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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species 1 (Fig. 1), sub-species A (Fig. 3), claims 1-6, 8-11 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. However claim 8 does not read on elected species of Fig. 3 rather on Species D (Fig. 8) and therefore withdrawn for consideration. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in line 1 “the state” has antecedent issues. It should be “a state”.
Claims 1, 11 defines “a sample stage” and “a film” however as described in [0024] a sample stage that includes an electrostatic chuck (ESC) 205 and a film 210 that forms the ESC 205 but in Fig. 2, 210 and 205 are shown as a single element and therefore indefinite as from claim language it can be interpreted as two separate elements. For examination purpose as shown, an upper surface of sample stage (chuck) has been interpreted as “a film”.
Claim 2 defines “the average value” has antecedent issues.
Claim 2 defines “the average value of a temperature data” is indefinite. How average is done for a single data?
Claims 3-4 defines “the maximum value”, “the minimum value” has antecedent issues.
Claim 5 defines “a difference between predefined .. and the temperature data” is indefinite. Is the temperature data associated with before or after a change of energy applied?
Claim 8 defines “a semiconductor manufacturing device” has antecedent issues which should be “the semiconductor manufacturing device”.
Claims 2-6, 9-10 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jung et al (US 2018/0059168 A1) in view of Wada et al. (KR 20200019237 A)
Regarding claim 1: Jung teaches in Fig. 1 about a diagnostic device for diagnosing the state of a semiconductor manufacturing device having a sample stage (comprising 120, 130, 140) on which a sample W ([0023] electrostatically [0019] adsorbed to a film (As marked) is mounted,
PNG
media_image1.png
624
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein temperature data before and after a change of energy applied to the sample is obtained (temperature sensor 210 measure the temperature of the chuck [0026] and [0018] and [0020] teaches the parameters including one or more of a power, a current, a voltage to the chuck 120 and Fig. 5 and [0020] – [0024] explains measure a temperature of the chuck after the change of energy or plasma processing), and
an anomaly of the film is detected on the basis of the obtained temperature data (Fig. 5, ST340).
Jung does not explicitly talk about wherein temperature data before a change of energy applied to the sample.
Wada teaches in pages 3-4 that the stage is first heated to a specified target temperature before doing any processing and the first temperature sensor measure/detect the temperature T1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed to measure the temperature of chuck before any processing to confirm the chuck temperature was set to a target temperature according to the teachings of Wada and apply it to Jung before any plasma process starts in order to perform a mounting process suitably, it is desired that the temperature of a surface of a stage is maintained at a prescribed target temperature (Wada, page 1).
Regarding claim 2: Jung in view of Wada does not explicitly talk about wherein a difference between the average value of a temperature data before the change of the energy and the average value of the temperature data after a change of the energy is obtained as a feature amount.
However as explained in claim 1, Jung teaches about measuring temperature after and Wada teaches about measuring before. Wada further teaches in pages 8-9 when the temperature change amount ΔTn is obtained for all the measurement points Pn (YES in S76), the controller 16 calculates the average change amount ΔTave = Σ (ΔTn) / 9 which is an average value of the temperature change amount ΔTn.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use average value for all measurement points with routine experiment and optimization since the temperature is critical in order to use the temperature by the controller for proper setting according to the teaching of Wada (pages 8-9). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 3: Jung in view of Wada does not explicitly talk about wherein a difference between the maximum value of the temperature data and the minimum value of the temperature data is obtained as a feature amount.
However as explained in claim 1, Jung teaches about measuring temperature after and Wada teaches about measuring before. Wada further teaches in pages 8-9 the control unit 16 determines whether or not the difference between the maximum value MAX (ΔTi) and the minimum value MIN (ΔTi) is equal to or less than a predetermined reference value Ddef among the obtained plurality of temperature change amounts ΔTi ( S82). Here, the reference value Ddef is a value which can be regarded that the plurality of measuring points Pn are substantially the same temperature, and is a value that is obtained in advance by experiment or the like.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use maximum and minimum values for all measurement points with routine experiment and optimization since the temperature is critical in order to use the temperature by the controller for proper setting according to the teaching of Wada (pages 8-9). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 4: Jung in view of Wada does not explicitly talk about wherein a slope with respect to time is obtained as a feature amount using data between the maximum value of the temperature data and the minimum value of the temperature data.
However as explained in claim 1, Jung teaches about measuring temperature after and Wada teaches about measuring before. Wada further teaches in page 7 perform temperature measurement based on the slope ((DELTA) (DELTA) (DELTA) (T) / ts) of the time change curve of 2nd detection temperature (T2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a slope with respect to time during temperature measurements points with routine experiment and optimization since the temperature is critical in order to use the temperature by the controller for proper setting according to the teaching of Wada (pages 8-9). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 5: Jung in view of Wada does not explicitly talk about wherein a difference between predefined normal temperature data and the temperature data is obtained as a feature amount.
However as explained in claim 1, Jung teaches about measuring temperature after and Wada teaches about measuring before. Wada further teaches in page 4 normally, initial stage temperature Tf is substantially equal to head side target temperature TH. Therefore, the temperature change amount ΔT may be calculated using the head-side target temperature TH,
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a difference between predefined normal temperature data and the temperature data during temperature measurements points with routine experiment and optimization since the temperature is critical in order to use the temperature by the controller for proper setting according to the teaching of Wada (pages 8-9). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jung et al (US 2018/0059168 A1) in view of Wada et al. (KR 20200019237 A) and further in view of Ohmori et al. (KR 20190110425 A)
Regarding claim 6: Jung in view of Wada does not explicitly talk about wherein a feature amount that is a change amount of the temperature data or a change speed of the temperature data, a change of the feature amount over time or a result of the presence or absence of an anomaly of the film are displayed on a GUI screen, and if the film is anomalous, an action is proposed as well.
However Jung teaches in Fig. 1, 5 about and alarming unit 240 for alarming an abnormal state and a temperature-compensating operation to the chuck 120 may be immediately performed by a temperature-controlling unit 220 (therefore an action is proposed as well). Furthermore Ohmori teaches in pages 4-5 about a semiconductor manufacturing system 200 includes a semiconductor processing apparatus 201, an apparatus control system 202, a monitor system 203, a sensor system 204 and the device control system 202 has an input interface such as a GUI and controls the execution of the semiconductor processing apparatus 201 with the value of an input parameter input through the input interface.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use GUI to displays various states, data’s and operations during the semiconductor manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 9: Jung and Ohmori teaches about a semiconductor manufacturing equipment system connected to a semiconductor manufacturing device via a network, the semiconductor manufacturing equipment system comprising the diagnostic device according to claim 1 (Jung teaches in Fig. 1 and para [0024] – [0025] about a temperature-controlling unit 220, an analyzing unit 230 and an alarming unit 240. Ohmori teaches in pages 4-5 about a semiconductor manufacturing system 200 includes a semiconductor processing apparatus 201, an apparatus control system 202, a monitor system 203, a sensor system 204 and the device control system 202)
Regarding claim 10: Ohmori teaches in pages 5 wherein the diagnostic device is a personal computer (the device control system 202 has a network interface and acquires values of input parameters from an external computer and a database 205 via the network interface).
Regarding claim 11: As explained in claims 1 and 9, Jung in view of Wada and Ohmori teaches all the limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm EST.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897