DETAILED 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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 03/22/2023.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the abnormality sign threshold is individually set for each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim how the threshold is being set and whether the threshold claimed is only one threshold or whether there is a separate threshold for each, since the claim recite one threshold. Clarification and correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation “wherein: (a) is configured to acquire vibration data of at least one among constituent members constituting the substrate processing apparatus from the vibration sensor, and at least one of an exhaust member that exhausts an atmosphere in the process chamber, a carry member that carries the substrate between a substrate holder and a substrate container, an elevating member that elevates the substrate holder, and a rotation member that rotates the substrate holder is selected as the constituent members” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim the scope of the claim is trying to cover. The claim recites on the first portion of the claimed limitation “(a) is configured to acquire vibration data of at least one among constituent members constituting the substrate processing apparatus from the vibration sensor” and then on the second portion of the claim recites “and at least one of an exhaust member that exhausts an atmosphere in the process chamber, a carry member that carries the substrate between a substrate holder and a substrate container, an elevating member that elevates the substrate holder, and a rotation member that rotates the substrate holder is selected as the constituent members” it is unclear on whether the claimed limitation is intended to cover the elements in the alternative or else. Clarification and correction is required. For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted in the alternative.
For examination on the merits the claims will be interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a method. Likely claims 12 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and claim 13 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a substrate processing apparatus.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 12 and 13 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “detecting presence of an abnormality sign in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data” (claim 1); “determining presence of an abnormality sign in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data” (claim 12); and “an abnormality sign detector that detects presence of an abnormality sign in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data” (claim 13).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “a substrate processing apparatus”, recited by claims 12 and 13, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “acquiring vibration data of a member that exhausts an atmosphere in a process chamber that processes the substrate from a vibration sensor while executing the process recipe” recited by claim 1, “receive, using first communication circ acquiring vibration data of a member that exhausts an atmosphere in a process chamber that processes the substrate from a vibration sensor while executing the process recipe” recited by claim 12, and “a vibration data acquisitor that acquires vibration data of a member that exhausts an atmosphere in a process chamber that processes the substrate from a vibration sensor while executing the process recipe” recited by claim 13, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. manufacturing a semiconductor device on a substrate, processing a substrate), and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. “[a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program”, [claim 12]) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “a substrate processing apparatus”, recited by (claims 12 and 13) used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 14-19 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-16 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. “wherein the magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency and the magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency are acquired on a basis of a result of performing fast Fourier transform processing on the vibration data” (claim 2), “wherein a sample time of the fast Fourier transform processing is an entire time of time-series data to be subjected to the fast Fourier transform processing” (claim 3), “wherein the comparison frequency is a secondary rotation frequency that is twice the rotation frequency” (claim 4), “wherein presence of an abnormality sign is detected in a case where the ratio exceeds the abnormality sign threshold a preset number of times in (b)” (claim 5), “wherein an abnormality sign of the member can be detected in each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis” (claim 7), “wherein the abnormality sign threshold is individually set for each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis” (claim 8), “wherein vibration in a direction along the rotation shaft is excluded from data for detecting an abnormality sign in (b)” (claim 10).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-11 and 14-19 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “substrate processing” recited in claims 17-19, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “the vibration sensor is an acceleration sensor capable of measuring vibrations in three axial directions of an X-axis, a Y-axis, and a Z-axis orthogonal to each other” recited in claim 6, and additional elements recited by claim 19 amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored (memory), and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; generally liking the abstract idea to a field of use (claim 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) claims 2-14 and 16-19 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
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) 1-5, 12-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samata et al. US2003/0154052A1 (hereinafter Samata) in view of JPH07324974A (hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 1, Samata disclose a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device on a substrate by executing a process recipe (see para. 0051) including a plurality of steps, the method comprising:
(a)acquiring vibration data of a member that exhausts an atmosphere in a process chamber that processes the substrate from a vibration sensor while executing the process recipe (see para. 0053, see para. 0055); and
(b)detecting presence of an abnormality sign (0054-0057) when the vibration data exceeds a pre-set abnormality indication threshold (see para. 0056-0057).
However, Samata do not expressly or explicitly disclose the presence of the abnormality is detected in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data. (emphasis added).
Shimizu disclose an apparatus for diagnosing vibration of rotary machine and further disclose abnormality is detected in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data (see abstract, para. 0013, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030-0031, claim 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the vibration analysis taught by Shimizu to modify the system of Samata to detect the presence of an abnormality sign in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data for the benefit of providing an enhanced and inexpensive diagnosis means capable of detecting and predicting abnormal system vibration (see para. 0011-0012, 0036).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Samata and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above. Samata further disclose that the magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency and the magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency are acquired on a basis of a result of performing fast Fourier transform processing on the vibration data (see para. 0051, 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Samata and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above. Samata further disclose that a sample time of the fast Fourier transform processing is an entire time of time-series data to be subjected to the fast Fourier transform processing (see para. 0051, 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Samata and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above. However Samata do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein the comparison frequency is a secondary rotation frequency that is twice the rotation frequency.
Shimizu disclose wherein the comparison frequency is a secondary rotation frequency that is twice the rotation frequency (see para. 0026, 0029, wherein frequency component and its integer multiple frequency component being 2N, is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the vibration analysis taught by Shimizu to modify the system of Samata such that comparison frequency is a secondary rotation frequency that is twice the rotation frequency for the benefit of providing an enhanced and inexpensive diagnosis means capable of detecting and predicting abnormal system vibration (see para. 0011-0012, 0036) in order to improve the precision of perception of the abnormality detection from vibration signals.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Samata and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above. However Samata do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the presence of an abnormality sign is detected in a case where the ratio exceeds the abnormality sign threshold a preset number of times in (b).
Shimizu disclose wherein the presence of an abnormality sign is detected in a case where the ratio exceeds the abnormality sign threshold a preset number of times (see para. 0030, wherein abnormality diagnosis determines whether vibration level is increasing, whether vibration deterioration index is increasing and if any of these continues to increase or exceeds a threshold value).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the vibration analysis taught by Shimizu to modify the system of Samata such that the presence of an abnormality sign is detected in a case where the ratio exceeds the abnormality sign threshold a preset number of times for the benefit of providing an enhanced and inexpensive diagnosis means capable of detecting and predicting abnormal system vibration (see para. 0011-0012, 0036) in order to improve the precision of perception of the abnormality detection from vibration signals.
Regarding claim 12, Samata disclose a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus that processes a substrate by executing a process recipe including a plurality of steps, by a computer (see para. 0027, 0063, 0065), to perform:
acquiring vibration data of a member that exhausts an atmosphere in a process chamber that processes the substrate from a vibration sensor while executing the process recipe (see para. 0053, see para. 0055); and
detecting presence of an abnormality sign (0054-0057) when the vibration data exceeds a pre-set abnormality indication threshold (see para. 0056-0057).
However, Samata do not expressly or explicitly disclose the presence of the abnormality is detected in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data. (emphasis added).
Shimizu disclose an apparatus for diagnosing vibration of rotary machine and further disclose abnormality is detected in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data (see abstract, para. 0013, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030-0031, claim 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the vibration analysis taught by Shimizu to modify the system of Samata to detect the presence of an abnormality sign in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data for the benefit of providing an enhanced and inexpensive diagnosis means capable of detecting and predicting abnormal system vibration (see para. 0011-0012, 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Samata disclose a substrate processing apparatus that processes a substrate by executing a process recipe including a plurality of steps (see para. 0026-0027, 0063, 0065), the substrate processing apparatus comprises:
a vibration data acquisitor that acquires vibration data of a member that exhausts an atmosphere in a process chamber that processes the substrate from a vibration sensor while executing the process recipe (see para. 0053, see para. 0055); and
an abnormality sign detector that detects presence of an abnormality sign (0054-0057) exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data (see para. 0056-0057).
However, Samata do not expressly or explicitly disclose the presence of the abnormality is detected in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data. (emphasis added).
Shimizu disclose an apparatus for diagnosing vibration of rotary machine and further disclose abnormality is detected in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data (see abstract, para. 0013, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030-0031, claim 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the vibration analysis taught by Shimizu to modify the system of Samata to detect the presence of an abnormality sign in a case where a ratio between a magnitude of vibration at a rotation frequency of the member and a magnitude of vibration at a comparison frequency that is an integral multiple of the rotation frequency exceeds a preset abnormality sign threshold on a basis of the acquired vibration data for the benefit of providing an enhanced and inexpensive diagnosis means capable of detecting and predicting abnormal system vibration (see para. 0011-0012, 0036).
Regarding claim 16, , the combination of Samata and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above. Samata further disclose wherein: (a) is configured to acquire vibration data of at least one among constituent members constituting the substrate processing apparatus from the vibration sensor (see Samata, 0053-0054, 0058, measuring point of vibration is used for casing or any measuring point such as a roller bearing where product attach to a rotor), and at least one of an exhaust member that exhausts an atmosphere in the process chamber, a carry member that carries the substrate between a substrate holder and a substrate container, an elevating member that elevates the substrate holder, and a rotation member that rotates the substrate holder is selected as the constituent members (see Samata, para. 0026, 0051, 0053, 0054, 0058, 0060 wherein exhaust is disclosed, fig. 1, wherein vibration of the dry pump is measured and acceleration of the casing is measured; wherein vibration measurement is used for casing and any measuring point such as a roller bearing where the products attach to a rotor).
Examiner Note: Claim 16 is being interpreted in light of the 35 USC 112(b) as requiring the limitations in the alternative.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samata et al. US2003/0154052A1 (hereinafter Samata) in view of JPH07324974A (hereinafter Shimizu) in further view of Ikejiri et al. US20150134271A1 (hereinafter Ikejiri).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Samata and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above. Samata further disclose that the vibration sensor is an acceleration sensor capable of measuring vibrations and further disclose measurements being performed in the vertical axis and horizontal axis (see para. 0043, 0046, 0053-0054).
However the combination of Samata and Shimizu do not expressly or explicitly disclose that vibrations are being measured in three axial directions of an X-axis, a Y-axis, and a Z-axis orthogonal to each other.
Ikejiri disclose vibration sensor is an acceleration sensor capable of measuring vibrations in three axial directions of an X-axis, a Y-axis, and a Z-axis orthogonal to each other (see Fig. 2A-2B, para. 0022, 0129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ikejiri discussed above to configure the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu such with a vibration sensor being an acceleration sensor capable of measuring vibrations in three axial directions of an X-axis, a Y-axis, and a Z-axis orthogonal to each other for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of performing comprehensive motion detection while reducing the total number of sensors required, allowing for easier sensor mounting and faster measurement process motion and improving accuracy of measurements (see para. 0180).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Samata, Shimizu and Ikejiri disclose the materials discussed above.
However, Samata and Shimizu do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein an abnormality sign of the member can be detected in each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis.
Ikejiri further disclose wherein an abnormality sign of the member can be detected in each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis (see para. 0004, 0022, 0023, 0129, 0132).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ikejiri discussed above to configure the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu such that an abnormality sign of the member can be detected in each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of performing comprehensive motion detection while reducing the total number of sensors required, in order to accurately characterize the system being evaluated for discrepancies and to allow for improved and precise measurement accuracy (see para. 0180).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Samata, Shimizu and Ikejiri disclose the materials discussed above.
However, Samata and Shimizu do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein the abnormality sign threshold is individually set for each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis.
Ikejiri further disclose wherein the abnormality sign threshold is individually set for each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis (see para. 0004, 0022, 0023, 0129, 0132, wherein the values are compared against a threshold).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ikejiri discussed above to configure the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu such that the abnormality sign threshold is individually set for each of the three axial directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of performing comprehensive motion detection while reducing the total number of sensors required, in order to accurately characterize the system being evaluated for discrepancies and to allow for improved and precise measurement accuracy (see para. 0180).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Samata, Shimizu and Ikejiri disclose the materials discussed above.
However, Samata and Shimizu do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein the Z-axis is disposed in a direction along a vertical axis, and the Y-axis is disposed in a direction along a rotation shaft.
Ikejiri further disclose wherein the Z-axis is disposed in a direction along a vertical axis, and the Y-axis is disposed in a direction along a rotation shaft (see Fig. 1, 2A, 6A, para. 0004, 0060, 0065, 0090, 0100, 0128-0130, 0166).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ikejiri discussed above to configure the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu such that the Z-axis is disposed in a direction along a vertical axis, and the Y-axis is disposed in a direction along a rotation shaft for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of performing comprehensive motion detection while reducing the total number of sensors required, allowing for easier sensor mounting and faster measurement process motion and improving accuracy of measurements (see para. 0180).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samata et al. US2003/0154052A1 (hereinafter Samata) in view of JPH07324974A (hereinafter Shimizu) in further view of Ikejiri et al. US20150134271A1 (hereinafter Ikejiri) in further view of US 6,267,008 B1 (hereinafter Nagao)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Samata, Shimizu and Ikejiri disclose the materials discussed above.
However, Samata, Shimizu and Ikejiri do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein vibration in a direction along the rotation shaft is excluded from data for detecting an abnormality sign in (b).
Nagao disclose wherein vibration in a direction along the rotation shaft is excluded from data for detecting an abnormality sign in (b) (see col. 5 ll. 66-67, col. 6, ll. 1-9; col. 21, ll. 65 through col. 22, ll. 7, claim 15-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Nagao discussed above to configure the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu and Ikejiri such that vibration in a direction along the rotation shaft is excluded from data for detecting an abnormality sign for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of performing accurate and comprehensive motion detection while ensuring high precision characterization of the system ensuring inconsistencies corrections and improving accuracy of measurements.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Samata, Shimizu Ikejiri and Nagao disclose the materials discussed above.
Samata, Shimizu and Nagao do not expressly or explicitly disclose a warning is issued in a case where presence of an abnormality sign is detected in vibration data along a plurality of axes in (b).
Ikejiri disclose a warning is issued in a case where presence of an abnormality sign is detected in vibration data along a plurality of axes in (b) (see Ikejiri, Fig. 2A, 2B, 6A, para. 0004, 0100, 0103, 0114, wherein deterioration/life expiration is being detected, and wherein life expiration is informed in step S5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Ikejiri discussed above to configure the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu Ikejiri and Nagao such that a warning is issued in a case where presence of an abnormality sign is detected in vibration data along a plurality of axes in (b)for the benefit of providing a means for informing the state of the system and information on the life expectancy of the system in order to avoid catastrophic failures of the system and allowing for preventive and mitigation measures to be implemented (see para. 0114-0115).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samata et al. US2003/0154052A1 (hereinafter Samata) in view of JPH07324974A (hereinafter Shimizu) in further view of Jiang et al. US 20120255486 A1 (hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Samata, Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above.
Samata disclose a substrate processing step (c) including (c-1) loading a substrate into the process chamber (see para. 0027, wherein a silicon substrate is heated inside the CVD chamber, therefore it is implied that the substrate is being loaded into the CVD chamber); a film forming procedure of forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber (see. 0027, a silicon nitride film is deposited upon the silicon substrate), and wherein at least one of (a) and (b) is executed in parallel with execution of (c) (wherein vibration data is obtained by means of an acceleration sensor and analyzed during LPCVD process, para. 0027, 0042, 0049, 0051, 0053-0054).
However the combination of Samata and Shimizu, do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the step (c) at least includes: (c-3) unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber.
Examiner contends that a substrate processing (c) as claimed is a well-known process in the industry, and Jiang is evidence of the fact.
Jiang disclose a substrate processing step (c) at least including: (c-1) loading a substrate into the process chamber; (c-2) forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber; and (c-3) unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber (para. 0021, 0036, 0058, wherein a substrate carrier is disclosed; and wherein substrate can be removed from supporting apparatus and moved out of the reaction chamber as to load or unload the substrate).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate processing step (c) of the system of Samata to at least include (c-1) loading a substrate into the process chamber; (c-2) forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber; and (c-3) unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber wherein at least one of (a) and (b) is executed in parallel with execution of (c) since the process of loading a substrate into a process chamber, forming a film in the process chamber and remove the substrate while processing a substrate as taught by Jiang is a well understood, routine and conventional activity in the art and choosing to acquire vibration data and detecting presence of an abnormality in the system while the substrate is being processed for the benefit of ensuring detection of system anomalies or faults in the system function during a production phase.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Samata, Shimizu and Jiang disclose the materials discussed above.
However the combination of Samata and Shimizu do not expressly or explicitly disclose (c)further includes at least one of a step in which a substrate holder is charged with the substrate and a step in which the substrate is discharged from the substrate holder.
Jiang further disclose the (c) further includes at least one of a step in which a substrate holder is charged with the substrate and a step in which the substrate is discharged from the substrate holder (see para. 0021, 0036, 0058, wherein a substrate carrier is disclosed; and wherein substrate can be removed from supporting apparatus and moved out of the reaction chamber as to load or unload the substrate).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate processing step (c) of the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu and Jiang to at least include at least one of a step in which a substrate holder is charged with the substrate and a step in which the substrate is discharged from the substrate holder for the benefit of providing a mechanism for facilitating the handling of the substrate loading and unloading inside and/or outside of the chamber.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Samata, Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above.
Samata disclose the substrate processing apparatus to perform a substrate processing procedure at least including: a substrate loading procedure of loading the substrate into the process chamber (see para. 0027, wherein a silicon substrate is heated inside the CVD chamber, therefore it is implied that the substrate is being loaded into the CVD chamber); forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber (see. 0027, a silicon nitride film is deposited upon the silicon substrate), and the substrate processing apparatus comprises a controller (see para. 0063, 0065, wherein a central processing unit of a computer connected to the semiconductor manufacturing equipment is disclosed) that executes at least one of vibration data acquisition by the vibration data acquisitor and abnormality sign detection by the abnormality sign detector in parallel with execution of the substrate processing step (wherein vibration data is obtained by means of an acceleration sensor and analyzed during LPCVD process, see para. 0027, 0042 0049, 0051, 0053-0054).
However the combination of Samata and Shimizu, do not expressly or explicitly disclose a substrate unloading procedure of unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber in parallel with execution of at least one of the procedure of acquiring the vibration data and the procedure of determining presence of the abnormality sign.
Examiner contends that a substrate processing as claimed is a well-known process in the industry, and Jiang is evidence of the fact.
Jiang disclose to perform a substrate processing procedure at least including: a substrate loading procedure of loading the substrate into the process chamber; a film forming procedure of forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber; and a substrate unloading procedure of unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber (para. 0021, 0036, 0058, wherein a substrate carrier is disclosed; and wherein substrate can be removed from supporting apparatus and moved out of the reaction chamber as to load or unload the substrate).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate processing step of the system of Samata to perform a substrate processing procedure at least including: a substrate loading procedure of loading the substrate into the process chamber; a film forming procedure of forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber; and a substrate unloading procedure of unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber in parallel with execution of at least one of the procedure of acquiring the vibration data and the procedure of determining presence of the abnormality sign since the process of loading a substrate into a process chamber, forming a film in the process chamber and remove the substrate while processing a substrate as taught by Jiang is a well understood, routine and conventional activity in the art and choosing to acquire vibration data and detecting presence of an abnormality in the system while the substrate is being processed would add the benefit of ensuring detection of system anomalies or faults in the system function during a production phase.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Samata, Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above.
Samata disclose wherein the process recipe includes a substrate processing step at least including: a substrate loading step of loading the substrate into the process chamber (see para. 0027, wherein a silicon substrate is heated inside the CVD chamber, therefore it is implied that the substrate is being loaded into the CVD chamber); a film forming step of forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber (see. 0027, a silicon nitride film is deposited upon the silicon substrate), and wherein the substrate processing procedure is performed with execution of at least one of the procedure of acquiring the vibration data and the procedure of determining presence of the abnormality sign (wherein vibration data is obtained and analyzed during LPCVD process by means of an acceleration sensor, see para. 0027, 0042, 0049, 0051, 0053-0054).
However the combination of Samata and Shimizu, do not expressly or explicitly disclose a substrate unloading procedure of unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber in parallel with execution of at least one of the procedure of acquiring the vibration data and the procedure of determining presence of the abnormality sign.
Examiner contends that a substrate processing as claimed is a well-known process in the industry, and Jiang is evidence of the fact.
Jiang disclose to perform a substrate processing procedure at least including: a substrate loading procedure of loading the substrate into the process chamber; a film forming procedure of forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber; and a substrate unloading procedure of unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber (para. 0021, 0036, 0058, wherein a substrate carrier is disclosed; and wherein substrate can be removed from supporting apparatus and moved out of the reaction chamber as to load or unload the substrate).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the substrate processing step of the system of Samata wherein the process recipe includes a substrate processing step at least including: a substrate loading step of loading the substrate into the process chamber; a film forming step of forming a film on the substrate in the process chamber; and a substrate unloading step of unloading the substrate to an outside of the process chamber, and the substrate processing apparatus comprises a controller that executes at least one of vibration data acquisition by the vibration data acquisitor and abnormality sign detection by the abnormality sign detector in parallel with execution of the substrate processing step, since the process of loading a substrate into a process chamber, forming a film in the process chamber and remove the substrate while processing a substrate as taught by Jiang is a well understood, routine and conventional activity in the art and choosing to acquire vibration data and detecting presence of an abnormality in the system while the substrate is being processed would add the benefit of ensuring detection of system anomalies or faults in the system function during a production phase.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samata et al. US2003/0154052A1 (hereinafter Samata) in view of JPH07324974A (hereinafter Shimizu) in further view of Wakabayashi US 20060215347 A1 (hereinafter Wakabayashi).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Samata, and Shimizu disclose the materials discussed above.
However Samata and Shimizu do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein the vibration data acquisitor acquires the vibration data as transfer member vibration data when a substrate holder is charged with the substrate and/or when the substrate is discharged from the substrate holder, acquires the vibration data as elevating member vibration data when the substrate holder is elevated, and acquires the vibration data as rotation member vibration data when the substrate holder is rotated and the substrate holder is not elevated.
Wakabayashi disclose, wherein the vibration data acquisitor acquires the vibration data as transfer member vibration data when a substrate holder is charged with the substrate and/or when the substrate is discharged from the substrate holder, acquires the vibration data as elevating member vibration data when the substrate holder is elevated, and acquires the vibration data as rotation member vibration data when the substrate holder is rotated and the substrate holder is not elevated (see abstract, para. 0014, 0018, 0038, 0054, wherein at least the vibration data is acquired when a substrate loading part having a carrier arm carrying the substrate to or from the process chamber and wherein a detection of abnormal vibration and wherein the carrier arm is movable up/down is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Wakabayashi to configure the substrate processing step of the system of Samata as modified by Shimizu such that the vibration data acquisitor acquires the vibration data as transfer member vibration data when a substrate holder is charged with the substrate and/or when the substrate is discharged from the substrate holder, acquires the vibration data as elevating member vibration data when the substrate holder is elevated, and acquires the vibration data as rotation member vibration data when the substrate holder is rotated and the substrate holder is not elevated for the benefit of providing an enhanced system able to assess the state of a substrate processing system during the processing of a substrate in order to detect abnormalities present in the system by accounting for vibration changes that fall outside of predetermined set values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857