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 § 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 defines in the preamble “a diagnostic device” but in the body of the claim there is no correlation what is associated with this device? It is a physical device or and program/application? Also it is not clear temperature data before and after is collected but not clear form where or what elements temperature is collected? Is it for the sample or for the film/chuck temperature? Also it is not clear how the abnormality of the film is related with or what to do? Is it used to diagnosis the state of the manufacturing device or something else? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 defines “a step of obtaining temperature data before and after..”It is not clear form where or what elements temperature is collected? Is it for the sample or for the film/chuck temperature? Also it is not clear how the abnormality of the film is related with or what to do? Is it used to diagnosis the state of the manufacturing device or something else? Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oka et al (US 2022/0084850 A1) in view of Wada et al. (KR 20200019237 A)
Regarding claim 1: Oka teaches in Fig. 1-7 about a diagnostic device 100 for diagnosing the state of a semiconductor manufacturing device 1 having a sample stage 11 that includes an electrostatic chuck 112 on which a sample W electrostatically adsorbed to a film (As marked) that forms the electrostatic chuck is mounted,
PNG
media_image1.png
720
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein temperature data before and after a change of energy applied to the sample is obtained (temperature sensor 115 measure the temperature of the chuck [0042] and Fig. 5 teaches P1 is before and P2-P3 are after energy/plasma is ignited), and
an anomaly of the film is detected on the basis of the obtained temperature data.
Oka does not explicitly talk about. an anomaly of the film is detected on the basis of the obtained temperature data.
However Oka teaches in Fig. 6 about a change in the temperature of the substrate support 11 due to the change in the thermal resistance Rth which determines the thermal conductivity which can be interpreted as the abnormality (as no claim language what type of abnormality).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed to realize from Oka’s teaching that by acquiring the thermal resistance between the substrate and the substrate support to estimate whether or not the temperature of the substrate is changed (Oka, [0020] – [0021]).
Regarding claim 2: Oka teaches in [0060] and Fig. 5-6 about wherein a difference between a first average value of a first portion of the temperature data P1 before the change of the energy and a second average value of a second portion of the temperature data P2/P3 after a change of the energy is obtained as a feature amount.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oka et al (US 2022/0084850 A1) in view of Wada et al. (KR 20200019237 A)
Regarding claim 3: Oka 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, Oka 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: Oka 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, Oka teaches about measuring temperature before and 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: Oka 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, Oka teaches about measuring temperature before and 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 Oka et al (US 2022/0084850 A1) in view of Ohmori et al. (KR 20190110425 A)
Regarding claim 6: Oka 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.
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: Oka teaches in Fig. 1 and 2 teaches (and Ohmori also teaches in pages 4-5 about a semiconductor manufacturing system 200 includes a semiconductor processing apparatus 201, an apparatuscontrol system 202, a monitor system 203, a sensor system 204 and the device control system 202) about a semiconductor manufacturing equipment system connected to a semiconductor manufacturing device via a network 101/103, the semiconductor manufacturing equipment system comprising the diagnostic device according to claim 1
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, Oka in view of Ohmori teaches all the limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed on 07/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -6, 9-11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oka et al (US 2022/0084850 A1), Wada et al. (KR 20200019237 A) and Ohmori et al. (KR 20190110425 A)
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 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
Prosecution Insights