「この」＋新情報：やっぱり違和感

発明の名称：基板処理装置

技術分野：本発明は基板処理装置に関する。

詳細な説明：基板を処理するこの基板処理装置は、基板の温度を測定する測定部を有する。

ChatGPT:

Here is a natural and appropriately formal English translation, suitable for a patent document:

---

Title of the Invention: Substrate Processing Apparatus

Technical Field:
The present invention relates to a substrate processing apparatus.

Detailed Description:
This substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate.

あなた:

Is it natural to use "this" as in "This substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate ..." after the title and the Technical Field, which refer only to "substrate processing apparatus" and not "substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate"? Is the transition from just "substrate processing apparatus" to "substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate" natural? Doesn't "this" suggest that the noun modified by it has already been introduced or mentioned?

ChatGPT:

You're absolutely right to question that—your instincts are spot-on.

1. About using "this"

Yes, in formal technical or patent writing, "this" typically refers back to something already introduced. So if the preceding sections (title and technical field) only say:

"substrate processing apparatus"

then using:

"this substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate"

can feel slightly off or redundant, because:

• The phrase "for processing a substrate" is an explanatory addition, not previously mentioned.

• "this" implies a specific instantiation already introduced in fuller detail—which it hasn't been.

So you're right: the transition is slightly unnatural, especially with the repetition of "processing" and "substrate."

---

2. Recommended phrasing

If you want to keep it natural and professional, a better way might be:

"The substrate processing apparatus includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

This avoids unnecessary repetition and keeps the tone formal, while implicitly connecting back to the apparatus introduced in the title and technical field.

If you want to introduce a specific embodiment or emphasize that you're now describing "the invention" in more detail, you can say:

"In one embodiment, the substrate processing apparatus includes a measurement unit..."

or simply:

"The substrate processing apparatus according to the present invention includes a measurement unit..."

---

3. Why “for processing a substrate” might still appear

The phrase "substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate" sometimes appears in patent documents to explicitly restate functional intent for legal clarity, even if it’s slightly redundant. In that case, you could soften the “this”:

"A substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate includes a measurement unit..."

or

"The substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate includes..."

That removes the awkwardness of "this" referring back to a longer phrase that hasn’t really appeared yet.

---

Summary:

Version	Notes
"This substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate..."	Slightly unnatural if "this" hasn’t clearly been defined yet.
"The substrate processing apparatus..."	Natural, neutral, and consistent.
"A substrate processing apparatus for processing a substrate..."	Acceptable if this is the first time giving full detail.
"The substrate processing apparatus according to the present invention..."	Common in patent disclosures.

あなた:

How about

1. This substrate processing apparatus, which is for processing a substrate, includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate. 2. This substrate processing apparatus, which is used for processing a substrate, includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate. 3. This substrate processing apparatus processes a substrate and includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate.

ChatGPT:

All three versions are grammatically correct, but they differ subtly in tone, clarity, and suitability for technical or patent writing. Here's a breakdown of each:

---

✅ 1.

"This substrate processing apparatus, which is for processing a substrate, includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

• Tone: Slightly redundant and wordy.

• Flow: The embedded clause (“which is for processing a substrate”) restates the obvious and interrupts the sentence flow.

• Use case: Acceptable, but not ideal for polished technical or patent language.

🟠 Comment: The repetition of “processing a substrate” feels tautological—it says “substrate processing apparatus” and then defines it again as “for processing a substrate.”

---

✅ 2.

"This substrate processing apparatus, which is used for processing a substrate, includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

• Tone: Slightly smoother than (1), but still somewhat redundant.

• Meaning: The “used for” wording suggests function more naturally than “is for.”

• Use case: Better than (1), but still not ideal if you're trying to be concise and direct.

🟡 Comment: Still has an unnecessary explanatory clause. In patent writing, conciseness and direct linkage to features matter.

---

✅ 3.

"This substrate processing apparatus processes a substrate and includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

• Tone: Clear, direct, and natural.

• Structure: No interruption by a nonessential clause.

• Use case: Most suitable of the three, especially in technical or patent contexts.

🟢 Comment: This is the best of the three. It directly states the function and the included component without redundancy or clunkiness.

---

Final Recommendation:

Go with #3, unless you have a specific legal or stylistic reason to include a relative clause. If you're drafting for a patent and want to keep it tight and functional:

"This substrate processing apparatus processes a substrate and includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

Or even more streamlined:

"This substrate processing apparatus includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

(Assuming the function of processing a substrate is understood from context.)

あたな：

How about 4. "This substrate processing apparatus is for processing a substrate and includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."?

ChatGPT:

Great question again. Here's a careful assessment of your option 4:

4. "This substrate processing apparatus is for processing a substrate and includes a measurement unit that measures the temperature of the substrate."

---

✅ Grammaticality:

Yes, it's grammatically correct.

---

✅ Clarity:

It's clear and understandable. The sentence structure is straightforward.

---

⚖️ Tone & Style (Technical/Patent Context):

This version is acceptable, but it sounds slightly less formal and slightly less technical than:

"This substrate processing apparatus processes a substrate and includes..."

The phrasing "is for processing a substrate" has a somewhat descriptive or explanatory tone, which is more typical in general writing or when giving background. By contrast, "processes a substrate" sounds more definitive and functional, which is better aligned with the tone of claims and technical specifications.

---

🟢 When to use version 4:

• When writing a general explanation or overview, such as in a non-claim section of a patent or a technical manual.

• When you want to emphasize the intended use of the apparatus, rather than its active function.

---

🔵 Preferred for precision in technical/patent contexts:

"This substrate processing apparatus processes a substrate and includes..."

This structure presents the apparatus as doing something (rather than being for something), which is stronger and more active—a better fit for patent descriptions where functionality is key.