DETAILED ACTION
Final Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-24 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-24 are rejected below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: they all depend from a later claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0168848) in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2008/0071405) in view of Nakano (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0253762).
Tanaka in view of Liu teach most of the claimed invention, but does not teach all of the invention of claim 14. However, this an obvious variation as taught by Nakano:
As to claim 1 (19 and 20), Tanaka teaches 1 an information processing device comprising a processor and a storage device, the processor being configured: to acquire data for each parameter provided from each of a light source device which generates pulse light and an exposure apparatus which performs exposure on a wafer with the pulse light output from the light source device [ 0008 A light source apparatus according to an aspect of the present disclosure may be used for an exposure apparatus which exposes a plurality of wafers by repeating a wafer exposure for exposing a total exposure area of each wafer. The wafer exposure may include a sequential execution of scanning exposures in which each divided area defined by dividing the total exposure area of each wafer is scanned by pulsed light], and time data associated with the data, 0145, 0175]; to perform classification, based on the acquired data and time data, for each record of the data associated with same time data for distinguishing whether being data during exposure in which the wafer is irradiated with the pulse light or being data during non-exposure other than during the exposure[ 0206 data mapping may be executed. Specifically, data of each pulse is associated with data of each wafer, each scanning and each pulse in each scanning. That is, a total pulse number during driving of the exposure apparatus 300 may be associated with data indicating which pulse of which wafer and which scanning. Here, Z may be various kinds of parameters, and it may include the time Time, the trigger interval T, the target energy Et, the measured value of pulse energy E, the target wavelength, the measured value of oscillation wavelength, the measured value of spectrum width]; to associate attribute information indicating an attribute according to the classification with each of the records [ 0209 executing the mapping process of collected data of pulse laser beams L, every data can be associated with in terms of a wafer, a scanning and a pulse in each scanning, whereby a process analysis can be executed associating with a result of an actual wafer exposure].
Tanaka teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach that the known data is displayed. Simply displaying known data is not novel or non-obvious. Furthermore, Examiner has included Liu to show this.
As to claim 1, 19 and 20, Lui teaches to cause the storage device to store the data and the time data associated with the attribute information; and to generate a chart using data read from the storage device [0031, 0036, 0040 (fig. 3-7)]. Claims 19 and 20 are patentable similar to that of claim 1 and are rejected to similar reasons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Liu into the system and method of Tanaka. The motivation to combine is that Liu teaches a user queries the database by specifying at least one parameter and in response to the querying, the data is correlated, reorganized and classified and a diagnostic display is provided. The diagnostic display presents operation time data comparing various processing operations, fabrication parameters and units. Such comparative data displays may identify a bottleneck in the system [0024].
Many of the dependent claims discuss the charts and how they are displayed. Liu describes how the known data can be display. Tanaka teaches many of the concepts of the dependent claims and even shows that visualizations are known. See figures from Tanaka.
As to claim 1, 19 and 20,Tanaka teaches monitoring wafer processing including multiple adjustment oscillation time periods (fig. 2). Liu teaches that data can be obtained during processing and displayed in chart form [0031, 0036, 0040 (fig. 3-7)]. Nakano teaches additional charts can be made such as a dayline format chart(fig. 12 [0051, 0113]). For example, Nakano teaches the total amount of gases or power used, which would include the data from both exposure and non-exposure time (adjustment oscillation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Nakano into the system and method of Tanaka modified by Liu. The motivation to combine is that Nakano teaches displaying the data an operator can easily analyze the generation of an abnormal phenomenon of the substrate processing apparatus [0172-0173].
As to claim 2, Liu teaches further comprising a display, wherein the processor causes the display to display the first and second charts [0031].
As to claim 3, Tanaka teaches wherein the processor generates a table in which the records are arranged in time series based on the time data (fig. 7).
As to claim 4, Lui teaches wherein the processor generates the records in which data related to a plurality of parameters is unitized based on the time data (fig. 3 [0036] or fig. 7 [0040]).
As to claim 5, Liu teaches wherein the attribute information includes exposure information indicating data being during the exposure and non-exposure information indicating data being during the non-exposure, and the processor associates each of the records with the exposure information or the non-exposure information (fig. 3 [0036] or fig. 7 [0040]).
As to claim 6, Tanaka teaches wherein the data provided from the exposure apparatus includes wafer identification information for identifying the wafer to be exposed, a scan number for identifying a position of a scan region in the wafer, exposure start time and exposure end time for each wafer, and data related to an exposure condition, and the processor uses, as the exposure information, at least one of wafer number as the wafer identification information and the scan number(fig. 12).
