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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on September 3, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 1 and 22 were amended. Claims 1-6 and 21-28 are in the application pending examination. Claims 29-34 were previously withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-3 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich). (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230178398 A1 to Stettner et al. is being used as a translation for EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al)
Regarding claim 1, Stettner teaches a device, comprising:
a susceptor (2) of a semiconductor processing tool configured to support a wafer (substrate),
a column (9) of the semiconductor processing tool disposed under the susceptor (2), wherein a plurality of arms (slant projections of 9 under susceptor 2 in Fig. 1) extend from the column (9) to contact an underside of the susceptor (2) ;
at least one motor (drive unit, drive device, 12) configured to move the susceptor (susceptor) in situ, during a process, wherein the at least one motor (12) is configured to move the susceptor according to a command (control signals); and
a controller (21) configured to receive an input (width of gap or image) from an optical sensor (camera) and configured to provide the command (control signal) to the at least one motor based on the input (width of gap or image). (Examiner is considering a drive unit, drive device, 12 to be equivalent to a motor.) (See Stettner, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 17-18, 20-24, 28-29, 38, 65, and 67. )
Stettner does not explicitly teach a first motor and a second motor.
Weaver is directed to support for a susceptor.
Weaver teaches the support for a susceptor includes multiple motors (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis motors). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first motor and a second motor a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, because Weavers teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column,wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column.
Weaver teaches the first motor (355) comprises a first shaft ( flat cylindrical portion of 355)_ connected to the column (160), the second motor (z-axis) comprises a second shaft (429) connected to the column, (160). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Additionally, Weaver teaches different multiaxis structure of the stage may be used.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column, wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column, because Weaver teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive input during the process associated with misalignment of the susceptor 2 or support shaft (9), but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input.
Okabe is directed to semiconductor manufacturing apparatus having an imaging unit and imaging analysis unit that analyzes the deviation of the wafer on the basis of the image captured by the imaging unit. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11-12, 23, 26-27, 41, 43-44, 46, 53-54, 61, 68-70, 87-88, 90, and 101.)
Okabe teaches a controller (image analysis unit) configured to receive an input (image or deviation from gap 121d) from at least one optical sensor (camera) and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 4-5, 61-62, 70-73, and 101-104.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position during deposition. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor during the process associated with misalignment of the susceptor 2 or support shaft (9), but does not explicitly teach the input is associated with a spacing measurement between the susceptor and a pre-heat ring, the spacing measurement being in a plane and a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring.
Okabe teaches the input (i.e. the image which would include images of the dimensions in the first dimension and the second dimension) is associated with a spacing measurement between the wafer and a pre-heat ring. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 22-23, 26, 41, 42, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 101.) Examiner is considering an imaging unit configured to provide information on the gap between the wafer and the mounting section and the gap between the susceptor and the preheat ring equivalent to a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, wherein the input is associated with: a spacing measurement ring, the spacing measurement being in a plane.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the input associated with a spacing measurement between the susceptor and a pre-heat ring, the spacing measurement being in a plane and a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer would save time and effort problem in movement of the susceptor would enable the need for maintenance to be noticed early. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 22-23, 26, 41, 42, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, 101, and 103.) Examiner is considering a gap to include distance in both the plane of the spacing measurement and in a dimension of the gapping measurement.
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the one or more commands to the first motor and the second motor during the process based on the input, but does not explicitly teach wherein the input is associated with a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane.
Fasen is directed to a position sensor for use in a movable system. (See Fasen, Abstract.)
Fasen teaches it is desirable to provide motion sensing along more than one axis. (See Fasen, Abstract, and paragraph 46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller (21) configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the one or more commands to the first motor and the second motor during the process based on the input, wherein the input is associated with a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane, because Fasen teaches sensing along more than one axis provide more accurate operations. (See Fasen, Abstract, and paragraph 46.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a first motor and a second motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process.
Tepman is directed to an apparatus for deposition on a wafer.
Tepman teaches at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first and second motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process, because Tepman teaches location of the motor outside the vacuum chamber will reduce contamination inside the vacuum chamber. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach … the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Weaver teaches this is known structure for adjusting the position of a susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Volovich is directed to an apparatus for adjusting the position of a wafer.
Volovich teaches multiple motors for controlling the position of a wafer and a controller for operating the motors. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Considering the movement of the shaft relative to the susceptor to be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Volovich teaches a controller is a known structure for adjusting position of a substrate using more than one motor. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Examiner is considering the processing tool of Stetner to be equivalent to a processing tool during a process.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “a susceptor… configured to support a wafer” and “ configured to provide the command”). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Stettner in view of Okabe and Tepman and Fasen would be capable of these intended uses and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Stettner does not explicitly teach the input comprises at least one image, from the at least one optical sensor and the controller uses the at least one image to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement.
Okabe is directed to semiconductor manufacturing apparatus having an imaging unit and imaging analysis unit that analyzes the deviation of the wafer on the basis of the image captured by the imaging unit. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 101.)
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit 150 images the susceptor 120 and the preheat ring 122, the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 101.) Examiner is considering this measurement to be equivalent to the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches an imaging unit configured to provide information on the gap between the wafer and the mounting section and the gap between the susceptor and the preheat ring. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 101.) Examiner is considering an imaging unit configured to provide information on the gap between the wafer and the mounting section and the gap between the susceptor and the preheat ring equivalent to the input comprises at least one image, from at least one optical sensor, associated with the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and the controller uses the at least one image to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the input comprises at least one image, from the at least one optical sensor and the controller uses the at least one image to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Regarding claim 3, Stettner does not explicitly teach the input comprises at least one image, from at least one optical sensor, associated with the spacing measurement, and at least one second image from at least one second optical sensor, associated with the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit 150 images the susceptor 120 and the preheat ring 122, the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 101.) Examiner is considering this measurement to be equivalent to the gapping measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the input comprises at least one image, from at least one optical sensor, associated with the spacing measurement, and at least one second image from at least one second optical sensor, associated with the gapping measurement., because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by noticing the need for maintenance early. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Regarding claim 21, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine whether the spacing measurement satisfies a spacing threshold or whether the gapping measurement satisfies a gapping threshold based on an updated input from the at least one optical sensor.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches the controller (image analysis unit) is configured to determine whether the spacing measurement satisfies a spacing threshold (predetermined value). (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 54, 100-101.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the controller is configured to determine whether the spacing measurement satisfies a spacing threshold or whether the gapping measurement satisfies a gapping threshold based on an updated input from the at least one optical sensor, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by noticing the need for maintenance early. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, 100-101, and 103.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180311764 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180311764 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 4, Stettner does not explicitly teach the at least one motor comprises a rotational motor associated with rotation of the susceptor.
Kim is directed to a heater chuck for holding a wafer. (Examiner is considering a heater chuck to be equivalent to a susceptor. )
Kim teaches the at least one motor comprises a rotational motor (140) associated with rotation of the susceptor (heater chuck 100). (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 18-19, 38-39, 89, 101-102, 104-105, 130.) Examiner is considering a spin motor assembly to be equivalent to a rotational motor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one motor comprises a rotational motor associated with rotation of the susceptor, because Kim teaches the spin motor assembly may provide a rotating force for rotating a spin chuck and a wafer. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 18-19, 38-39, 89, 101-102, 104-105, 130.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al (hereinafter Khandelwal) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al (hereinafter Khandelwal).
Regarding claim 5, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with different points around the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement.
Khandelwal teaches the gap can be determined from detector measurements. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, paragraphs 79-80.)
Khandelwal teaches a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with different points around the susceptor. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, paragraphs 79-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with different points around the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement, because Khandelwal teaches the measuring the gap at multiple locations with one or more locations can be used to determine the topology of the susceptor which would enable more detailed information on the measurement information. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, paragraphs 79-80.)
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass).
Regarding claim 6, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with a same point of the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement.
Pass teaches aligning a substrate by first determining a position of the substrate relative to the stage (See Pass, Abstract, paragraph 45, and Fig. 2D.)
Pass teaches a plurality of measurements by two different sensors on a same edge. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraph 45, and Fig. 2D.) (Examiner is considering a same edge i.e. feature, mark, to be equivalent of a same point i.e. mark, feature.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with a same point of the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement, because Pass teaches multiple measurements with different sensors on a same feature would enable the location of the substrate to be determined with greater accuracy. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraph 45, and Fig. 2D.)
The previous rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 22.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ). (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230178398 A1 to Stettner et al. is being used as a translation for EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al.)
Regarding claim 22, Stettner teaches a device, comprising:
a susceptor (2) of a semiconductor processing tool configured to support a wafer (substrate),
a column (9) of the semiconductor processing tool disposed under the susceptor (2), wherein a plurality of arms (slant projections of 9 under susceptor 2 in Fig. 1) extend from the column (9) to contact an underside of the susceptor (2) ;
at least one motor (drive 12) configured to move the susceptor (susceptor) in situ,
at least one optical sensor (camera) configured to capture one or more images associated with a plurality of views of the susceptor (2);
and
a controller (21) configured to receive one or more images (image) from an optical sensor (camera) and configured to provide the command (control signal) to the at least one motor based on the input (image). (Examiner is considering a drive unit to be equivalent to a motor.) (See Stettner, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 17-18, 20-24, 28-29, 38, 65, and 67.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a first motor and a second motor.
Weaver is directed to support for a susceptor.
Weaver teaches the support for a susceptor includes multiple motors (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis motors). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first motor and a second motor a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, because Weavers teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column,wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column.
Weaver teaches the first motor (355) comprises a first shaft ( flat cylindrical portion of 355)_ connected to the column (160), the second motor (z-axis) comprises a second shaft (429) connected to the column, (160). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Additionally, Weaver teaches different multiaxis structure of the stage may be used.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column, wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column, because Weaver teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, a spacing measurement in a first dimension between the wafer and a pre-heat ring and a gapping measurement in a second dimension between the wafer and the pre-heat ring.
Okabe teaches a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, a spacing measurement (122d) in a first dimension between the wafer and a pre-heat ring based on when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches a gapping measurement in a second dimension between the wafer and the pre-heat ring and when the imaging unit 150 images the susceptor 120 and the preheat ring 122, the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 101.) Examiner is considering this measurement to be equivalent to the gapping measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, a spacing measurement in a first dimension between the wafer and a pre-heat ring and a gapping measurement in a second dimension between the wafer and the pre-heat ring, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position earlier during the process. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive the one or more images from the at least one optical sensor, but does not explicitly teach determine, based on the one or more images: a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane.
Fasen teaches it is desirable to provide motion sensing along more than one axis. (See Fasen, Abstract, and paragraph 46.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to receive the one or more images from the at least one optical sensor, determine, based on the one or more images: a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane, because Fasen teaches sensing along more than one axis is to provide more accurate operations. (See Fasen, Abstract, and paragraph 46.)
Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, … and a gapping measurement in a dimension that crosses the plane between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring.
Ivo is directed to accurately providing the position within a semiconductor processing apparatus.
Ivo teaches controller is an art recognized equivalent for receiving information from a position sensor to determine position. (See Ivo, Abstract, paragraphs 13-14, 16, 24, 29, 38-48, 50-59, 78-79, 92-94 and Figs. 5, 9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, … and a gapping measurement in a dimension that crosses the plane between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, as art recognized equivalent way to determine position. (See Ivo, Abstract, paragraphs 13-14, 16, 24, 29, 38-48, 50-59, 78-79, 92-94 and Figs. 5, 9.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position during deposition. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the gapping measurement.
Ravid is directed to position and temperature monitoring of a susceptor.
Ravid teaches the controller provides a signal to one or more actuator to move a portion of the susceptor assembly. (See Ravid, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 74, 80, 95-96, 100-102, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based the gapping measurement, because Ravid teaches the controller uses feedback circuits to provide detailed analysis of the susceptor assembly and subsequent movement of the susceptor assembly. (See Ravid, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 71-96, 100-102, and 108.) Examiner is considering a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the gapping measurement to be equivalent to the controller uses feedback circuits to provide detailed analysis of the susceptor assembly and subsequent movement of the susceptor assembly.
Stettner does not explicitly teach at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process.
Tepman is directed to an apparatus for deposition on a wafer.
Tepman teaches at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during process. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process, because Tepman teaches location of the motor outside the vacuum chamber will reduce contamination inside the vacuum chamber. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach … the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Weaver teaches this is known structure for adjusting the position of a susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Volovich is directed to an apparatus for adjusting the position of a wafer.
Volovich teaches multiple motors for controlling the position of a wafer and a controller for operating the motors. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Considering the movement of the shaft relative to the susceptor to be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Volovich teaches a controller is a known structure for adjusting position of a substrate using more than one motor. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Examiner is considering the processing tool of Stetner to be equivalent to a processing tool during a process.
Stettner does not explicitly teach a controller configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on a scale associated with the at least one optical sensor or based on one or more reference objects in the one or more images.
Khandelwal teaches when the imaging unit for determining the gap structure. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 38-39, 42, 48, and 58.)
Khandelwal teaches a controller configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on a scale associated with the at least one optical sensor or based on one or more reference objects (reference mark or groove) in the one or more images. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 38-39, 42, 48, and 58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on a scale associated with the at least one optical sensor or based on one or more reference objects in the one or more images, because Khandelwal teaches reference marks is useful to provide the size of the gap. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 38-39, 42, 48, and 58.)
Regarding claim 23, Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach a the one or more images include at least one first image associated with the spacing measurement and at least one second image associated with the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches the one or more images include at least one first image (enlarged) associated with the spacing measurement when the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122and at least one second image (still image) associated with the gapping measurement when the one or more images include at least one first image associated with the spacing measurement and at least one second image associated with the gapping measurement. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 59, 90, 100, 101 and 108.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the one or more images include at least one first image associated with the spacing measurement and at least one second image associated with the gapping measurement, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position earlier during the process. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46-47, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, 101, and 103.)
Regarding claim 24, Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on identifying the susceptor and the pre-heat ring in the one or more images.
Okabe teaches the controller is configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on identifying the susceptor and the pre-heat ring in the one or more images. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 13-14, 47, 59, 90, 100, 101 and 108.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the controller is configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on identifying the susceptor and the pre-heat ring in the one or more images would allow misalignment of the support shaft, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the pre-heat ring. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 13-14, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46-47, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, 101, and 103.)
The previous rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030227624 A1 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 22.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030227624 A1 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 25, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to identify the susceptor and the pre-heat ring using one or more of a color-based detector, a shape-based detector, or a neural network detector.
Wu teaches use of pattern to perform calibration within the process chamber. (See Wu, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 14-15, 21, 30, and 33.)
Wu teaches the controller is configured to identify the susceptor and the pre-heat ring using one or more of a color-based detector, a shape-based detector, or a neural network detector. (See Wu, Abstract, paragraph 33.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the controller is configured to identify the susceptor and the pre-heat ring using one or more of a color-based detector, a shape-based detector, or a neural network detector, because Wu teaches use of spectroscopy to detect pattern and colors is effective for position calibration in a processing chamber. (See Wu, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 14-15, 21, 30, and 33.)
The previous rejection of claims 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200156183 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 22.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200156183 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass) .
Regarding claim 26, Stettner does not explicitly teach the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement using a database to determine a change in the spacing measurement or a change in the gapping measurement associated with a movement of the first motor or the second motor.
Pass teaches use of multiple sensors to detect fiducial or markers on or near the stage to serve as a reference for determining location, dimensions, or other features. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
Pass teaches use of database to store the instructions for performing methodologies for alignment. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 2D, 3B, paragraphs 75, and 78-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement using a database to determine a change in the spacing measurement or a change in the gapping measurement associated with a movement of the first motor or the second motor, because Pass teaches use of database to store the instructions for performing methodologies for alignment. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 2D, 3B, paragraphs 75, and 78-80.)
Regarding claim 27, Stettner does not explicitly teach the at least one optical sensor includes a first optical sensor associated with a first view of the plurality of views and a second optical sensor associated with a second view of the plurality of views.
Pass teaches use of multiple sensors to detect fiducial or markers on or near the stage to serve as a reference for determining location, dimensions, or other features. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
Pass teaches the at least one optical sensor includes a first optical sensor (308) associated with a first view of the plurality of views and a second optical sensor (308) associated with a second view of the plurality of views. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 3B, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the at least one optical sensor includes a first optical sensor associated with a first view of the plurality of views and a second optical sensor associated with a second view of the plurality of views, because Pass teaches use of multiple sensors enables alignment to take place effectively when there is restricted visual access with greater accuracy than a single sensor. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 2D, 3B, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
The previous rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,793,904 to Clapp et al (hereinafter Clapp) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 22.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20030133372 A1 to Fasen et al (hereinafter Fasen) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,793,904 to Clapp et al (hereinafter Clapp).
Regarding claim 28, Stettner does not explicitly teach the at least one optical sensor includes different groups of pixels that capture the plurality of views simultaneously.
Clapp teaches use of pixel detectors are well known for inspection systems on manufactured articles. (See Clapp, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 13-23.)
Clapp teaches the at least one optical sensor includes different groups of pixels that capture the plurality of views (cross-web zones I1 to I4) simultaneously. (See Clapp, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 50-65, col. 2, lines 30-35, col. 4, lines 40-55, col. 6, lines 48-58, and col. 11, lines 4-24 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the at least one optical sensor includes different groups of pixels that capture the plurality of views simultaneously, because Clapp teaches this would allow the temporal and the spatial domains align so that the sensors can align to the user’s visualization. (See Clapp, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 50-65, col. 2, lines 30-35, col. 4, lines 40-55, col. 6, lines 48-58, and col. 11, lines 4-24 .)
The previous rejection of claims 1-3 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) . (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230178398 A1 to Stettner et al. is being used as a translation for EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich). (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230178398 A1 to Stettner et al. is being used as a translation for EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al).
Regarding claim 1, Stettner teaches a device, comprising:
a susceptor (2) of a semiconductor processing tool configured to support a wafer (substrate),
a column (9) of the semiconductor processing tool disposed under the susceptor (2), wherein a plurality of arms (slant projections of 9 under susceptor 2 in Fig. 1) extend from the column (9) to contact an underside of the susceptor (2) ;
at least one motor (drive unit, drive device, 12) configured to move the susceptor (susceptor) in situ, during a process, wherein the at least one motor (12) is configured to move the susceptor according to a command (control signals); and
a controller (21) configured to receive an input (width of gap or image) from an optical sensor (camera) and configured to provide the command (control signal) to the at least one motor based on the input (width of gap or image). (Examiner is considering a drive unit, drive device, 12 to be equivalent to a motor.) (See Stettner, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 17-18, 20-24, 28-29, 38, 65, and 67. )
Stettner does not explicitly teach a first motor and a second motor.
Weaver is directed to support for a susceptor.
Weaver teaches the support for a susceptor includes multiple motors (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis motors). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first motor and a second motor a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, because Weavers teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column,wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column.
Weaver teaches the first motor (355) comprises a first shaft ( flat cylindrical portion of 355)_ connected to the column (160), the second motor (z-axis) comprises a second shaft (429) connected to the column, (160). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Additionally, Weaver teaches different multiaxis structure of the stage may be used.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column, wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column, because Weaver teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive input during the process associated with misalignment of the susceptor 2 or support shaft (9), but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input.
Okabe is directed to semiconductor manufacturing apparatus having an imaging unit and imaging analysis unit that analyzes the deviation of the wafer on the basis of the image captured by the imaging unit. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11-12, 23, 26-27, 41, 43-44, 46, 53-54, 61, 68-70, 87-88, 90, and 101.)
Okabe teaches a controller (image analysis unit) configured to receive an input (image or deviation from gap 121d) from at least one optical sensor (camera) and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 4-5, 61-62, 70-73, and 101-104.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position during deposition. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor during the process associated with misalignment of the susceptor 2 or support shaft (9), but does not explicitly teach the input is associated with a spacing measurement between the susceptor and a pre-heat ring, the spacing measurement being in a plane and a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring.
Okabe teaches the input (i.e. the image which would include images of the dimensions in the first dimension and the second dimension) is associated with a spacing measurement between the wafer and a pre-heat ring. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 22-23, 26, 41, 42, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 101.) Examiner is considering an imaging unit configured to provide information on the gap between the wafer and the mounting section and the gap between the susceptor and the preheat ring equivalent to a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, wherein the input is associated with: a spacing measurement ring, the spacing measurement being in a plane.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the input associated with a spacing measurement between the susceptor and a pre-heat ring, the spacing measurement being in a plane and a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer would save time and effort problem in movement of the susceptor would enable the need for maintenance to be noticed early. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 22-23, 26, 41, 42, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, 101, and 103.) Examiner is considering a gap to include distance in both the plane of the spacing measurement and in a dimension of the gapping measurement.
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, but does not explicitly teach wherein the input is associated with a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane.
Ravid is directed to a sensor for use in a movable system. (See Ravid, Abstract.)
Ravid teaches a plurality of sensors can be useful to provide a three-dimensional map of the surface to be measured. (See Ravid, Abstract, and paragraphs 14, 30, 32, 48, 99, 109, 114-120, and 151-157 and Figs. 1-7 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, wherein the input is associated with a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane, because Ravid teaches sensing with a plurality of sensors can generate a three-dimensional map of the surface to be measured. (See Ravid, Abstract, and paragraphs 14, 16, 30, 31, 32, 48, 64-65, 79, 99, 109, 114-120, and 151-157 and Figs. 1-7 .)
Stettner does not explicitly teach at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process.
Tepman is directed to an apparatus for deposition on a wafer.
Tepman teaches at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process, because Tepman teaches location of the motor outside the vacuum chamber will reduce contamination inside the vacuum chamber. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach … the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Weaver teaches this is known structure for adjusting the position of a susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Volovich is directed to an apparatus for adjusting the position of a wafer.
Volovich teaches multiple motors for controlling the position of a wafer and a controller for operating the motors. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Considering the movement of the shaft relative to the susceptor to be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Volovich teaches a controller is a known structure for adjusting position of a substrate using more than one motor. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Examiner is considering the processing tool of Stetner to be equivalent to a processing tool during a process.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “a susceptor… configured to support a wafer” and “ configured to provide the command”). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Stettner in view of Okabe and Tepman and Ravid would be capable of these intended uses and as a result meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Stettner does not explicitly teach the input comprises at least one image, from the at least one optical sensor and the controller uses the at least one image to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement.
Okabe is directed to semiconductor manufacturing apparatus having an imaging unit and imaging analysis unit that analyzes the deviation of the wafer on the basis of the image captured by the imaging unit. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 101.)
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit 150 images the susceptor 120 and the preheat ring 122, the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 101.) Examiner is considering this measurement to be equivalent to the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches an imaging unit configured to provide information on the gap between the wafer and the mounting section and the gap between the susceptor and the preheat ring. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 101.) Examiner is considering an imaging unit configured to provide information on the gap between the wafer and the mounting section and the gap between the susceptor and the preheat ring equivalent to the input comprises at least one image, from at least one optical sensor, associated with the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and the controller uses the at least one image to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the input comprises at least one image, from the at least one optical sensor and the controller uses the at least one image to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Regarding claim 3, Stettner does not explicitly teach the input comprises at least one image, from at least one optical sensor, associated with the spacing measurement, and at least one second image from at least one second optical sensor, associated with the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit 150 images the susceptor 120 and the preheat ring 122, the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 101.) Examiner is considering this measurement to be equivalent to the gapping measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the input comprises at least one image, from at least one optical sensor, associated with the spacing measurement, and at least one second image from at least one second optical sensor, associated with the gapping measurement., because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by noticing the need for maintenance early. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Regarding claim 21, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine whether the spacing measurement satisfies a spacing threshold or whether the gapping measurement satisfies a gapping threshold based on an updated input from the at least one optical sensor.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches the controller (image analysis unit) is configured to determine whether the spacing measurement satisfies a spacing threshold (predetermined value). (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 54, 100-101.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the controller is configured to determine whether the spacing measurement satisfies a spacing threshold or whether the gapping measurement satisfies a gapping threshold based on an updated input from the at least one optical sensor, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by noticing the need for maintenance early. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 70, 88, 90, 100-101, and 103.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180311764 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180311764 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 4, Stettner does not explicitly teach the at least one motor comprises a rotational motor associated with rotation of the susceptor.
