holes H1) formed in a top surface of the susceptor plate (180), and a vacuum line (110) connecting the plurality of vacuum holes ([0030]: plural vacuum holes H1) to an external pump (160) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]-[0030]; [0032]; [0034]; [0036]-[0055]; [0096]; fig 2, 9-10B);
a heater (130) disposed below the susceptor plate (180) within the process chamber (20) to heat the substrates (S) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]-[0030]; [0032]; [0034]; [0036]-[0057]; [0096]-[0098]; fig 2, 9-10B);
a gas injector (170) comprising a plurality of gas injection units (pipes branching from 120) disposed radially to face the substrate support (100) to inject process gas into the reaction space (see fig 9) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0037]; [0039]; [0048]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]-[0098]; [0102]; fig 2, 9-10B); and
a controller (190) configured to adjust a chucking force on the substrates (S) according to a type of gas supplied ([0048]-[0049]: gas supply 170 may provide the bottom gas of different concentrations to the gas hole H3 according to a command of the controller 190, the command taking into account a type of a substrate processing process… controller 190 may select a vacuum pressure (e.g., as part of its programming), and the vacuum pump 160 may provide the selected vacuum pressure (a selected vacuum pressure from vacuum pressures of different magnitudes) to the vacuum hole H1 and the vacuum groove H2, according to a command of the controller 190 (e.g., the command taking into account a type of a substrate processing process or a degree of warpage of the substrate S). The vacuum pressure may be adjusted by the controller 190) through the gas injector (170) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0041]; [0047]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]; fig 2, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “wherein when depositing different thin films using heterogeneous precursor gases having non-overlapping windows, the controller controls the chucking force on the substrates differently by operating, in an On or Off state, a valve that regulates a degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate before supplying the precursor gas, so as to differently adjust the temperature of the substrates depending on the type of the precursor gas corresponding to the thin film while maintaining the setting temperature of the heater”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Ji since Ji meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of when depositing different thin films using heterogeneous precursor gases having non-overlapping windows, having the controller control the chucking force on the substrates differently by operating, in an On or Off state, a valve that regulates a degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate before supplying the precursor gas, so as to differently adjust the temperature of the substrates depending on the type of the precursor gas corresponding to the thin film while maintaining the setting temperature of the heater, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Ji discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-10B), wherein when depositing different thin films using heterogeneous precursor gases having non-overlapping ALD windows, the controller (190) is capable of controlling the chucking force on the substrates (S) differently by operating, in an On or Off state, a valve that regulates a degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate (180) before supplying the precursor gas, so as to differently adjust the temperature of the substrates (S) depending on the type of the precursor gas corresponding to the thin film while maintaining the setting temperature of the heater (130) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0041]; [0047]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]; fig 2, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “wherein the controller operates, in the On state, the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate to maintain the temperature of the substrates within a first ALD window, before supplying a first precursor gas through the gas injector to deposit a first thin film”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Ji since Ji meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the controller operate, in the On state, with the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate to maintain the temperature of the substrates within a first ALD window, before supplying a first precursor gas through the gas injector to deposit a first thin film, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 3, Ji discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-10B), wherein the controller (190) is capable of operating, in the On state, the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate (180) to maintain the temperature of the substrates (S) within a first ALD window, before supplying a first precursor gas through the gas injector (170) to deposit a first thin film ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0041]; [0047]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]; fig 2, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “wherein the controller operates, in the Off state, the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate to maintain the temperature of the substrates within a second ALD window that does not overlap with the first ALD window, before supplying a second precursor gas through the gas injector to deposit a second thin film”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Ji since Ji meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the controller operate, in the Off state, the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate to maintain the temperature of the substrates within a second ALD window that does not overlap with the first ALD window, before supplying a second precursor gas through the gas injector to deposit a second thin film, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 4, Ji discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-10B), wherein the controller (190) is capable of operating, in the Off state, the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate (180) to maintain the temperature of the substrates (S) within a second ALD window that does not overlap with the first ALD window, before supplying a second precursor gas through the gas injector (170) to deposit a second thin film ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0041]; [0047]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]; fig 2, 9-10B).
As regards to claim 6, Ji discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-10B), wherein the susceptor plate (180) comprises a plurality of gas supply holes (holes/openings of pipes branching from 120) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0037]; [0039]; [0048]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]-[0098]; [0102]; fig 2, 9-10B).
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “wherein when the controller operates the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate in the On or Off state, purge gas is supplied through the plurality of gas supply holes”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Ji since Ji meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of wherein when the controller operates the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate in the On or Off state, supplying purge gas through the plurality of gas supply holes, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 7, Ji discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-10B), wherein when the controller (190) is capable of operating the valve that regulates the degree of vacuum in the susceptor plate (180) in the On or Off state, purge gas is capable of supplied through the plurality of gas supply holes (holes/openings of pipes branching from 120) ([0008]-[0009]; [0027]; [0037]; [0039]; [0048]-[0049]; [0052]-[0055]; [0096]-[0098]; [0102]; fig 2, 9-10B).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights