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 § 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, 7, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2017/0372926 A1). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus (Figs. 2-7) comprising: a heating plate heating a substrate (Paragraph 00 71 – 810) ; a cover module covering the top of the heating plate (Paragraphs 0070, 0072 – 864) ; an intake module introducing external air into an internal space formed by the cover module (Paragraphs 0078-0080) ; an exhaust module discharging the air introduced into the internal space to the outside (Paragraph 0082) wherein at least one of the intake module and the exhaust module controls airflow in the internal space (Paragraph 0079). DEPENDENT CLAIM 7: Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teach wherein at least one of the intake module and the exhaust module controls the airflow in the internal space when adjusting a thickness of an insulating film formed on the substrate. (Paragraph 0009, 0080) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17: Regarding claim 17, Semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising: a plurality of process chambers of different types (Figs. 2-7) , wherein the plurality of process chambers include a process chamber of one type, which is a first substrate treating apparatus that performs heat treatment on a substrate (Fig. 7, Paragraphs 0071-0082) and a process chamber of another type, which is a second substrate treating apparatus that performs a development process on the substrate (Paragraphs 0049, 0051, 0052, 0054) , the first substrate treating apparatus includes a heating plate heating a substrate (Paragraph 0071 -810) , a cover module covering the top of the heating plate (Paragraphs 0070, 0072 -864) , an intake module introducing external air into an internal space formed by the cover module (Paragraphs 0078-0080) , and an exhaust module discharging the air introduced into the internal space to the outside (Paragraph 0082) , and at least one of the intake module and the exhaust module controls airflow in the internal space (Paragraph 0079). DEPENDENT CLAIM 18: Regarding claim 18, wherein the first substrate treating apparatus further includes a cooling unit including a cooling plate and cooling the substrate and a transfer unit transferring the substrate between the heating plate and the cooling plate. (Paragraph 0025, 0057) 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) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2017/0372926 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220062205 A). DEPENDENT CLAIM 2: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls an inflow amount of air, the exhaust module controls an outflow amount of air, and the airflow in the internal space is controlled based on the inflow and outflow amounts of air. Regarding claim 2: Kim et al. teach an intake module controls an inflow amount of air. (Paragraphs 0078-0080) Lee et al. teach an exhaust module for controlling an outflow amount of air. The airflow in the internal space is controlled based on the inflow and the outflow amounts of air. (Paragraphs 0065-0069) DEPENDENT CLAIM 3: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls the inflow amount of air differently from the outflow amount of air. Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. teach wherein the intake module controls the inflow amount of air differently from the outflow amount of air. (Paragraphs 0065-0069) DEPENDENT CLAIM 4: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls the inflow amount of air to be greater than the outflow amount of air. Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach the intake module control the inflow amount and is capable of to control to be greater than the outflow amount of air. (Paragraphs 0065-0069) DEPENDENT CLAIM 5: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls the inflow amount of air to be less than the outflow amount of air. Regarding claim 5 , Kim et al. teach the intake module control the inflow amount and is capable of to control to be less than the outflow amount of air. (Paragraphs 0065-0069) DEPENDENT CLAIM 6: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls the inflow amount of air for each area of the substrate. Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teach the intake module controls the inflow amount of air for each area of the substrate. (Paragraphs 0078-0080) The motivation for utilizing the features of Lee et al. is that it allows for improving the etch rate. (Paragraphs 0068-0069) 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 Lee et al. because it allows for improving the etch rate. . Claim (s) 8 -13 , 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2017/0372926 A1) in view of Otsuka et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0118707 A1). DEPENDENT CLAIM 8: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module and the exhaust module control inflow and outflow amounts of air independently. Regarding claim 8: Kim et al. teach an intake module to control inflow. (Paragraphs 0078-0080) Otsuka et al. teach an outflow module to control outflow. (Paragraphs 0079-0080) Therefore it would be obvious to provide both intake and exhaust modules to control inflow and outflow as suggested by Kim et al. and Otsuka et al. because it allows for improving uniformity thickness of a film. (Otsuka et al. Paragraph 0180) DEPENDENT CLAIM 9: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the exhaust module includes a plurality of air exhaust holes, which guide external air into the internal space, the air exhaust holes are divided by area. Regarding claim 9, Otsuka et al. teach wherein the exhaust module includes a plurality of air exhaust holes, which guide external air into the internal space, the air exhaust holes are divided by area. (Figs. 4, 14) DEPENDENT CLAIM 10: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the air exhaust holes are divided among a plurality of areas that are divided either radially or based on their distance from a center. Regarding claim 10, Otsuka et al. teach wherein the air exhaust holes are divided among a plurality of areas that are divided either radially or based on their distance from a center. (Figs. 4, 14) DEPENDENT CLAIM 11: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls an inflow amount of air differently for different areas of the substrate, using the air exhaust holes. Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. teach wherein the intake module controls an inflow amount of air differently for different areas of the substrate, using the air exhaust holes. (Paragraph 0078-0080) DEPENDENT CLAIM 12: The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of exhaust modules are provided, and the plurality of exhaust modules are independently opened or closed. Regarding claim 12, Otsuka et al. teach wherein a plurality of exhaust modules are provided, and the plurality of exhaust modules are independently opened or closed. (Paragraphs 0079-0080, Figs. 4, 14) DEPENDENT CLAIM 13: The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a gas concentration control module controlling a gas concentration in the internal space. Regarding claim 13, Otsuka et al. teach further comprising: a gas concentration control module controlling a gas concentration in the internal space. (Paragraphs 0166-0164) DEPENDENT CLAIM 19: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the intake module controls an inflow amount of air, the exhaust module controls an outflow amount of air, and the intake module and the exhaust module control the airflow in the internal space by controlling the inflow and outflow amounts of air independently. Regarding claim 19: Kim et al. teach an intake module to control inflow. (Paragraphs 0078-0080) Otsuka et al. teach an outflow module to control outflow. (Paragraphs 0079-0080) Therefore it would be obvious to provide both intake and exhaust modules to control inflow and outflow as suggested by Kim et al. and Otsuka et al. because it allows for improving uniformity thickness of a film. (Otsuka et al. Paragraph 0180) The motivation for utilizing the features of Otsuka et al. is that it allows for improving uniformity thickness of a film. (Otsuka et al. Paragraph 0180) Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kim et al. by utilizing the features of Otsuka et al. because it allows for improving uniformity thickness of a film. Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Otsuka et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220062205 A). DEPENDENT CLAIM 14: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas concentration control module controls a ratio of first and second gases based on concentration measurement result data for the first gas. Regarding claim 14 : Otsuka et al. discussed above teach wherein the gas concentration control module controls a ratio of first and second gases based . (Paragraphs -164-0166) Lee et al. teach changing gas via concentration measurement result data for the first gas. (Paragraph 0012) DEPENDENT CLAIM 15: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas concentration control module uses a gas containing a nitrogen component as the first gas and a gas containing an oxygen component as the second gas. Regarding claim 15, Otsuka et al. teach wherein the gas concentration control module uses a gas containing a nitrogen component as the first gas and a gas containing an oxygen component as the second gas. (See Otsuka et al. Paragraphs 0164-0166) DEPENDENT CLAIM 16: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas concentration control module controls the gas concentration in the internal space when controlling etch rate for the substrate. Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. teach controlling gas concentration for controlling etch rate. (0068-0069) The motivation for utilizing the features of Lee et al. is that it allows for improving the etch rate. (Paragraphs 0068-0069) 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 Lee et al. because it allows for improving the etch rate. Claim (s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2017/0372926 A1) in view of Otsuka et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0118707 A1) and Lee et al. (KR 20220062205 A). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20: Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a heating plate heating a substrate; a cover module covering the top of the heating plate; an intake module introducing external air into an internal space formed by the cover . Kim et al. teach the intake module controls an inflow amount of air . (See Kim et al. discussed above) The difference between Kim et al. and claim 20 is that an exhaust module discharging the air introduced into the internal space to the outside is not discussed, a gas concentration control module controlling a gas concentration in the internal space is not discussed, the exhaust module controls an outflow amount of air is not discussed, t he intake module and the exhaust module control airflow in the internal space by controlling the inflow and outflow amounts of air independently is not discussed, the intake module and the exhaust module control the airflow in the internal space when adjusting a thickness of an insulating film formed on the substrate is not discussed , and the gas concentration control module controls the gas concentration in the internal space when controlling etch rate for the substrate is not discussed. Regarding an exhaust module discharging the air introduced into the internal space to the outside, Otsuka et al. teach an exhaust module discharging the air introduced into the internal space to the outside. (See Otsuka et al. discussed above) Regarding a gas concentration control module controlling a gas concentration in the internal space , Otsuka et al. teach a gas concentration control module controlling a gas concentration in the internal space . (See Otsuka et al. discussed above) Regarding the exhaust module controls an outflow amount of air , Otsuka et al. teach the exhaust module controls an outflow amount of air . (See Otsuka et al. discussed above) Regarding t he intake module and the exhaust module control airflow in the internal space by controlling the inflow and outflow amounts of air independently , the combination of Kim et al. and Otsuka et al. suggest this limitation. Regarding the intake module and the exhaust module control the airflow in the internal space when adjusting a thickness of an insulating film formed on the substrate, Otsuka et al. teach adjusting film thickness. (Otsuka et al. Paragraph 0129, 0155) Regarding the gas concentration control module controls the gas concentration in the internal space when controlling etch rate for the substrate , Lee et al. teach the gas concentration control module controls the gas concentration in the internal space when controlling etch rate for the substrate . (See Lee et al. Paragraph 0068-0069) The motivation for utilizing the features of Otsuka et al. is that it allows for improving uniformity thickness of a film. (Otsuka et al. Paragraph 0180) The motivation for utilizing the features of Lee et al. is that it allows for improving the etch rate. ( Lee et al. Paragraphs 0068-0069) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim et al. by utilizing the features of Otsuka et al. and Lee et al. because it allows for improving uniformity thickness of a film and for improving the etch rate. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1340 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 March 2, 2026