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 07/07/2026.
4. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
5. Claim 1 has been amended.
6. Claims 7-9 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao (JP H0369119A).
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].
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].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 2-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao (JP H0369119A) as applied to claims 1 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Kinbara (US 2009/0127672).
The limitations of claims 1 and 6-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2:
Nakao teaches 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.
Kinbara teaches a stage (susceptor, 21) has: a recessed surface (groove, 21c) provided on the stage (21) outside the mounting surface (surface, 21b) and recessed downward from the mounting surface (21b) [fig 6 & 0062]; and the facing surface (outer surface of 21) continuous with the recessed surface (21c) [fig 6 & 0062].
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 Kinbara, to manufacture a substrate with small variation in thickness [Kinbara – 0065].
Regarding claims 3-5 and 9:
Modified Nakao teaches the stage (21) includes a protrusion (21a) provided on at least a portion of the recessed surface (21c) and protruding upward above the mounting surface (21b) [Kinbara - fig 6 & 0062]; wherein the stage (21) has an inclined surface (peripheral surface of 21d) provided between the mounting surface (21b) and the recessed surface (21c) and inclined from the mounting surface (21b) toward the recessed surface (21c) [Kinbara - fig 6 & 0062]; wherein an outer diameter of the mounting surface (outer diameter of 21b) is less than an outer diameter of the substrate (22) [Kinbara - fig 6 & 0062]; and wherein the inclined surface (peripheral surface of 21d) forms a part of the upper surface of the stage (upper surface of 21) [Kinbara - fig 6 & 0062].
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)).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 2-5 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
13. 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].
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
15. 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
Prosecution Insights