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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-8, in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoku et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0272057 A1) in view of Miura (JP 2008-294169) and Toshima et al. (JP 2004-301750 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Sotoku et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus for removing an organic film from a substrate (Paragraph 0015), the substrate processing apparatus comprising: a substrate placing unit that has a placement surface on which the substrate is to be placed and is equipped with a first heater for heating the placement surface (Figs. 1, 8, Paragraph 0028; Paragraph 0025); a lid that covers the substrate placed on the placement surface of the substrate placing unit with a space interposed between the lid and the substrate (Figs. 1, 8; Paragraph 0026), has an inner surface facing the space and an outer surface opposite to the inner surface (Figs. 1, 8), and has a through-hole connecting the inner surface and the outer surface (Figs. 1, 8; Paragraph 0032); a second heater provided to heat the lid (Paragraph 0054; Fig. 8); a gas pipe that projects from the outer surface of the lid and supplies a gas to the through hole of the lid (Figs. 1, 8; Paragraph 0032); a gas supply unit that supplies a gas containing ozone to the gas pipe (Paragraph 0032).
The difference between claim 5 and Sotoku et al. is that the heater provided on the outer surface of the lid is not discussed (Claim 5) and a controller that controls the first heater and the second heater, wherein the controller controls the first heater so that the placement surface of the substrate placing unit on which the substrate is placed is heated to a first temperature and controls the second heater so that the lid is heated to a second temperature higher than the first temperature is not discussed (Claim 5)
Regarding the heater provided on the outer surface of the lid (Claim 5):
Miura suggest providing a heater 4 with a gas pipe passing through the heater on the outer surface of the lid. (See Miura Figs. 1, 2)
The motivation for locating the heater on the outer surface of the lid is that it allows for heating the water so that is does not liquify. (See Abstract)
Regarding a controller that controls the first heater and the second heater, wherein the controller controls the first heater so that the placement surface of the substrate placing unit on which the substrate is placed is heated to a first temperature and controls the second heater so that the lid is heated to a second temperature higher than the first temperature (Claim 5):
Toshima et al. teach providing first and second heaters such that the placement surface of the substrate placing unit on which the substrate is placed is heated to a first temperature and such that the lid is heated to a second temperature higher than the first temperature. (See Machine Translation - A step of accommodating the placed substrate in a hermetic chamber comprising a lid that can be raised and lowered and a fixed lower container; and the stage is maintained at 90 ° C. to 150 ° C., and the lid A process of processing the substrate by supplying a processing gas containing water vapor and ozone to the inside of the chamber while maintaining the temperature of the portion facing the substrate in the body at 5 to 15 ° C. higher than the temperature of the stage.
The heater 45a provided on the stage 33 and the heater 45b provided on the lid 41b are heated to keep the stage 33 and the heater 45a at a predetermined temperature. For example, the stage 33 is held at 100 ° C., and the lid 41b is held at 110 ° C. This prevents condensation of water vapor when a processing gas containing water vapor and ozone is supplied into the chamber later. Further, since the water vapor density in the chamber 30 is higher on the stage 33 side than on the lid body 41b side, the water vapor can be efficiently applied to the wafer W. If the temperature difference between the stage 33 and the lid 41b becomes extremely large, dew condensation is likely to occur on the stage 33 and the wafer W. On the other hand, if this temperature difference is small, the water vapor density will not be distributed. For this reason, the temperature difference between the stage 33 and the lid 41b is in the range of 5 ° C. to 15 ° C., preferably about 10 ° C. The temperature of the stage 33 is preferably 90 ° C. to 150 ° C. Within such a range, dew condensation is suppressed, and the wafer W is not thermally damaged.)
With regard to the controller to control the temperatures of heaters, it has been held to be obvious to provide an automatic or mechanical means (i.e. controller) to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result. (See MPEP 2144.04 -
III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.)
The motivation for utilizing the temperature control is that it allows for preventing dew condensation. (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 Sotoku et al. by utilizing the features of Miura and Toshima et al. because it allows for heating the water so that is does not liquify and condensation.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoku et al. in view of Miura and Toshima et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0083821 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a region having thermal conductivity lower than thermal conductivity of the gas pipe is interposed between the second heater and the gas pipe.
Park et al. teach providing a coating of silica on the outer surface of a pipe of quartz providing for example ozone. (Paragraphs 0037-0038) The silica is lower in thermal conductivity than quartz. (Figs. 2, 5)
It would be obvious to provide a coating of silica on an ozone introduction pipe of quartz in the combination of Sotoku et al. with Miura and Toshima et al. to reflect heat.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the region includes a gap.
Regarding claim 7, Park et al. teach providing a gap. (See Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the region includes a member having thermal conductivity lower than thermal conductivity of the gas pipe.
Regarding claim 8, Park et al. teach wherein the region includes a member (i.e. silica film) having a thermal conductivity lower than the thermal conductivity of the gas pipe (i.e. quartz).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Park et al. is that it allows for reflecting heat. (Paragraphs 0037-0038)
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 Park et al. because it allows for reflecting heat.
Conclusion
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
RMJun 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights