DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected because the limitation “internal heater is provided between inner cylinder and outer cylinder” is contradictory to the feature in claim 1 that the “internal heater…extending at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates”. An internal heater which is not in the inner cylinder (see claim 5) cannot be “extending at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates” (see claim 1). Claim 6 is rejected by dependence.
The Examiner has considered the arguments on page 7 of the June 24, 2026 response and the amendments to claim 5, but they do not overcome the indefiniteness rejection of claim 5. Claim 5 was amended to recite that the internal heater is positioned between the inner cylinder and outer cylinder and to heat via radiant heat through the inner cylinder. This was never in dispute. The issue is that this configuration in claim 5 positions the internal heater in a location between the two cylinders (inner cylinder and outer cylinder) where it can never meet the configuration in claim 1 that the internal heater extends “at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates”. If the internal heater is provided between the inner cylinder and outer cylinder, it is removed/separated/isolated from the substrates and can never extend “at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates”. Therefore, claim 5 is contradictory to claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (TW 1788771 B) in view of Shimada (US 5,383,984).
As to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising a processing container with an inner cylinder (204) and outer cylinder (203) capable of holding wafers (200). Ogawa teaches a gas supply nozzle (410-430) which supplies gas to the processing container and an external heater (207) capable of heating the plurality of substrates from an outside of the processing container.
Ogawa is silent to the internal heater provided independently of the gas supply nozzle in the inside of the processing container and extending and structurally arranged at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates in a direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged to heat the plurality of substrates in cooperation with the external heater.
Shimada teaches a substrate processing apparatus with an internal heater (Fig. 2, item 71-74) which extends and is structurally arranged to provide an entire processing atmosphere that can be made substantially uniform in temperature (4:34-41). In the combination with Ogawa, the internal heater of Shimada would cooperate with the external heater already provided by Ogawa to heat the substrates.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Shimada heaters into the Ogawa base device because the Shimada heaters heat a comparable device and one would have been motivated to use the Shimada heaters to achieve a substantially uniform temperature within the Ogawa processing container. A reasonable expectation of success would have been evident in light of the overall similarity of the two wafer treatment apparatuses. Alternatively, this is the application of a known technique to an existing device which yields predictable results. Ogawa provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, but Shimada contains a heating device applicable in a substrate processing apparatus improved in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the Shimada heaters would have yielded a predictable result and improved system by providing uniform heating in the Ogawa device.
As to claim 2, the Ogawa processing container includes an inner cylinder (204) with a first space containing substrate (200) and an outer cylinder (203) which forms a second space (206) between the two cylinders. The Ogawa inner cylinder includes a nozzle protrusion (204 expands around 410-430) that protrudes radially outward from the circumferential direction. Ogawa also provides an opening (exhaust hole 204a) at a position opposite to the nozzle protrusion (see Fig. 2) across an axis of the inner cylinder to provide communication between the first space (inside 204) and the second space (206). As to claims 3 and 7, in the combination of Shimada’s heaters with the Ogawa processing chamber inner cylinder, Shimada’s heaters would be positioned inside the inner cylinder as depicted in Shimada (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Additionally, Shimada shows four heaters (Fig. 4, items 71-74) that are each positioned adjacent a gas supply (Fig. 4, item 23). One would have positioned the heaters in the same manner in the combination with Ogawa. As to claim 11, Shimada teaches a quartz tube with a heater wire inside the tube (8:34-37).
Claims 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (TW 1788771 B) in view of Hisashi (JP2007081365).
As to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising a processing container with an inner cylinder (204) and outer cylinder (203) capable of holding wafers (200). Ogawa teaches a gas supply nozzle (410-430) which supplies gas to the processing container and an external heater (207) capable of heating the plurality of substrates from an outside of the processing container.
Ogawa is silent to the internal heater provided independently of the gas supply nozzle in the inside of the processing container and extending at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates in a direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged to heat the plurality of substrates.
Hisashi teaches a substrate processing apparatus with an internal heater (item 64a) which is coupled to a power supply and controller to control the temperature in the chamber. In the combination with Ogawa, the Hisashi internal heater would be structurally arranged to heat the substrates in cooperation with the Ogawa external heater.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Hisashi heaters into the Ogawa base device because one would have been motivated to use the Hisashi heaters to achieve a controlled temperature within the Ogawa processing container. A reasonable expectation of success would have been evident in light of the overall similarity of the two wafer treatment apparatuses. Alternatively, this is the application of a known technique to an existing device which yields predictable results. Ogawa provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement including heaters, but Hisashi contains a heating device applicable in a substrate processing apparatus improved in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the Hishashi heaters would have yielded a predictable result and improved system by providing a controlled uniform heating in the Ogawa device.
As to claim 2, the Ogawa processing container includes an inner cylinder (204) with a first space containing substrate (200) and an outer cylinder (203) which forms a second space (206) between the two cylinders. The Ogawa inner cylinder includes a nozzle protrusion (204 expands around 410-430) that protrudes radially outward from the circumferential direction. Ogawa also provides an opening (exhaust hole 204a) at a position opposite to the nozzle protrusion (see Fig. 2) across an axis of the inner cylinder to provide communication between the first space (inside 204) and the second space (206). As to claims 3 and 7, in the combination of Hisashi’s heaters with the Ogawa processing chamber inner cylinder, Hisashi’s heaters would be positioned inside the inner cylinder and positioned adjacent a gas supply (Fig. 4, item 23). One would have positioned the heaters in the same manner in the combination with Ogawa. As to claim 11, Hisashi teaches a quartz tube with a heater wire inside the tube (wires 64a within quartz tube 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 4, the prior art combines an inner cylinder (from Ogawa) with heaters (from Shimada or Hisashi) but the combination does not disclose a heater protrusion different from the nozzle protrusion with the internal heater accommodated inside the heater protrusion.
As to claim 8, the prior art combines an inner cylinder (from Ogawa) with heaters (from Shimada or Hisashi) but the combination does not disclose the internal heater provided inside the nozzle protrusion.
As to claim 9, the prior art does not specifically disclose a controller configured in the specific manner disclosed in this claim. Claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The June 24, 2026 arguments were carefully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Applicant discusses the configuration of the internal heater and focuses on the limitations in claim 5. This discussion does not appear to address the feature in claim 1 that was the basis of the indefiniteness rejection in combination with claim 5. A heater in the configuration of claim 5 cannot be reconciled with the “extending at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates” in claim 1. A heater in the second space (see Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 5) isolated from the substrates is not at a lateral side of the plurality of substrates, it is in another space entirely.
Arguments regarding the prior art rejections were presented on pages 8-10 (Ogawa and Shimada) and 10-14 (Ogawa and Hisashi). On page 9, Applicant argues the specifics of the Shimada heater in that they are integrated into the plasma processing assembly, and that substantial modification of Ogawa’s chamber would be required in the combination. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner does not see why the heating elements of Shimada are distinct from those claimed in this application. Even if the heaters are “functionally associated” with the Shimada assembly, it is unclear why this distinguishes the invention from Ogawa and Shimada. It seems the instant invention also requires a functionally associated heater and assembly. The Examiner does not agree that substantial modification would be required to achieve the combination, and therefore this rejection is maintained.
On page 10, Applicant argues that the Hisashi heater is disposed within a gas supply nozzle and therefore fails to disclose an independently provided internal heater. The Examiner notes that there does not appear to be any comment on Ogawa in this section, and it was noted in the rejection of claim 1 that Ogawa already teaches an (independent) gas supply nozzle (410-430) which supplies gas to the processing container and an external heater (207) capable of heating the plurality of substrates from an outside of the processing container. When the Hisashi heater is incorporated into Ogawa, it is not clear why the only possible incorporation would be to couple Hisashi’s heater with the existing Ogawa gas supply nozzle. Stated differently, Ogawa’s device including a gas supply nozzle does not require the incorporation of a second/redundant gas supply nozzle.
Additional arguments on page 12 are on the grounds that Hisashi’s heater does not contribute to substrate heating in combination with an external heater. The external heater was already provided by Ogawa (see rejection of claim 1) and therefore it is unclear why Hisashi would also need to provide an external heater in order to be relevant or combinable. However, this argument may be factually incorrect as Hisashi’s item 2 is disclosed as a resistance heating body. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument regarding “cooperative heating arrangement” does actually appear to be present in Hisashi.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights