DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on p. 5 that “first capture device” and “second capture device” are not intended to invoke 112(f) means plus function claiming. This argument is not persuasive, Applicant’s intent is not dispositive of the determination of whether a claim term invokes 112(f) means plus function claiming per the test set forth below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that tool performance and tool health are not part of the current operating state of the machine. This argument is not persuasive. Under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claim term “operating state,” tool performance and health are part of the operating state of the machine. Funk discloses that tool performance and tool health encompass a wide variety of parameters that disclose the characteristics of the machine, and that would fall under what Applicant discloses as the operating state of the machine (Funk: “During the execution of the intervention plan and analysis plan, the APC system can present "tool health" charts to the user. For example, the charts can include manometer data, mass flow data, leakage data, pump data, gas system data, cassette system data, and transfer system data. The charts can display real-time data, historical data, and the combination of real-time and historical data for one or more tools, one or more modules, one or more wafers, one or more process steps, and for different times,” ¶ 0217).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
first capture device in claim 10, disclosed as devices 12-14 in Fig. 1, as sensors in ¶ 0045, and as particular parameters in ¶ 0012;
second capture device in claim 109, disclosed as devices 17 and 18 in Fig. 1, as cameras or microphones in ¶ 0046, and as particular parameters in ¶ 0013.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Funk et al., US 2005/0187649 A1 (hereinafter Funk).
Regarding claim 1, Funk teaches a method for the early detection of and response to faults in a machine, the method comprising:
capturing first signals inside the machine and second signals outside the machine in real time, wherein the first and second signals are sampled at a data rate that is adaptively adapted based on a current predefined operating state of the machine (“In the APC system, sensor data can be provided by both external and internal sources,” ¶ 0041; “the APC system can change the sampling rate based on the tool performance. For example, the data collection sampling rates and amount of analysis can be changed based on tool health,” ¶ 0071; “each data recorder object can be enabled at the start of a sensor and turned off at the completion of a wafer. In some cases, data may be recorded between wafers (environmental data--transfer chamber vacuums, temperatures, humidity, etc. . . . ). In this case, the recorder objects can have multiple outputs of data associating the data to a wafer at one sample rate and to a machine object at a different sample rate (configurable),” ¶0149);
transmitting the first and second signals to a data processing system using broadband transmission (“sensor interface 140 can be used to provide an interface between sensor 130 and the APC system 145. For example, APC system 145 can be connected to sensor interface 140 via an Internet or intranet connection, and sensor interface 140 can be connected to sensor 130 via an Internet or intranet connection,” ¶ 0045);
detecting a fault by the data processing system using the transmitted first and second signals based on a common time base (“FIG. 4 illustrates a simplified flow diagram for a Fault Detection and Classification (FDC) process,” ¶ 0088; “In 5, the PM State, Sensor data, and Process data can be provided to the Model Engine,” ¶ 0101), wherein signal patterns and fault images are previously determined and stored in the data processing system, fault indicators are determined from the signal patterns and the fault images, and wherein the detecting the fault is performed based on the fault indicators (“The goal of the APC system is to use real-time and historical data to improve the semiconductor processing system's performance. To achieve this goal, potential problems can be predicted and corrected before they occur, thus reducing equipment downtime and the number of non-product wafers that are produced. This can be accomplished by collecting data and then feeding that data into a software algorithm that models the behavior of a particular tool, process module, and/or sensor. The APC system outputs process parametric adaptations that are then either fed forward or back to keep the tool performance within the specified limits. This control can be accomplished in different forms at different levels,” ¶ 0076; “certain scenarios require the historical data from previous process runs be reconstructed in the process model engine for comparison with the current state of the process,” ¶ 0106; “FDC operates by comparing the current process results with historical data and generates notifications and interventions depending on the level of fault detected,” ¶ 0156); and
directly intervening by the data processing system in the machine when the fault is detected, wherein the intervening comprises aborting a process of the machine or adapting parameters of the process (“FDC operates by comparing the current process results with historical data and generates notifications and interventions depending on the level of fault detected,” ¶ 0156; “After the intervention plan is executed, messages on proper actions are sent to intervention manager. For example, action candidates can include: display a fault message on a status screen; send message to pause the process before the next wafer; send message to pause the process before the next lot; send pause or stop message to one or more tools, send pause or stop message to one or more process modules, send pause or stop message to one or more sensors, send email to a system owner, tool owner, process owner. For example, a "stop" message can be used to tell the tool to continue processing the wafers already in the tool, and an "abort" message can be used to tell the tool not to process the wafers in the tool and to send them back to the carrier.” ¶ 0215).
