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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al 2014/0269826 A1 in view of Higashi et al 2011/0171380A1.
Wu et al disclose the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
1.A substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber 100; and
a rotating mechanism (part of the 103) configured to rotate about a center axis of a shaft 132, wherein
the shaft includes a flow path (Par. 0014, a conduit 130 that provides fluid communication between a source of cooling gas (not shown) and a substrate receiving surface 116) configured to flow gases through the shaft.
2.The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rotating mechanism
comprises the shaft. (Par. 0014, a conduit 130 that provides fluid communication between a source of cooling gas (not shown) and a substrate receiving surface 116)
Wu et al does not disclose close a rotating mechanism.
Higashi et al disclose a substrate processing apparatus having a chamber 103 and a rotating shaft 104b which allows the workpiece to be rotated as a substitute for a non rotating shaft and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed by providing the WU et ad device by modifying the device by substituting a non rotating shaft with a rotating shaft yielding the predictable result which allows workpieces to be moved rotationally. KSR
In regard to claims 7 ,14, 16, and 19-20, Wu et al in Figure one shows the claims limitations as noted.
7 and 14. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the shaft extends through a center of the rotating mechanism; and
the rotating mechanism comprises a lift pad 168 and is configured to lift via the lift 114 pad a center area of a substrate.
In regard to claims 8-9 and 15 see the modified Wu et al device discloses the limitations as shown above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights