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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0109940 A1). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: Regarding claim 1, teach a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (100) ; a substrate support (130) positioned inside the chamber (100) and configured to support a substrate (140) ; an edge frame (133) disposed above the substrate support (130) and extending outward from an edge of the substrate support (130) ; and a gas flow-controlling unit which is installed on a side wall of the chamber to be positioned between the side wall of the chamber and a side surface of the substrate support along a periphery of the substrate support (Paragraph 0022, Fig. 4 for example) , wherein the gas flow-controlling unit comprises a flow path which is provided in a region overlapping the edge frame (See Fig s. 1, 6B) . DEPENDENT CLAIM 8: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas flow controlling unit is installed in a central region other than an edge of the side wall in the width direction. Regarding claim 8, Ohashi et al. teach wherein the frame support part 406 is positioned so that there are pumping gaps (410) between both ends thereof, in the center of the chamber wall (308). (Paragraph 0022, Fig. 4) 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) 2-7 , 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0109940 A1) in view of Anwar et al. (WO 2021/061123 A1). DEPENDENT CLAIM 2: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas flow-controlling unit comprises: a body connected to the side wall; and a protrusion member protruding upward from the body to face the edge frame, wherein the flow path is provided in the body to face the edge frame. Regarding claim 2: Ohashi et al. teach a gas flow controlling unit comprising a body 406 attached to the wall. (See Ohashi et al. discussed above) Anwar et al. teaches a protrusion member protruding upward from the body to face the edge frame. (See Fig. 1A; Fig. 1B; Paragraph 0031) Anwar et al. teach a flow path provided in the body to face the edge frame. ( Fig. 1 – Flow path 107; Fig. 1C – 115A,115B) DEPENDENT CLAIM 3: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion member is provided at an edge of the body to be positioned on the opposite side from the side wall. Regarding claim 3, Anwar et al. teach wherein the protrusion member is provided at an edge of the body to be positioned on the opposite side from the side wall. (Fig. 1B) DEPENDENT CLAIM 4: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion member is provided in plurality, the plurality of protrusion members are arranged in a width direction of the side wall and spaced apart from each other, and the flow path is a space between the plurality of protrusion members. Regarding claim 4: Ohashi et al. teach the bodies provided in the form of a plurality. (Fig. 3 – 306) Ohashi et al. teach providing a flow path between the bodies. (Fig. 3 – 306) Anwar et al. suggest providing a protrusion discussed above. (See Fig. 1B) The combination of Ohashi et al. with Anwar et al. therefore suggest the protrusion member is provided in plurality, the plurality of protrusion members are arranged in a width direction of the side wall and spaced apart from each other, and the flow path is a space between the plurality of protrusion members. (Combination of Ohashi et al. Fig. 3 and Anwar et al. Fig. 1B) DEPENDENT CLAIM 5: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion member extends in a width direction of the side wall, and the flow path is provided behind the protrusion member to face the edge frame and passes through the body in an up-down direction. Regarding claim 5, Anwar et al. teach the protrusion member extends in a width direction of the side wall, and the flow path is provided behind the protrusion member to face the edge frame and passes through the body in an up-down direction. (Fig. 1; Fig. 1C -115A, 115B) DEPENDENT CLAIM 6: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the flow path extends in the width direction of the side wall. Regarding claim 6, Anwar et al. teach the flow path extends in the width direction of the side wall. (Figs. 1C-1E) DEPENDENT CLAIM 7: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the flow path is provided in plurality, and the plurality of flow paths are arranged in an extension direction of the protrusion member and spaced apart from each other. As discussed above the combination of Ohashi et al. and Anwar et al. teach wherein the flow path is provided in plurality, and the plurality of flow paths are arranged in an extension direction of the protrusion member and spaced apart from each other. (Combination of Ohashi et al. Fig. 3 and Anwar et al. Fig. 1B) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 9: Regarding claim 9, Ohashi et al. teach a method for cleaning a substrate processing apparatus that comprises: a chamber (Fig. 1) ; a substrate support (130) positioned inside the chamber and configured to support a substrate (140) ; an edge frame (133) disposed above the substrate support and extending outward from an edge of the substrate support (Fig. 1) ; and a gas flow-controlling unit installed on a side wall of the chamber to support the edge frame from below ( Fig. 6C – 406) , the method comprising: lowering the substrate support to rest the edge frame on the gas flow-controlling unit (Fig. 6A, 6C) ; spraying a cleaning gas into the chamber (Paragraphs 0041, 0043) ; and allowing the cleaning gas to pass through a flow path . (Paragraphs 0041, 0043) The difference between Ohashi et al. and claim 9 is that providing gas through a flow path in the gas flow controlling unit to be positioned in a region that overlaps the edge frame is not discussed. Regarding providing gas through a flow path in the gas flow controlling unit to be positioned in a region that overlaps the edge frame (Claim 9): Anwar et al. teach providing a gas flow path in the gas flow controlling unit. (Fig. 1C-Fig. 1E) Ohashi et al. already teach overlapping the edge frame in Figs. 6A-6C. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10: Regarding claim 10, Ohashi et al. teach a method for cleaning a substrate processing apparatus that comprises: a chamber; a gas spraying unit installed in the chamber; a substrate support installed inside the chamber to support a substrate at a position facing the gas spraying unit; an edge frame extending outward from an edge of the substrate support; and a gas flow-controlling unit which is installed on a side wall of the chamber to be positioned between the side wall of the chamber and a side surface of the substrate support along a periphery of the substrate support (See Ohashi et al. discussed above) the method comprising: withdrawing, out of the chamber, the substrate supported on the substrate support (Ohashi et al. Paragraph 0043; Fig. 6C); spraying a cleaning gas into the chamber by using the gas spraying unit (Ohashi et al. Paragraph 0041) The difference between Ohashi et al. and claim 10 is that allowing the cleaning gas to be discharged through a flow path which is provided in the gas flow-controlling unit to be positioned in a region that overlaps the edge frame is not discussed. Regarding allowing the cleaning gas to be discharged through a flow path which is provided in the gas flow-controlling unit to be positioned in a region that overlaps the edge frame (Claim 10): Anwar et al. teach providing a gas flow path in the gas flow controlling unit. (Fig. 1C-Fig. 1E) Ohashi et al. already teach overlapping the edge frame in Figs. 6A-6C. The motivation for utilizing the features of Anwar et al. is that it allows for controlling cleaning gas out of the exhaust. (Paragraph 0039) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ohashi et al. by utilizing the features of Anwar et al. because it allows for controlling cleaning gas out of the exhaust. 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 16, 2026