DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous response.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 4/17/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 16 recites:
A method of detecting a wafer edge using a laser scanner, comprising:
acquiring an image by radiating a laser toward a wafer at a constant angle from a rear side of the wafer;
measuring a distance from the laser scanner to a position of the wafer or a wafer seating portion corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image; and
detecting whether the wafer is present or not according to a peak distance among distances measured for respective predetermined vertical areas.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 61 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 16 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process and/or mathematical concept. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “detecting whether the wafer is present or not according to a peak distance among distances measured for respective predetermined vertical areas” which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
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.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 16, the claimed method recites additional elements including “acquiring an image by radiating a laser toward a wafer at a constant angle from a rear side of the wafer; measuring a distance from the laser scanner to a position of the wafer or a wafer seating portion corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image”, which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done after a determination is made that the wafer is present or not.
Under Step 2B, the claims 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 system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 16, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims 17-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claim 16.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520
With regards to claim 1, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches an apparatus for detecting a wafer edge using a laser scanner, comprising:
a laser scanner disposed on a rear side of a mounted wafer and radiating a laser to a portion of an edge of the wafer;(paragraph 0070 &0072) and
a detection unit receiving an image acquired by the laser scanner and detecting the wafer edge in the image, (paragraph 0074-0075)
wherein the detection unit is configured to determine whether each wafer is present or aligned according to wafer edges detected in a plurality of wafer areas in the image and (paragraph 0074-0076)
and the detection unit is configured to measure a distance from the laser scanner to the wafer or a wafer seating portion corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image and detect the presence or absence of the wafer according to a peak distance for each predetermined vertical area. (paragraph 0074)
With regards to claim 2, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the laser scanner is one laser scanner, and the detection unit is an interface board connected to the laser scanner by forming one channel and capable of transmitting data to an external device. (551;paragraph 0070 &0072)
With regards to claim 3, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the laser scanner is disposed at a different height from the wafer to have a constant field of view (FoV) for a plurality of wafers and is disposed of such that a wafer measurement distance according to a focal range of the laser scanner passes afront edge of the wafer. (550; figure 4) (paragraph 0074)
With regards to claim 4, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the detection unit determines a presence or absence of a wafer according to first location information of the wafer edge scanned by the laser scanner. (paragraph 0074)
With regards to claim 5, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the predetermined vertical area is an area divided based on a cross area between the wafer edge and the laser of the laser scanner. (paragraph 0094)
With regards to claim 6, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the detection unit determines whether the wafer is aligned according to at least one of first location information and second location information of the wafer edge scanned by the laser scanner. (paragraph 0075)
With regards to claim 7, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the detection unit obtains at least one of the first location information and the second location information randomly extracted by measuring a distance from the laser scanner to the wafer edge in the image and compares the at least one of the first location information and the second location information with a limit of the wafer seating portion to detect whether the wafer is detached. (paragraph 0094)
With regards to claim 8, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the limit of the wafer seating portion includes an inner limit or an outer limit preset in consideration of mechanical characteristics of the wafer and the wafer seating portion. (paragraph 0111)
With regards to claim 9, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the detection unit deletes at least one of the first location information and the second location information and determines whether the wafer is aligned using the other one when an error range provided by comparing the limit of the wafer seating portion with the at least one of the first location information and the second location information is out of a preset error range. (paragraph 0077)
With regards to claim 10, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the detection unit generates a flag bit for a wafer state according to whether the wafer is present or whether the wafer is aligned, and transmits a data set generated with the flag bit to a main controller. (paragraph 0074-0076)
With regards to claim 11, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches a semiconductor transfer device comprising:
a wafer seating portion configured to support a wafer; (412, 530 & 332; paragraph 0013, 0043, 0052) (530;figure 4)
a robot arm seating the wafer on the wafer seating portion; (362; paragraph 0044)
one laser scanner disposed on the robot arm located on a rear side of the wafer and configured to radiate a laser to an edge of the wafer seated on the wafer seating portion; (paragraph 0070) (figure 4) and
an interface unit(700) including a detection unit configured to receive an image acquired by the laser scanner and detecting a wafer edge in the image, and a communication unit configured to communicate with the robot arm and the laser scanner, wherein the detection unit is configured to measure a distance from the one laser scanner to a position of the wafer or the wafer seating portion corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image, and detect a presence or an absence of the wafer according to a peak distance for each predetermined vertical area. (paragraph 0037) (paragraph 0074-0076)
With regards to claim 12, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the predetermined vertical area is an area divided based on a cross area between the wafer edge and the laser of the laser scanner. (figure 11)
With regards to claim 13, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches a the detection unit obtains at least one of randomly extracted first location information and second location information by measuring a distance from the laser scanner to the wafer edge in the image, and detects whether the wafer is detached by comparing at least one of the first location information and the second location information with an inner limit and an outer limit of the wafer seating portion. (figure 16)
With regards to claim 14, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the interface unit causes the robot arm to enter in a backward direction when at least one of the first location information and the second location information is located inside the inner limit and moves the robot arm in a forward direction when at least one of the first location information and the second location information is located outside the outer limit. (robot is on guide rail, so it moves on the rail to correct position; paragraph 0077)
With regards to claim 15, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches the detection unit deletes at least one of the first location information and the second location information and determines whether the wafer is aligned using the other one, when an error range obtained by comparing a limit of the wafer seating portion with at least one of the first location information and the second location information is out of a preset error range. (paragraph 0131)
With regards to claim 16, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches a method of detecting a wafer edge using a laser scanner, comprising:
acquiring an image by radiating a laser toward a wafer at a constant angle from a rear side of the wafer; (paragraph 0074-0075)
measuring a distance from the laser scanner to a position of the wafer or a wafer seating portion corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image; (paragraph 0074-0079)and
detecting whether the wafer is present or not according to a peak distance among distances measured for respective predetermined vertical areas. (paragraph 0074-0079)
With regards to claim 17, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches obtaining at least one of randomly extracted first location information and second location information by measuring a distance to a wafer edge corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image; and comparing at least one of the first location information and the second location information with an inner limit and an outer limit of the wafer seating portion to detect whether the wafer is detached. (paragraph 0077)
With regards to claim 18, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches a an error range obtained by comparing the inner limit and the outer limit of the wafer seating portion and at least one of the first location information and the second location information is out of a predetermined error range, at least one of the first location information and the second location information is deleted, and whether the wafer is aligned is determined using the other one. (paragraph 0111-0113)
With regards to claim 19, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches at least one of the first location information and the second location information is located inside the inner limit, the robot arm is entered in a backward direction; and when at least one of the first location information and the second location information is located outside an outer limit, the robot arm is moved in a forward direction. (robot is on guide rail, so it moves on the rail to correct position; paragraph 0077)
With regards to claim 20, Kim et al. US Pub 2017/0092520 teaches a before the method, dividing an area according to a dead zone formed by a cross area between a wafer edge and a laser irradiated onto the wafer edge, and presetting the vertical area to correspond to the divided area.(figure 11)
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is reminded that during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
While the meaning of claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allowed. This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In this instance applicant argues that the claims are eligible under USC 101. Applicant’s arguments are directed to claims 1 and 11. After reviewing applicant’s arguments Examiner has withdrawn the USC 101 rejection for claims 1 and 11 and their dependent claims. The USC 101 rejection is still deemed proper for claims 16-20 and the rejection has been updated as such. As there were no specific remarks with regards to claims 16, applicant is directed to the rejection above.
With regards to the prior art of record not teaching the detection unit is configured to measure a distance from the laser scanner to the wafer or a wafer seating portion corresponding to a laser irradiation direction in the image and detect the presence or absence of the wafer according to a peak distance for each predetermined vertical area. Paragraph 0074 teaches detecting a position (maybe interpreted as distance) from a light receiving and emitting part which may be interpreted as the laser. This claimed invention is believed to read on this section of Kim et al. and therefore the rejection has been maintained. It should be noted that the other independent claims (11 and 16) did not include the same amendments.
Examiner's Note:
12. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
13. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
17. 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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights