Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/515,638

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Priority
Dec 09, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0171660
Examiner
HONG, SEAHEE
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Semes Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allowance Rate
550 granted / 801 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
830
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
32.5%
-7.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 801 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 of claim 1, “greater than a diameter of the through-hole and smaller than a diameter of the flange” should be corrected as --greater than [[a]]the diameter of the through-hole and smaller than [[a]]the diameter of the flange--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 17 of claim 19, “greater than a diameter of the through-hole and smaller than a diameter of the flange” should be corrected as --greater than [[a]]the diameter of the through-hole and smaller than [[a]]the diameter of the flange--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. (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. Claim(s) 1-10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiramatsu et al (US 2003/0132218 A1). Regarding claim 1, Hiramatsu et al (‘218) discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a heating plate 1 (para[0073], fig5(a)) for heating a substrate 9 (para[0041], fig5(a)); and a through proximity pin 20 (para[0070], fig4(a)) installed in the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)) so as to pass through a through-hole 41 (para[0073]) formed in the heating plate 1 such that the substrate 9 is spaced from the heating plate 1 by a spacing (fig5(a)) via the through proximity pin 20, wherein a flange groove (fig5(a)) is defined in an upper surface 1a (para[0074]) of the heating plate 1 and extending from the through-hole 41 and has a diameter larger than a diameter of the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)), and the through proximity pin 20 includes a first fixed portion 22 (para[0070]) having a diameter greater than the diameter of the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)) and smaller than the diameter of the flange groove (fig5(a), the first fixed portion 22 is inserted into the flange groove, para[0073], the diameter of the first fixed portion 22 needs to be smaller than the diameter of the flange groove to be able to be inserted into the flange groove). Regarding claim 2¸ Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the through proximity pin 20 includes: a head 21 (para[0070]) having a top (fig4(a)), wherein a vertical level of the top is higher than a vertical level of the upper surface 1a of the heating plate 1 by the spacing so that the top is in contact with the substrate 9 (fig5(a)); and a waist 23 (para[0070]) connected to the first fixed portion 22 and having a diameter smaller than or equal to the diameter of the through-hole 41 such that the waist 23 passes through the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)), wherein the first fixed portion 22 is connected to the head 21 so that the first fixed portion 22 and the head 21 connected thereto is supported on the heating plate 1. Regarding claim 3, Hiramatsu et al (‘218) discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the head 21 has a spherical upper surface (para[0074], “a hemispherical shape”) so as to be in point contact with the substrate 9. Regarding claim 4, Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first fixed portion 22 is embodied as a flange (fig4(a)) contacting the upper surface of the heating plate 1 (fig5(a), a grooved portion of the upper surface). Regarding claim 5, Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first fixed portion 22 is embodied as a flange (fig4(a)) inserted into the flange groove (fig5(a)). Regarding claim 6, Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein the flange includes: a flange body (a body of the flange) protruding outwardly from and extending around the head 21 in a ring shape (fig4(a)); and a grinding target portion (a bottom surface of the flange body) including a lower surface of the flange body, wherein the grinding target portion is subjected to grinding so that the spacing can be selectively adjusted. Regarding claim 7, Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the grinding target portion is embodied as a grinding target surface (the bottom surface) or at least one grinding target protrusion. Regarding claim 8, Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the through proximity pin 20 further includes a second fixed portion 24 (para[0070]) connected to the waist 23 and fixed to the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)). Regarding claim 9¸ Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second fixed portion 24 is embodied as a C-ring counterpart (fig5(a), para[0073]) formed in a shape corresponding to a shape of a C-ring 27 (fig5(b)) so that the waist 23 is detachably fitted into the C-ring 27 through an opening (fig5(b)) defined at one side thereof (fig5(a),5(b), para[0073]). Regarding claim 10¸ Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the C-ring counterpart is embodied as a stepped portion (fig5(a)) having a diameter smaller than the diameter of the through-hole 41 such that at least a portion thereof passes through the through-hole 41, and larger than the diameter of the waist 23 such that the waist is fixed to the heating plate 1 via the C-ring 27, wherein the C-ring 27 includes one selected from a planar C-ring, an inclined C-ring (fig5(b)), and an elastic spring coupled C-ring. Regarding claim 17, Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the through proximity pin 20 has a length larger than a thickness of the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)). 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. Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu et al (US 2003/0132218 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US 2021/0225689 A1). Regarding claim 18¸ Hiramatsu et al discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose that the heating plate is embodied as an ultra-thin heating plate with a thickness of 2mm or smaller. Zhang et al (‘689) teaches that it is known to use a heat plate (abstract, para[0002], “a hot plate”) for a liquid film curing process of baking the substrate (para[0002]) so as to dry a liquid film including a photo-resistant film (abstract, para[0002]). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.). It is noted that Applicant does not disclose any criticality of the claimed ranges (2mm or smaller) of the thickness of the heating plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to have a thickness of the heating plate to be 2mm or smaller and to use the heating plate used in a liquid film curing process of baking the substrate, as taught by Zhang et al, as liquid film curing process of baking the substrate is a widely utilized process using a heat plate. Regarding claim 20, Hiramatsu et al (‘218) discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a heating plate 1 (para[0073], fig5(a)) having a heating wire pattern (abstract) built therein to heat a substrate 9 (para[0041], fig5(a)); and a through proximity pin 20 (para[0070], fig4(a)) installed in the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)) so as to pass through a through-hole 41 (para[0073]) formed in the heating plate 1 such that the substrate 9 is spaced from the heating plate 1 by a spacing (fig5(a)) via the through proximity pin 20, wherein the through proximity pin 20 includes: a head 21 (para[0070]) having a top (fig4(a)), wherein a vertical level of the top is higher than a vertical level of an upper surface 1a (para[0074]) of the heating plate 1 by the spacing so that the top is in contact with the substrate 9 (fig5(a)); a first fixed portion 22 (para[0070]) connected to the head 21 and having a diameter larger than a diameter of the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)) so that the first fixed portion 22 and the head 21 connected thereto is supported on the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)); a waist 23 (para[0070]) connected to the first fixed portion 22 and having a diameter smaller than or equal to the diameter of the through-hole 41 such that the waist 23 passes through the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)); and a second fixed portion 24 (para[0070]) connected to the waist 23 and fixed to the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)), wherein the head 21 has a spherical upper surface (para[0074], “a hemispherical shape”) so as to be in point contact with the substrate 9, wherein the first fixed portion 22 is embodied as a flange (fig4(a)) inserted into a flange groove (fig5(a)) defined in the upper surface 1a of the heating plate 1 and extending from the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)), wherein the flange groove has a diameter greater than a diameter of the flange (fig5(a), the first fixed portion 22 embodied as a flange is inserted into the flange groove, para[0073], the diameter of the flange groove needs to be greater than a diameter of the first fixed portion 22 embodied as a flange so that the first fixed portion 22 embodied as the flange can be inserted into the flange groove), wherein the flange includes: a flange body (a body of the flange) protruding outwardly from and extending around the head 21 in a ring shape (fig4(a)); and a grinding target portion (a bottom surface of the flange body) including a lower surface of the flange body, wherein the grinding target portion is subjected to grinding so that the spacing can be selectively adjusted, wherein the second fixed portion 24 is embodied as a C-ring counterpart (fig5(a), para[0073]) formed in a shape corresponding to a shape of a C-ring 27 (fig5(b)) having an opening at one side thereof (fig5(b)) so that the C-ring counterpart is detachably fitting into the C-ring 27 (figs5(a),5(b), para[0073]), wherein the C-ring counterpart is embodied as a stepped portion (fig5(a)) having a diameter smaller than the diameter of the through-hole 41 such that at least a portion thereof passes through the through-hole 41, and larger than the diameter of the waist 23 such that the waist is fixed to the heating plate 1 via the C-ring 27, wherein the through proximity pin 20 has a length larger than a thickness of the heating plate 1 (fig5(a)). However, Hiramatsu et al does not explicitly disclose that the heating plate is embodied as an ultra-thin heating plate with a thickness of 2mm or smaller. Zhang et al (‘689) teaches that it is known to use a heat plate (abstract, para[0002], “a hot plate”) for a liquid film curing process of baking the substrate (para[0002]) so as to dry a liquid film including a photo-resistant film (abstract, para[0002]). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.). It is noted that Applicant does not disclose any criticality of the claimed ranges (2mm or smaller) of the thickness of the heating plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to have a thickness of the heating plate to be 2mm or smaller and to use the heating plate used in a liquid film curing process of baking the substrate, as taught by Zhang et al, as liquid film curing process of baking the substrate is a widely utilized process using a heat plate. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki et al (US 2021/0005468 A1) in view of Volfovski et al (US 2012/0196242 A1) and Hiramatsu et al (US 2003/0132218 A1). Regarding claim 19, Takaki et al (‘468) discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a housing 1 (para[0022], fig1) having a treating space (para[0029], “treatment space”) defined therein; and a support unit (fig1, para[0023]) for supporting thereon a substrate W (fig1) received in the treating space, wherein the support unit includes: a heating plate 13 (para[0023]) having a heating wire pattern 14 (para[0024], fig1) built therein to heat the substrate W; a lift pin 15 (para[0024]) installed in the heating plate 13 so as to vertically move the substrate W (para[0024]); a vacuum hole 31 (para[0033]) defined in the heating plate 13 so as to generate a vacuum pressure (“suction”) so that the substrate W is absorbed to the heating plate 13 (para[0041]). However, Takaki et al does not explicitly disclose a use of a guide member for aligning the substrate at a correct position; and a through proximity pin and a through-hole for the through proximity pin to pass through. Volfovski et al (‘242) teaches a use of a guide member 118 (para[0023]) on a heating plate 102 (para[0015],[0023], fig1) to guide, center, and/or align a substrate, such as with respect to one or more heating zones (para[0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takaki et al to use a guide member, as taught by Volfovski et al, to guide, center, and/or align a substrate, such as with respect to one or more heating zones (para[0023]). Hiramatsu et al (‘218) teaches a use of a through proximity pin 20 (para[0070], figs4(a),5(a)) installed in a heating plate 1 (para[0073], fig5(a)) so as to pass through a through-hole 41 (para[0073]) formed in the heating plate 1 such that the substrate 9 is spaced from the heating plate 1 by a spacing (fig5(a)) via the through proximity pin 20, wherein a flange groove (fig5(a)) is defined in an upper surface 1a (para[0074]) of the heating plate 1 and extending from the through-hole 41 and has a diameter larger than a diameter of the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)), and the through proximity pin 20 includes a first fixed portion 22 (para[0070]) having a diameter greater than the diameter of the through-hole 41 (fig5(a)) and smaller than the diameter of the flange groove (fig5(a), the first fixed portion 22 is inserted into the flange groove, para[0073], the diameter of the first fixed portion 22 needs to be smaller than the diameter of the flange groove to be able to be inserted into the flange groove). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takaki et al to use a through proximity pin and a through hole on a heating plate for the through proximity pin to pass through, as taught by Hiramatsu et al, so that impurity elements contained on a heating plate or sintering aids do not contaminate a substrate (para[0061]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that sidewalls of supporting pin 20 of Hiramatsu are shown to abut holes 41a in fig5 that indicates that respective diameters of hole 41a is not greater than a diameter of a flange portion of supporting pin 20. Therefore, the applied art does not disclose or suggest at least features such as “the through-proximity pin includes a first fixed portion having a diameter greater than a diameter of the through-hole and smaller than a diameter of the flange groove”. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the originally filed specification of the instant application discloses that “The first fixed portion 4520 may be embodied as a flange 4522 having a smaller diameter D2 than an inner diameter D5 of a flange groove FH defined in the upper surface F1 of the heating plate 4100 and extending upwardly from the through-hole H such that the flange 4522 may be inserted into the flange groove FH.” in para[0089]. Hiramatsu et al discloses that the first fixed portion 22 is inserted into the flange groove (para[0073], fig5(a)). The diameter of the first fixed portion 22 needs to be smaller than the diameter of the flange groove to be inserted therewithin. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hou (US 9,991,153 B2), Satoh (US 6,435,798 B1), Sovenahalli et al (US 2023/0178416 A1), Chen et al (US 2015/0000599 A1), Cuvalci et al (US 2014/0265097 A1), and Iizuka (US 2005/0000450 A1) teach similar substrate processing apparatus. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET. 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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. /SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2023
Application Filed
May 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Aug 17, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766669
WORKPIECE TABLE COMPRISING A PLURALITY OF WORKPIECE-CLAMPING FIXTURES
2y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767501
LIFT ASSEMBLY
2y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766668
SEMI-AUTOMATIC GRIP ASSEMBLY DEVICE
2y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12767503
HYDRAULIC JACK HAVING A DC POWER SUPPLY
3y 0m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12763555
HUBLESS SHEAVE
3y 10m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.8%)
2y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 801 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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