DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 09/16/2026.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 3, and 5 have been amended.
6. Claims 2, 4, and 9 have been cancelled.
7. Claim 10 has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao (JP H0369119A) in view of Aigo et al (JP 2011018772A) and Honma (US 2010/0136795).
Regarding claim 1:
Nakao teaches a substrate processing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 2) [fig 2 & 0001] comprising: a vacuum chamber (6) [fig 2 & 0001]; a rotary table (1) rotatably provided in the vacuum chamber (6) [fig 2 & 0001]; and a stage (stage, 2) configured to rotate together with the rotary table (1) [fig 2 & 0001]; wherein the rotary table (1) has an opening (opening through which 2 passes) provided at a position spaced apart from a rotation center of the rotary table (see fig 2), wherein an inner surface of the opening is continuous with an upper surface and a lower surface of the rotary table (see fig 2), and wherein the stage (2) is spaced apart from the inner surface of the opening by a clearance, the clearance extending from an upper side of the rotary table to a lower side of the rotary table along a vertical direction (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0001], wherein the stage (2) has: a mounting surface (top surface of 2) provided at a center of the stage (2), a substrate (wafer) being mounted on the mounting surface (top surface of 2) [fig 2 & 0001]; and a facing surface (outer surface of 1) spaced apart from the inner surface of the opening (opening through which 2 passes) by the clearance, and facing the inner surface of the opening (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0001].
Nakao does not specifically disclose the stage has: a recessed surface provided on the stage outside the mounting surface and recessed downward from the mounting surface; and the facing surface continuous with the recessed surface, wherein the stage has an inclined surface provided between the mounting surface and the recessed surface and inclined from the mounting surface toward the recessed surface.
Aigo teaches a stage (susceptor) has: a recessed surface (bottom of groove 11) provided on the stage outside the mounting surface (10a) and recessed downward from the mounting surface (10a) [fig 6-8]; and the facing surface (outer surface of 7) continuous with the recessed surface (bottom of groove 11), wherein the stage has an inclined surface (inner surface of 11) provided between the mounting surface (10a) and the recessed surface (bottom of groove 11) and inclined from the mounting surface (10a) toward the recessed surface (bottom of groove 11) [fig 6-8].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stage of Nakao to have a recessed surface provided on the stage outside the mounting surface and recessed downward from the mounting surface, as in Aigo, to manufacture a substrate with small variation in thickness thereby improving device characteristics and yield [Aigo – page 8, fourth paragraph].
Nakao modified by Aigo does not specifically disclose the inclined surface forms a part of the upper surface of the stage.
Honma teaches an inclined surface (inner surface of 24a) forms a part of the upper surface of the stage (inner sidewall of the concave portion 24a is gently inclined) [fig 10 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inclined surface of modified Nakao to form a part of the upper surface of the stage, as in Honma, to reduce an effect of disturbing the gas flowing over the stage [Honma – 0048].
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Nakao teaches the stage (susceptor, 7) includes a protrusion (12) provided on at least a portion of the recessed surface (bottom surface of 11) and protruding upward above the mounting surface (10a) [Aigo - fig 6-8];
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Nakao teaches an outer diameter of the mounting surface (10a) is less than an outer diameter of the substrate (5) [Aigo - fig 8].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “wherein an outer diameter of the mounting surface is less than an outer diameter of the substrate” do not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 6:
Nakao teaches the stage (2) is rotatable with respect to the rotary table (1) [fig 2 & 0001].
Regarding claims 7-8:
Nakao teaches the clearance extends through a thickness of the rotary table along the vertical direction (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0001]; and wherein the clearance extends along a perpendicular direction to the upper surface of the rotary table (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0001].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Nakao teaches the inclined surface is curved ("gently inclined" may include cases where the inner side wall is inclined along, for example, quadric, exponential, or parabolic lines) [Honma – fig 10 & 0048].
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 6-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 2-5 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishimura (JP H04182386A) and Sinha et al (US 5,384,008) teach a stage having a mounting surface and a recessed surface [fig 1 and 4, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