As to claim 7, Tanaka teaches wherein the non-exposure information includes information indicating data being during adjustment oscillation[0121].
As to claim 8, Tanaka teaches wherein the chart is a timeline format chart (fig. 2).
As to claim 9, Tanaka teaches wherein the timeline format chart includes highlight display indicating whether being a period during the exposure or a period during the non-exposure in a distinguishing manner (fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Tanaka teaches wherein the processor causes wafer identification information identifying the wafer to be exposed to be displayed in an area corresponding to a period during the exposure in the timeline format chart in a superimposed manner (fig. 2).
As to claim 11, Tanaka teaches wherein the processor generates a wafer shape mapped image using the data during the exposure for each of the wafers to be exposed, and displays the mapped image in an area corresponding to a period during the exposure in the timeline format chart in a superimposed manner (fig. 2 and 8).
As to claim 12, Tanaka teaches wherein the processor causes character information indicating being during the non-exposure to be displayed in an area corresponding to a period during the non-exposure in the timeline format chart in a superimposed manner (fig. 2 - adjustment oscillation).
As to claim 13, Tanaka teaches wherein the processor generates a chart related to a parameter during the non-exposure only using the data during the non-exposure among the data during the non- exposure and the data during the exposure, and causes the chart related to the parameter during the non-exposure to be displayed in an area corresponding to a period during the non-exposure in the timeline format chart in a superimposed manner (fig. 2 - adjustment oscillation parameters [0121]).
As to claim 18, Liu teaches further comprising a display and an input device, wherein the processor receives from the input device input of information designating to display the timeline format chart and the dayline format chart on the display, and causes the display to display the timeline format chart and the dayline format chart in accordance with the information input from the input device. [0031 Liu teaches that the user can query the storage unit for information and that can be displayed differently e.g. charts, table, etc.].
As to claim 21, Nakano teaches wherein the first chart is a timeline format chart, and the second chart is a dayline format chart longer in span than the first chart[0022, 0061]. See figs. 12 and 13.
As to claim 22, Nakano teaches wherein the first chart and the second chart include a same one of the parameter (fig. 12 and 13 power for example).
As to claim 23, Nakano teaches to wherein the same parameter is a gas pressure in a laser chamber which the light source device includes or a spectral width at which 95% of energy in a spectrum of pulse laser light is concentrated[0147 shows that the gas pressure is monitored].
As to claim 24, Tanaka teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform classification for distinguishing whether being data at the time of running-in operation during the non-exposure other than during the exposure [0206]; to associate attribute information indicating an attribute according to the classification with each of the records[0206];
As to claim 24, Nakano teaches to generate the first chart of the data during the exposure using data read from the storage device and generate the second chart that is a combination of the data at the time of the first adjustment oscillation by the first burst operation, the data at the time of the second adjustment oscillation by the second burst operation, and data at the time of the running-in operation (fig. 12 and 13)[0022, 0061-62, 0074].
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0168848) in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2008/0071405) in view of Nakano (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0253762) in view Kaga (U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0220874).
Tanaka in view of Liu and Nakano teach most of the claimed invention, but does not teach all of the invention of claim 15. However, this an obvious variation as taught by Kaga:
As to claim 15, wherein the chart is a chart showing transition of a number of pulses [0042]. As above Nakano teaches a dayline chart.
As to claim 16, wherein the dayline format chart (Nakano fig. 12) is a chart displaying transition of a number of pulses (Kaga 0042) during the exposure and transition of a number of pulses during the non-exposure in a distinguishing manner (Tanaka fig. 2).
As to claim 17, Nakano teaches wherein the dayline format chart is a chart showing transition of a cumulative number of pulses (fig. 12 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kaga into the system and method of Tanaka modified by Liu and Nakano. The motivation to combine is that Kaga teaches displaying the data an operator can determine the cumulative pulses for purposes such as maintenance on the machine [0027].
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior artreference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It iswell settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in theart. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant'sclaim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a singleprior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, todemonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specificlimitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038,1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319,1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-21-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has included further citations of Nakano which as not argued in the remarks. Nakano teaches most of the newly amended claims as can be seen above. It is worth noting that the term “data” in the independent claims is very broad. Examiner highly suggesting fleshing out this term to move forward.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights