DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Status
The amendment filed 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are pending. In the amendment filed 02/26/2026, claims 17 was amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added. Claims 1-16 and 23-24 were previously indicated as allowable in the final office action mailed 12/29/2025. The claims remain allowable and the reasons for allowance have been maintained in this office action for ease of review of the record.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottscho (prev. presented US 2018/0040460), also citing ‘185 (prev. presented US 2016/0216185) which is incorporated by reference into Gottscho, in view of Quaade (prev. presented US 2023/0216273) and US Patent Application Publication 2022/0344184 of Sadeghi, hereinafter Sadeghi.
Regarding claim 17, Gottscho teaches a semiconductor processing system (Fig 1), comprising: a processing chamber (120 Fig 2) configured to perform a semiconductor manufacturing process on each of a plurality of wafers [0064], the processing chamber comprising at least one consumable component ([0064-0065] teaching of surfaces which will be worn or build up residues including focus ring, electrode, liner and [0046]); a wafer handling module (104 Fig 1, [0044]) located proximate the processing chamber and in communication with the processing chamber via a wafer access port [0044], the wafer handling module comprising a wafer handling robot configured to transfer each of the wafers between the wafer handling module and the processing chamber through the wafer access port [0044]; a controller (Fig 1) and an optical diagnostic system (156, 150, 108 Fig 1-3 [0048]) comprising an optical sensor (180, 184 Fig 3) positioned to have direct line of sight to at least a portion of the at least one consumable component (Fig 2-3), the optical sensor being configured to detect an optical signal from the at least one consumable component [0068-0070] and comprising a diffuse illuminator (182 Fig 3 and [0070-0071]). Gottscho further teaches the diffuse illuminator is configured to illuminated one of the at least one consumable component to obtain a diffuse light illuminated image of the one of the at least one consumable component [0070-0071]. Gottscho teaches a second optical source (190 Fig 3; [0069] see light propagated through focusing mechanism 188) but fails to teach this is a structured illuminator. Gottscho teaches the optical system is configured to determine the wear of the consumable component [0028-0029] (note monitoring of wear or accumulation of material requires the ability to monitor thickness or shape changes). Gottscho fails to teach the light pattern includes a structured light (e.g. pattern of dots) projected onto the surface of the consumable because Gottscho teaches a single focused pattern. Addressing the same problem of using optical sensing to monitor distance or three-dimensional data [0003], Quaade teaches the light used to monitor distances to a structure and determine the three dimensional coordinates (i.e. shape) [0032] is a structured light source [0032] projected onto the surface to monitor the distance three dimensional shape [0032]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gottscho to include illumination using a structured light because Gottscho teaches different light arrangements [0070-0071] may be used and Quaade teaches the arrangement of structured light allows for monitoring the three dimensional surface of the object [0032] in combination with a diffuse light [0032]. In the combination as applied, the structured illuminator is configured to illuminate the one of the at least one consumable component to obtain a structured light illuminated image of the at least one consumable component. Regarding the controller is configured to construct a three-dimensional profile of the one of the at least one consumable component is constructed based on the diffuse light illuminated image and the structured light illuminated image of the one of the at least one consumable component, the apparatus Gottscho in view of Quaade has all of the structures of the recited system and is therefore capable of being used in the same manner. Additionally note that Quaade teaches a controller constructing a three dimensional profile [0032] and teaches both light sources may be used at the same time [0036] or separately [0032]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Gottscho to include constructing the three-dimensional profile of the one of the at least one consumable component is constructed based on the diffuse light illuminated image and the structured light illuminated image of the one of the at least one consumable component because the controller of Gottscho is already configured to use the detection to monitor changes (Fig 1) and 3D shape is a measure of the wear of a three dimensional structure (any structure of the apparatus is 3D) and the combination as applied herein includes the necessary data for constructing a 3D model and Quaade teaches it is known how to use a controller to analyze the image data to construct a 3D model. Additionally, Sadeghi teaches the computer (controller) models the 3D shape of chamber structures (e.g. ring) to monitor the wear and warpages [0205]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Gottscho to include forming a 3D model of the structure being monitored because Sadeghi teaches this arrangement allows for monitoring of the wear or warpage of the edge ring [0205].
Regarding claim 18, Gottscho teaches the at least one consumable component comprises at least one of a focus ring [0065], an electrode [0065], a deposition shield [0065] (liner), and a wafer chuck [0065]. Additionally, ‘185, which is incorporated by reference in Gottscho [0115] discloses that the consumable parts include a shower head [0053] (note a shower head is a member including a plurality of ejection holes configured to discharge a processing gas towards the substrate during processing and ‘185 demonstrates this as upper electrode 116 [0039] with gas supply.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottscho in view of Quaade and Sadeghi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of McChesney (prev. presented US 2017/0263478).