Regarding claim 2, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches at least partially synchronizing the first and second signals before the transmitting (“The APC server 160 comprises at least one computer and software that supports multiple process tools; collects and synchronizes data from tools, process modules, sensors, and probes,” ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches at least partially synchronizing the first and second signals after the transmitting (“The APC server 160 comprises at least one computer and software that supports multiple process tools; collects and synchronizes data from tools, process modules, sensors, and probes,” ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 4, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches forming at least one signal group, wherein the first and second signals within the signal group are synchronized (“the combination of real-time and historical data for one or more tools, one or more modules, one or more wafers, one or more process steps, and for different times,” ¶ 0217).
Regarding claim 5, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches capturing at least some of the first and second signals with a different time resolution (“the APC system can change the sampling rate based on the tool performance. For example, the data collection sampling rates and amount of analysis can be changed based on tool health,” ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 6, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches wherein the fault detection is carried out on the basis of population comparisons between the first and second signals and the signal patterns and the fault images that are stored (“the APC system can comprise a model columns table that can be used to describe the columns in the model data tables. For example, the data can be used to dynamically create new model data tables. The model data table can be a dynamically created table to hold input and output data for model analysis. The creation and population of the tables can be configured in the raw to model data map table,” ¶ 0117).
Regarding claim 7, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches wherein the fault detection is carried out recursively on time series of the first and second signals (“When the data preprocessing plan is executed, time series data can be created from raw data files and saved in the database; wafer summary data can be created from the time series data; and lot summary data can be created from the wafer data. The data collection can be executed while the wafer is being processed. When the wafer is out of this process step, then the data pre-processing plan can be executed,” ¶ 0187).
Regarding claim 8, Funk teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Funk also teaches wherein at least one captured signal is supplemented by means of interpolation (“an output table can be configured to have complete rows without missing values, and there are configuration options, such as interpolating data, or using previous observations, that can be used during the output creation,” ¶ 0116).
Regarding claim 10, Funk teaches a system for the early detection of and response to faults in a machine, the system comprising:
a machine having at least one first capture device for capturing first signals inside the machine in real time (“In the APC system, sensor data can be provided by both external and internal sources,” ¶ 0041),
at least one second capture device disposed outside the machine for capturing at least one second signal outside the machine in real time (“In the APC system, sensor data can be provided by both external and internal sources,” ¶ 0041),
a data processing system comprising a computer (145, Fig. 1),
a memory for storing at least one of signal patterns, fault images, or data models, wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the data processing system (“IS 150 can comprise a real-time memory database.” ¶ 0022; “certain scenarios require the historical data from previous process runs be reconstructed in the process model engine for comparison with the current state of the process,” ¶ 0106)
a broadband data transmission channel for transmitting the first signals and the second signals to the data processing system in real time (“processing tool 110 communicates with the IS 150 using sockets. For example, the interface can be implemented using TCP/IP socket communication,” ¶ 0132),
wherein the first signals and the second signals are sampled at a data rate that is adaptively adapted based on a current predefined operating state or future planned operating state of the machine (“the APC system can change the sampling rate based on the tool performance. For example, the data collection sampling rates and amount of analysis can be changed based on tool health,” ¶ 0071; “each data recorder object can be enabled at the start of a sensor and turned off at the completion of a wafer. In some cases, data may be recorded between wafers (environmental data--transfer chamber vacuums, temperatures, humidity, etc. . . . ). In this case, the recorder objects can have multiple outputs of data associating the data to a wafer at one sample rate and to a machine object at a different sample rate (configurable),” ¶0149),
wherein the data processing system is configured to detect faults in real time using the first signals inside the machine and the second signal outside the machine based on a common time base and to directly act on the machine in response to detecting the faults, and wherein the data processing system is configured to detect the fault based on the signal patterns, the fault images, and/or the data models, and wherein the acting on the machine comprises aborting a process of the machine or adapting parameters of the process (“FIG. 4 illustrates a simplified flow diagram for a Fault Detection and Classification (FDC) process,” ¶ 0088; “In 5, the PM State, Sensor data, and Process data can be provided to the Model Engine,” ¶ 0101; “FDC operates by comparing the current process results with historical data and generates notifications and interventions depending on the level of fault detected,” ¶ 0156; “After the intervention plan is executed, messages on proper actions are sent to intervention manager. For example, action candidates can include: display a fault message on a status screen; send message to pause the process before the next wafer; send message to pause the process before the next lot; send pause or stop message to one or more tools, send pause or stop message to one or more process modules, send pause or stop message to one or more sensors, send email to a system owner, tool owner, process owner. For example, a "stop" message can be used to tell the tool to continue processing the wafers already in the tool, and an "abort" message can be used to tell the tool not to process the wafers in the tool and to send them back to the carrier.” ¶ 0215).
Regarding claim 11, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches a synchronization device for synchronizing the first signals and/or the second signals, the synchronization device implement with the data processing system comprising the computer and/or with the machine comprising a machine controller (processor 145, Fig. 1; “the combination of real-time and historical data for one or more tools, one or more modules, one or more wafers, one or more process steps, and for different times,” ¶ 0217).
Regarding claim 12, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches wherein the data processing system is scalable (more processors can be added to APC 145, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches wherein the data processing system is implemented in a cloud environment (an APC system 145 is remote from machine and reached using TCP/IP protocol, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches a signal cluster having a plurality of time-synchronous signals (“the combination of real-time and historical data for one or more tools, one or more modules, one or more wafers, one or more process steps, and for different times,” ¶ 0217).
Regarding claim 15, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches a machine controller, wherein the data processing system acts on the machine controller (“APC system 145 can comprise a tool level (TL) controller (not shown) for controlling at least one of a processing tool,” ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 17, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches wherein the at least one first capture device is a sensor (“In the APC system, sensor data can be provided by both external and internal sources,” ¶ 0041), and wherein the at least one second capture device is an optical sensor (“In the APC system, sensor data can be provided by both external and internal sources. External sources can be defined using an external data recorder type; a data recorder object can be assigned to each external source,” ¶ 0041; “Also, APC system 145 can comprise one or more sensor interface applications. For example, at least one OES data recorder can be used to record data from each optical emissions sensor,” ¶ 0128).
Regarding claim 18, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches wherein the first and second signals are sampled at the data rate that is adaptively adapted based on the future planned operating state of the machine (“Furthermore, the APC system can comprise a device run table that can contain setup and operating parameters for the sensor device for the run. For example, the device run table can also comprise header data to indicate what observations are written to the raw run data. This allows the setup and data collected to be changed from run to run,” ¶ 0114;” For example, a strategy can specify a set of plans that should be active at any given time; events can be evaluated by the PE to determine a specific strategy to run; and the action can be executed in the form of plans. Plans can be specific actions that take place for a single wafer. The actions can be specified by a pre-defined script that manages sensor setup, data collection and data analysis for a given wafer, lot or set of wafer runs,” ¶ 0140).
Regarding claim 19, Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches wherein the current predefined operating state is a state in which the machine has already been commanded into and the future planned operating state of the machine is an planned upcoming state in which the machine will be commanded into (“Furthermore, the APC system can comprise a device run table that can contain setup and operating parameters for the sensor device for the run. For example, the device run table can also comprise header data to indicate what observations are written to the raw run data. This allows the setup and data collected to be changed from run to run,” ¶ 0114;” For example, a strategy can specify a set of plans that should be active at any given time; events can be evaluated by the PE to determine a specific strategy to run; and the action can be executed in the form of plans. Plans can be specific actions that take place for a single wafer. The actions can be specified by a pre-defined script that manages sensor setup, data collection and data analysis for a given wafer, lot or set of wafer runs,” ¶ 0140).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk in view of Inoue, US 20200183375 A1 (hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding claim 20:
Funk teaches the invention of claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above. Funk also teaches wherein the detecting of the fault further considers domain knowledge, and wherein the domain knowledge describes relationships in the machine between acoustic signals and at least one of vibration excitation, axis dynamics, absolute position of a kinematic chain, actuators, or an operating state of a machining unit (“Furthermore, the APC system can perform very specific procedures such as a timing analysis allocation to figure out when a tool and/or module malfunctions (i.e. a wafer handling system problem with a motor or actuator arm position,” ¶ 0070).
Funk does not teach wherein the second signals outside the machine comprise at least one received acoustic signal originating from a microphone.
Inoue teaches a machine using a microphone to gather acoustic data (“a sound collection microphone which is provided in the vicinity of the spindle or the motor bearing of the machine tool 22 so as to measure and output sound in the spindle or in the vicinity of the moto,” ¶ 0033)
It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art could easily add the acoustic sensor of Inoue to Funk to predictably provide sound information, without otherwise altering the operation of Funk.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk to use a microphone, as taught by Inoue, because this would predictably allow one to sense acoustic emissions from the machine, thereby resulting in wherein the second signals outside the machine comprise at least one received acoustic signal originating from a microphone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
21 January 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853