Kim is directed to a heater chuck for holding a wafer. (Examiner is considering a heater chuck to be equivalent to a susceptor. )
Kim teaches the at least one motor comprises a rotational motor (140) associated with rotation of the susceptor (heater chuck 100). (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 18-19, 38-39, 89, 101-102, 104-105, 130.) Examiner is considering a spin motor assembly to be equivalent to a rotational motor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one motor comprises a rotational motor associated with rotation of the susceptor, because Kim teaches the spin motor assembly may provide a rotating force for rotating a spin chuck and a wafer. (See Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 18-19, 38-39, 89, 101-102, 104-105, 130.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al (hereinafter Khandelwal) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al (hereinafter Khandelwal).
Regarding claim 5, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with different points around the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement.
Khandelwal teaches the gap can be determined from detector measurements. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, paragraphs 79-80.)
Khandelwal teaches a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with different points around the susceptor. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, paragraphs 79-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with different points around the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement, because Khandelwal teaches the measuring the gap at multiple locations with one or more locations can be used to determine the topology of the susceptor which would enable more detailed information on the measurement information. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, paragraphs 79-80.)
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass).
Regarding claim 6, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with a same point of the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement.
Pass teaches aligning a substrate by first determining a position of the substrate relative to the stage (See Pass, Abstract, paragraph 45, and Fig. 2D.)
Pass teaches a plurality of measurements by two different sensors on a same edge. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraph 45, and Fig. 2D.) (Examiner is considering a same edge i.e. feature, mark, to be equivalent of a same point i.e. mark, feature.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured to determine a plurality of measurements, based on the input and associated with a same point of the susceptor, to determine the spacing measurement or the gapping measurement, because Pass teaches multiple measurements with different sensors on a same feature would enable the location of the substrate to be determined with greater accuracy. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraph 45, and Fig. 2D.)
The previous rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich). (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230178398 A1 to Stettner et al. is being used as a translation for EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al.)
Regarding claim 22, Stettner teaches a device, comprising:
a susceptor (2) of a semiconductor processing tool configured to support a wafer (substrate),
a column (9) of the semiconductor processing tool disposed under the susceptor (2), wherein a plurality of arms (slant projections of 9 under susceptor 2 in Fig. 1) extend from the column (9) to contact an underside of the susceptor (2) ;
at least one motor (drive 12) configured to move the susceptor (susceptor) in situ,
at least one optical sensor (camera) configured to capture one or more images associated with a plurality of views of the susceptor (2); and
a controller (21) configured to receive one or more images (image) from an optical sensor (camera) and configured to provide the command (control signal) to the at least one motor based on the input (image). (Examiner is considering a drive unit to be equivalent to a motor.) (See Stettner, Abstract, paragraphs 6, 17-18, 20-24, 28-29, 38, 65, and 67.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a first motor and a second motor.
Weaver is directed to support for a susceptor.
Weaver teaches the support for a susceptor includes multiple motors (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis motors). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first motor and a second motor a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, because Weavers teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column,wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column.
Weaver teaches the first motor (355) comprises a first shaft ( flat cylindrical portion of 355)_ connected to the column (160), the second motor (z-axis) comprises a second shaft (429) connected to the column, (160). (See Weaver, Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Additionally, Weaver teaches different multiaxis structure of the stage may be used.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first motor comprises a first shaft connected to the column, wherein the second motor comprises a second shaft connected to the column, because Weaver teaches the use of multiple motors provides precision motion for aligning the susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, a spacing measurement in a first dimension between the wafer and a pre-heat ring and a gapping measurement in a second dimension between the wafer and the pre-heat ring.
Okabe teaches a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, a spacing measurement (122d) in a first dimension between the wafer and a pre-heat ring based on when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
Okabe teaches a gapping measurement in a second dimension between the wafer and the pre-heat ring and when the imaging unit 150 images the susceptor 120 and the preheat ring 122, the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 101.) Examiner is considering this measurement to be equivalent to the gapping measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, a spacing measurement in a first dimension between the wafer and a pre-heat ring and a gapping measurement in a second dimension between the wafer and the pre-heat ring, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position earlier during the process. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Stettner teaches a controller (21) configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, but does not explicitly teach wherein the input is associated with a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane.
Ravid is directed to a sensor for use in a movable system. (See Ravid, Abstract.)
Ravid teaches a plurality of sensors can be useful to provide a three-dimensional map of the surface to be measured. (See Ravid, Abstract, and paragraphs 14, 30, 32, 48, 99, 109, 114-120, and 151-157 and Figs. 1-7.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to receive an input from at least one optical sensor and configured to provide the command to the at least one motor during the process based on the input, wherein the input is associated with a gapping measurement between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, the gapping measurement being in a dimension that crosses the plane, because Ravid teaches sensing with a plurality of sensors can generate a three-dimensional map of the surface to be measured. (See Ravid, Abstract, and paragraphs 14, 16, 30, 31, 32, 48, 64-65, 79, 99, 109, 114-120, and 151-157 and Figs. 1-7 .)
Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, … and a gapping measurement in a dimension that crosses the plane between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring.
Ivo is directed to accurately providing the position within a semiconductor processing apparatus.
Ivo teaches controller is an art recognized equivalent for receiving information from a position sensor to determine position. (See Ivo, Abstract, paragraphs 13-14, 16, 24, 29, 38-48, 50-59, 78-79, 92-94 and Figs. 5, 9.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to… determine, based on the one or more images, … and a gapping measurement in a dimension that crosses the plane between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, as art recognized equivalent way to determine position. (See Ivo, Abstract, paragraphs 13-14, 16, 24, 29, 38-48, 50-59, 78-79, 92-94 and Figs. 5, 9.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches when the imaging unit images a part of the semiconductor wafer and a part of the semiconductor mounting section the deviation can be imaged in an enlarged manner by limiting the imaging range and allowing fine deviation to also be analyzed. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 90, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position during deposition. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, and 103.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the gapping measurement.
Ravid is directed to position and temperature monitoring of a susceptor.
Ravid teaches the controller provides a signal to one or more actuator to move a portion of the susceptor assembly. (See Ravid, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 74, 80, 95-96, 100-102, and 108.) Examiner is considering this deviation to be equivalent to the spacing measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based the gapping measurement, because Ravid teaches the controller uses feedback circuits to provide detailed analysis of the susceptor assembly and subsequent movement of the susceptor assembly. (See Ravid, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 71-96, 100-102, and 108.) Examiner is considering a controller configured to provide a command to the at least one motor during the deposition of the doped material based on the gapping measurement to be equivalent to the controller uses feedback circuits to provide detailed analysis of the susceptor assembly and subsequent movement of the susceptor assembly.
Stettner does not explicitly teach at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process.
Tepman is directed to an apparatus for deposition on a wafer.
Tepman teaches at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during process. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one motor configured to move the susceptor in situ, without disturbing a vacuum of an environment of the susceptor, during a process, because Tepman teaches location of the motor outside the vacuum chamber will reduce contamination inside the vacuum chamber. (See Tepman, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 36-46; col. 8, lines 22-37; and 60-67.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach … the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first direction is different from the second direction.
Weaver teaches the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, …. the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Weaver teaches this is known structure for adjusting the position of a susceptor. (See Weaver, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 10-11 and paragraphs 55-58.)
Stettner does not explicitly teach based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Volovich is directed to an apparatus for adjusting the position of a wafer.
Volovich teaches multiple motors for controlling the position of a wafer and a controller for operating the motors. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Considering the movement of the shaft relative to the susceptor to be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on the one or more commands, the first motor is configured to move the column via the first shaft along a first direction to adjust at least one of a gapping or a spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring,wherein, based on the one or more commands, the second motor is configured to move the column via the second shaft along a second direction to adjust at least one of the gapping or the spacing between the susceptor and the pre-heat ring, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction, because Volovich teaches a controller is a known structure for adjusting position of a substrate using more than one motor. (See Volovich, Abstract, figs. 1-4, col. 4, lines 12-32, col. 5, lines 1-15.)
Examiner is considering the processing tool of Stetner to be equivalent to a processing tool during a process.
Stettner does not explicitly teach a controller configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on a scale associated with the at least one optical sensor or based on one or more reference objects in the one or more images.
Khandelwal teaches when the imaging unit for determining the gap structure. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 38-39, 42, 48, and 58.)
Khandelwal teaches a controller configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on a scale associated with the at least one optical sensor or based on one or more reference objects (reference mark or groove) in the one or more images. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 38-39, 42, 48, and 58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on a scale associated with the at least one optical sensor or based on one or more reference objects in the one or more images, because Khandelwal teaches reference marks is useful to provide the size of the gap. (See Khandelwal, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 10, 38-39, 42, 48, and 58.)
Regarding claim 23, Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach a the one or more images include at least one first image associated with the spacing measurement and at least one second image associated with the gapping measurement.
Okabe teaches the one or more images include at least one first image (enlarged) associated with the spacing measurement when the image analysis can analyze the distance of the gap 122d between the edge of the susceptor 120 and the edge of the preheat ring 122and at least one second image (still image) associated with the gapping measurement when the one or more images include at least one first image associated with the spacing measurement and at least one second image associated with the gapping measurement. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 47, 59, 90, 100, 101 and 108.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the one or more images include at least one first image associated with the spacing measurement and at least one second image associated with the gapping measurement, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the wafer to save time and effort by providing immediate deviation from the mounting position earlier during the process. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46-47, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, 101, and 103.)
Regarding claim 24, Stettner teaches a controller, but does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on identifying the susceptor and the pre-heat ring in the one or more images.
Okabe teaches the controller is configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on identifying the susceptor and the pre-heat ring in the one or more images. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 13-14, 47, 59, 90, 100, 101 and 108.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the controller is configured to determine the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement based on identifying the susceptor and the pre-heat ring in the one or more images would allow misalignment of the support shaft, because Okabe teaches analysis of the position of the pre-heat ring. (See Okabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 11, 13-14, 23, 26, 41, 44, 44, 46-47, 54, 61, 68-70, 88, 90, 101, and 103.)
The previous rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030227624 A1 to Wu et al (hereinafter Wu) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 25.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030227624 A1 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 25, Stettner does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to identify the susceptor and the pre-heat ring using one or more of a color-based detector, a shape-based detector, or a neural network detector.
Wu teaches use of pattern to perform calibration within the process chamber. (See Wu, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 14-15, 21, 30, and 33.)
Wu teaches the controller is configured to identify the susceptor and the pre-heat ring using one or more of a color-based detector, a shape-based detector, or a neural network detector. (See Wu, Abstract, paragraph 33.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the controller is configured to identify the susceptor and the pre-heat ring using one or more of a color-based detector, a shape-based detector, or a neural network detector, because Wu teaches use of spectroscopy to detect pattern and colors is effective for position calibration in a processing chamber. (See Wu, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 14-15, 21, 30, and 33.)
The previous rejection of claims 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200156183 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200156183 A1 to Thomas Pass (hereinafter Pass) .
Regarding claim 26, Stettner does not explicitly teach the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement using a database to determine a change in the spacing measurement or a change in the gapping measurement associated with a movement of the at least one motor.
Pass teaches use of multiple sensors to detect fiducial or markers on or near the stage to serve as a reference for determining location, dimensions, or other features. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
Pass teaches use of database to store the instructions for performing methodologies for alignment. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 2D, 3B, paragraphs 75, and 78-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the spacing measurement and the gapping measurement using a database to determine a change in the spacing measurement or a change in the gapping measurement associated with a movement of the at least one motor, because Pass teaches use of database to store the instructions for performing methodologies for alignment. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 2D, 3B, paragraphs 75, and 78-80.)
Regarding claim 27, Stettner does not explicitly teach the at least one optical sensor includes a first optical sensor associated with a first view of the plurality of views and a second optical sensor associated with a second view of the plurality of views.
Pass teaches use of multiple sensors to detect fiducial or markers on or near the stage to serve as a reference for determining location, dimensions, or other features. (See Pass, Abstract, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
Pass teaches the at least one optical sensor includes a first optical sensor (308) associated with a first view of the plurality of views and a second optical sensor (308) associated with a second view of the plurality of views. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 3B, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the at least one optical sensor includes a first optical sensor associated with a first view of the plurality of views and a second optical sensor associated with a second view of the plurality of views, because Pass teaches use of multiple sensors enables alignment to take place effectively when there is restricted visual access with greater accuracy than a single sensor. (See Pass, Abstract, Fig. 2D, 3B, paragraphs 44-45, 57, and 70.)
The previous rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,793,904 to Clapp et al (hereinafter Clapp) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3905311 A to Stettner et al (hereinafter Stettner) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20140220712 A1 to Okabe et al (hereinafter Okabe) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,540,821 to Avi Tepman (hereinafter Tepman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160215396 A1 to Khandelwal et al ( hereinafter Khandelwal) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040258514 A1 to Ivo Raaijmakers (hereinafter Ivo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190244842 A1 to Ravid et al (hereinafter Ravid ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,793,904 to Clapp et al (hereinafter Clapp).
Regarding claim 28, Stettner does not explicitly teach the at least one optical sensor includes different groups of pixels that capture the plurality of views simultaneously.
Clapp teaches use of pixel detectors are well known for inspection systems on manufactured articles. (See Clapp, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 13-23.)
Clapp teaches the at least one optical sensor includes different groups of pixels that capture the plurality of views (cross-web zones I1 to I4) simultaneously. (See Clapp, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 50-65, col. 2, lines 30-35, col. 4, lines 40-55, col. 6, lines 48-58, and col. 11, lines 4-24 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the at least one optical sensor includes different groups of pixels that capture the plurality of views simultaneously, because Clapp teaches this would allow the temporal and the spatial domains align so that the sensors can align to the user’s visualization. (See Clapp, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 50-65, col. 2, lines 30-35, col. 4, lines 40-55, col. 6, lines 48-58, and col. 11, lines 4-24 .) Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 21-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20160355927 A1 to Weaver et al (hereinafter Weaver) and US Pat. Num. 5,125, 791 to Volovich (hereinafter Volovich) are now being used to address the rejection of independent claims 1 and 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717