Regarding claim 19, Gottscho in view of Quaade and Sadeghi remains as applied to claim 17 above. Gottscho fails to explicitly teach the optical sensor is mounted on an inside wall of the wafer handling module in a location with visibility to the at least one consumable component, via the wafer access port, when the wafer access port is open for wafer transfer because Gottscho teaches the optical sensor is mounted on an inside wall of a different chamber attached to the chamber wall (Fig 2) and views the consumable component via an access port (103) different from the wafer access port. Initially it is noted that this appears to represent a mere rearrangement of parts to change the position of the sensor mounting. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, mounting in the transfer chamber and accessing via the same wafer access port would have been an obvious modification to minimize the number of ports on the chamber (note that each port is a potential source of a leaking seal relative to a solid chamber wall). Additionally, addressing the same problem of monitoring wear of a consumable component of a chamber (Fig 26-27), McChesney teaches it is known to position the camera sensor outside of the chamber to view into the chamber to observe the consumable component (ring) [0110-0112]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the optical sensor position of Gottscho to include viewing the substrate through a port rather than being inserted into the chamber because McChesney demonstrates this is a functional alternative position for the same purpose of monitoring the wear of a component. Again, as noted above specifically viewing through the wafer access port represents a mere rearrangement of parts.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottscho in view of Quaade and Sadeghi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miyajima (prev. presented US 2006/0157698).
Regarding claim 20, Gottscho in view of Quaade and Sadeghi remains as applied to claim 17 above. Gottscho fails to explicitly teach the optical sensor is mounted on a wafer handling arm of the wafer transfer robot in a location with visibility to the at least one consumable component during wafer handling arm motion because Gottscho teaches the optical sensor mounted on a separate, movable probe. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring structures in a processing chamber (abstract) [0014], Miyajima teaches the optical sensor (106 Fig 2A) including a camera [0050] is mounted on a wafer handling arm of the wafer transfer robot to monitor consumable structures (e.g. edge ring) [0050], [0054-0055]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gottscho to include the optical sensor is mounted on a wafer handling arm of the wafer transfer robot in a location with visibility to the at least one consumable component during wafer handling arm motion because Miyajima teaches this is a functional alternative position for the same purpose of inserting the camera to observe structures in the chamber [0058] and teaches it as an alternative to a dedicated robot for only observation of the chamber (i.e. the embodiment of Gottscho) [0117-0120].
Regarding claim 21, Gottscho in view of Quaade, Sadeghi, and Miyajima remains as applied to claim 20 above. Miyajima as applied in the combination teaches the optical sensor is mounted on an end effector or a wafer platen of the wafer handling arm (106 Fig 2A and 5-7, or 106A,B,C Fig 4A).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottscho in view of Quaade and Sadeghi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Richardson (prev. presented US 2017/0053819).
Regarding claim 22, Gottscho in view of Quaade and Sadeghi remains as applied to claim 17 above. Gottscho fails to teach a measurement wafer configured to be transferred by the wafer transfer robot, wherein the optical sensor is mounted on the measurement wafer such that the direct line of sight is provided at one or more locations along a transfer path of the measurement wafer. Addressing the same problem the same problem of monitoring wear of a consumable component of a chamber (abstract), Richardson teaches that as an alternative to an optical sensor mounted on a structure to be inserted into the apparatus (112 on robot arm 108), the apparatus may use a measurement wafer (504 Fig 5B) configured to be transferred by the wafer transfer robot [0079], wherein the optical sensor (506 Fig 5B) is mounted on the measurement wafer such that the direct line of sight is provided at one or more locations along a transfer path of the measurement wafer [0079]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gottscho to include a measurement wafer having the optical sensor because Richardson teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement for allowing monitoring of the chamber [0079] and teaches that it does not require modifications to a transfer arm to perform [0079].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 23-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record Gottscho in view of Kimura or Gottscho in view of Quaade (see above for related claim limitation mapping of the analogous limitations of claim 17 and see non-final office action mailed 06/04/2025 for additional limitation mapping over Gottscho for previous claim 1) fails to teach or fairly suggest all the limitations of instant claim 1 and in particular the limitations regarding the controller configured to “use the diffuse light illuminated image to detect edges of the one of the at least one consumable component, use the structured light illuminated image to identify intersection points where structured light intersects the edges detected from the diffuse light illuminated image, and construct a three-dimensional profile of the one of the at least one consumable component based on the intersection points” within the context of the claim as a whole. Both Kimura and Quaade as cited above provide the obviousness of including a structured light source to construct a three-dimensional profile of the one of the at least one consumable component but neither these references, nor Gottscho teach or fairly suggest using the diffuse light illuminated image to detect edges, use the structured light illuminated image to identify intersection points where structured light intersects the edges detected from the diffuse light illuminated image, and construct a three-dimensional profile of the one of the at least one consumable component based on the intersection points. Additional prior art that has been identified such as US 2003/0185433 of Harding, hereinafter Harding, teaches an optical imaging system using diffuse and structured light [0005] and teaches using the interaction of the structured light with identified edges [0014-0015] for three dimensional profile determination. However, the apparatus relies on rotation of the object relative to the light source to identify the edges [0014-0015] (see rotation support 14 in Fig 1). Kimura performs imaging on structures within the chamber that may not be freely rotated relative to the optical source because the purpose is in situ monitoring within the chamber. Therefore the combination is not obvious due to the conflicting needs for the monitored component to be stationary in Kimura and rotating in Harding. Therefore, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and thus the claim is allowable.
The remaining claims are allowable for their dependence from an allowable claim addressed above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the allowability of all of the pending claims.
Applicant argues (reply p7-8) that Gottscho in view of Quaade fails to teach all the limitations of amended claim 17 because the combination does not teach the controller and controller configured to construct the 3D profile. This is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented above which demonstrates the obviousness of the construction of the 3D profile and further citing new reference Sadeghi which teaches constructing a 3D profile for wear and warpage monitoring. Therefore these arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0335492 teaches a three dimensional shape detection apparatus (Fig 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights