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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1, 3-9 and 19-20 are pending in this application. Claim 2 was canceled, and claims 1, 3, 8, and 19 were amended.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
We concede the validity of applicant’s argument regarding the inability of primary reference Toyomaki to observe the states of multiple substrates from a single reference position due to Toyomaki’s arrangement of sensors requiring vertical alignment with a substrate in order to perform an observation. Moreover, as amended, applicant’s independent claims 1 and 19 now require the simultaneous determination of the states of multiple substrates, which Toyomaki is even less capable of disclosing because its sensors can only observe one substrate at a time. Nevertheless, we find that a combination of references is capable of demonstrating the obviousness of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 instead of anticipating them under 35 U.S.C. 102 as in the first action.
Examiner’s Note
5. The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
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.
6. Claims 1, 3, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyomaki, et al., US 2020/0286752 (hereinafter Toyomaki) in view of Enomoto, et al., JP 2009302392 (hereinafter Enomoto).
7. Regarding claim 1,
Toyomaki discloses:
An apparatus for treating a substrate (1: fig. 1),
comprising: a first module; (20: fig 1)
a treating module configured to treat the substrate (10, PM: fig. 1),
and a controller (30: fig. 1) configured to control operations of the first module,
wherein the first module includes: a load port (LP1-5: fig. 1) on which a container having a plurality of slots is placed, the plurality of slots configured to accommodate a plurality of substrates, the substrates including the substrate and at least one other substrate (fig. 2);FOUPs, standard substrate containers widely used in the art, are all configured to carry a plurality of substrates in a plurality of slots as Toyomaki discloses in its fig. 2.
a transfer unit (25: fig. 1) having a hand (27a-b: fig. 1) that transfers the substrate between the load port and the treating module; We note that the above limitations disclose conventional features of substrate treatment systems well known in the art.
However, Toyomaki does not disclose all aspects of:
and an observation unit mounted in the transfer unit and configured to simultaneously observe states of each of the substrates at a preset reference position
wherein the controller is configured to cause the observation unit to perform a primary observation operation at the reference position, and wherein the primary observation operation includes the observation unit simultaneously observing the states of the substrates.Regarding both these limitations, while Toyomaki discloses sensors (an “observation unit”) mounted in its robotic hand (“transfer unit”) that can observe states of the substrates, it does not disclose the ability to observe them simultaneously but rather serially. Toyomaki’s particular sensors are disposed on its robot hand such that the observation occurs when the hand is moved to the same vertical level as the substrate.
Enomoto, an invention in the field of substrate detection, teaches the missing aspect of the limitations:
and an observation unit (1: fig. 1) mounted in the transfer unit and configured to simultaneously observe states of each of the substrates at a preset reference positionIn combination with Toyomaki, Enomoto’s camera 2 would be mounted in Toyomaki’s transfer unit alongside its laser sensors. As seen in Enomoto’s fig. 1 and disclosed in its [0039] and [0048], the observation unit 1 with its camera 2 can observe the states of the plurality of substrates in the container at the same time.
wherein the controller is configured to cause the observation unit to perform a primary observation operation at the reference position, and wherein the primary observation operation includes the observation unit simultaneously observing the states of the substrates.Regarding these two limitations, Enomoto discloses an observation unit 1 that in combination with Toyomaki can observe all the substrates in a FOUP or other container from every reference position. Where photoelectric and laser sensors of various sorts such as Toyomaki’s are only capable of sensing objects they are directly pointed at or which interrupt their beams, a camera can observe a wide field of view in a single observation. As a camera is conventionally capable of observing a wide field of view including both a vertical and a horizontal extent as depicted in Enomoto’s figure, any of the positions of Toyomaki’s robot hand at the vertical level of any of the substrates would be a satisfactory reference position from which to observe all the substrates. Since FOUPs store substrates at preset slot heights, all these positions may be considered preset reference positions. Among the other states a camera is capable of determining, the presence or absence of a substrate in a slot is an example of such a state as is a skewed misalignment of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Toyomaki with an observation unit mounted in the transfer unit and configured to simultaneously observe states of each of the substrates at a preset reference position, wherein the controller is configured to cause the observation unit to perform a primary observation operation at the reference position, and wherein the primary observation operation includes the observation unit simultaneously observing the states of the substrates, as taught by Enomoto, because for state information such as the presence or absence of a substrate in a slot, the simultaneous observation of a plurality of states from a single position is plainly more efficient than the serial observation of individual substrates, requiring as it does both longer observation time and a mechanism capable of vertical motion.
8. Regarding claim 3,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the observation unit is installed in an end of the handToyomaki discloses its sensors MS are installed in an end of a robotic hand in fig. 3.
9. Regarding claim 19,
Toyomaki discloses:
An apparatus for treating a substrate (1: fig. 1),
comprising: a first module; (20: fig 1)
a treating module configured to treat the substrate, (10, PM: fig. 1)
and a controller (30: fig. 1) configured to control operations of the first module,
wherein the first module includes: a load port (LP1-5: fig. 1) on which a container having a plurality of slots (100: fig. 2) is placed,
the plurality of slots configured to accommodate a plurality of substrates, the substrates including the substrate and at least one other substrate; (fig. 2)
a transfer frame (20: fig. 1) disposed between the load port and the treating module and configured to transfer the substrate;Because Toyomaki’s module 20 mounts its transfer unit 25 we consider module 20 to be the claimed first module and also to comprise the claimed transfer frame to which the transfer unit 25 is affixed. As seen by comparing 20 in Toyomaki’s fig. 1 and applicant’s transfer frame 30 in its fig. 1, Toyomaki’s 20 and applicant’s 30 are extremely similar structures.
a transfer unit (25: fig. 1) disposed in the transfer frame and having a hand (27a-b: fig. 1) for transferring the substrate between the load port and the treating module;
However, Toyomaki does not disclose all aspects of:
an observation unit installed in the hand and configured to simultaneously observe states of all the substrates accommodated in the container in a state in which the hand is disposed in a preset reference position; While Toyomaki discloses an observation unit in the form of its sensors MS, the unit does not simultaneously observe multiple substrate states; rather, we identify Toyomaki’s sensors with the auxiliary observation unit in the limitation below.
and an auxiliary observation unit installed in the hand at a position not overlapping the observation unit and configured to irradiate a laser toward a specific substrate accommodated in the container while the hand moves vertically and selectively observe the state of the specific substrateWhile Toyomaki discloses all these claimed features of the auxiliary observation unit, it does not disclose the original or primary observation unit previously introduced in the limitation above.
wherein the controller is configured to cause the observation unit to perform a primary observation operation at the reference position, and wherein the primary observation operation includes the observation unit simultaneously observing the states of the substrates. Toyomaki does not disclose a simultaneous observation of multiple substrates.
Enomoto, an invention in the field of substrate detection, teaches the missing aspect of the limitations:
an observation unit (1: fig. 1) installed in the hand and configured to simultaneously observe states of all the substrates accommodated in the container in a state in which the hand is disposed in a preset reference position;In combination with Toyomaki, Enomoto’s camera 2 would be mounted in Toyomaki’s transfer unit alongside its laser sensors. As seen in Enomoto’s fig. 1, the observation unit 1 with its camera 2 can observe the states of all substrates in the container at the same time. Any of the positions of Toyomaki’s robot hand at the vertical level of any of the substrates would be a satisfactory reference position from which to observe all the substrates. Since FOUPs store substrates at preset slot heights, all these positions may be considered preset reference positions. Among the other states a camera is capable of determining, the presence or absence of a substrate in a slot is an example of such a state as is a skewed misalignment of the substrate.
and an auxiliary observation unit (MS, 25p, 25r: fig. 3) installed in the hand at a position not overlapping the observation unit and configured to irradiate a laser toward a specific substrate accommodated in the container while the hand moves vertically and selectively observe the state of the specific substrate;Toyomaki discloses the auxiliary observation unit as sensors MS in fig. 3 comprising 25p and 25r, and the configuration and method in [0038] (vertical movement of hand), and [0041] (behavior of laser sensors and ability to observe one substrate at a time). Toyomaki (in its fig. 3) teaches multiple sensors that do not overlap, and so following their design pattern, their combined observation unit (Enomoto’s camera sensor) and auxiliary observation unit (Toyomaki’s sensors) would not overlap.
wherein the controller is configured to cause the observation unit to perform a primary observation operation at the reference position, and wherein the primary observation operation includes the observation unit simultaneously observing the states of the substrates. Since any of the reference positions for the individual substrates that Toyomaki’s sensor is controlled to observe would suffice as a reference position from which Enomoto’s camera sensor can observe all the substrates simultaneously, we consider that Toyomaki’s controller is configured as claimed.
10. Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyomaki in view of Enomoto and further in view of Adams, et al., US 4,630,051 (hereinafter Adams) and Hiroki, US 2008/0056857 (hereinafter Hiroki).
11. Regarding claim 4,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto teaches the limitations of claim 3 but not all aspects of:
wherein the observation unit includes: a data collection portion configured to collect time data on the time taken for light to be reflected and received from the substrate after irradiating the light to the substrate accommodated in the container;
and a determination portion configured to estimate a relative distance between the substrate accommodated in the container according to the time data and the observation unit, We interpret the above two limitations as disclosing that the observation unit comprises a “time-of-flight” range-finding laser sensor; this kind of sensor determines range by timing emitted and received light pulses. While Toyomaki discloses in [0024] a sensor capable of mapping or determining the position and hence the range of observed substrates which may perhaps be such a sensor, it does not explicitly disclose a time-of-flight sensor, nor does Enomoto.
and determine the state of the substrate accommodated in the container by differently matching specific colors for each distance data.Neither reference teaches analysis of state according to color.
Adams, an invention in the field of Doppler interferometry, teaches the limitation:
wherein the observation unit includes: a data collection portion configured to collect time data on the time taken for light to be reflected and received from the substrate after irradiating the light to the substrate accommodated in the container;
and a determination portion configured to estimate a relative distance between the substrate accommodated in the container according to the time data and the observation unit, Adams teaches the use of a time-of-flight sensor for determining range in C5/L53-62. Adams’ device collects data from the reflected light emitted by a laser per its claim 44, and determines distances according to phase shifts in the collected data per its claims 38-39.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Toyomaki, wherein the observation unit includes: a data collection portion configured to collect time data on the time taken for light to be reflected and received from the substrate after irradiating the light to the substrate accommodated in the container, and a determination portion configured to estimate a relative distance between the substrate accommodated in the container according to the time data and the observation unit, as taught by Adams, because in the decades since Adams’ invention, time-of-flight sensors have become a standard and commonplace means of detecting range using a single sensor rather than the previous cruder and more complicated stereoscopic or lens-based range finding means and because range information is an important aspect of substrate state for determining misalignment.
Hiroki, an invention in the field of substrate transfer, teaches:
and determine the state of the substrate accommodated in the container by differently matching specific colors for each distance data.Hiroki teaches range-finding via color analysis in [0077]-[0078], citing the ratio of brightness that can be compared to a reference image to determine substrate misalignment. Color is determined in the HSB model by a combination of hue, saturation, and brightness, and so the brightness determination of Hiroki is a form of color determination. Note in this combination we do not invoke Hiroki’s structures, merely its color-analysis method, as the camera of Enomoto would suffice to provide the image data required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Toyomaki, Enomoto, and Adams to determine the state of the substrate accommodated in the container by differently matching specific colors for each distance data, as taught by Hiroki, because range or misalignment determination by color analysis is an alternative to the also-claimed time of flight analysis and the combination of the two methods may give more accurate results or a more complete substrate state than either one alone.
12. Regarding claim 20,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto teaches the limitations of claim 19 and also:
and the auxiliary observation unit irradiates a laser toward the specific substrate accommodated in the container, measures an actual distance between the specific substrate and the auxiliary observation unit using the irradiated laser, and secondly determines the state of the specific substrate accommodated in the container.Toyomaki’s sensors MS use laser irradiation to determine wafer distance, position and thickness using laser irradiation per [0041]-[0042]. All these qualities can constitute substrate “state”.
However, Toyomaki in view of Enomoto does not disclose all aspects of:
wherein the observation unit collects time data on the time taken for light to be reflected and received from the substrate after irradiating the light to the substrate accommodated in the container, estimates a relative distance between the substrate accommodated in the container according to the collected time data and the observation unit,We interpret applicant’s limitation as disclosing that its observation unit comprises a “time-of-flight” range-finding laser sensor; this kind of sensor determines range by timing emitted and received light pulses. While Toyomaki discloses in [0024] a sensor capable of mapping or determining the position and hence the range of observed substrates which may perhaps be such a sensor, it does not explicitly disclose a time-of-flight sensor.
and primarily determines the state of the substrate accommodated in the container by differently matching specific colors for each distance data,Neither reference teaches color analysis.
Adams, an invention in the field of Doppler interferometry, teaches the limitation:
wherein the observation unit collects time data on the time taken for light to be reflected and received from the substrate after irradiating the light to the substrate accommodated in the container, estimates a relative distance between the substrate accommodated in the container according to the collected time data and the observation unit,Adams teaches the use of a time-of-flight sensor for determining range in C5/L53-62. Adams’ device collects data from the reflected light emitted by a laser per claim 44, and determines distances according to phase shifts in the collected data per claims 38-39.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Toyomaki and Enomoto, wherein the observation unit collects time data on the time taken for light to be reflected and received from the substrate after irradiating the light to the substrate accommodated in the container, estimates a relative distance between the substrate accommodated in the container according to the collected time data and the observation unit, as taught by Adams, because in the decades since Adams’ invention, time-of-flight sensors have become a standard and commonplace means of detecting range using a single sensor rather than the previous cruder and more complicated stereoscopic and lens-based range finding means.
Hiroki, an invention in the field of substrate transfer, teaches:
and primarily determines the state of the substrate accommodated in the container by differently matching specific colors for each distance data,Hiroki uses a camera to perform its color-based analysis, which is part of the “primary observation” method taught by Enomoto. Hiroki teaches this method in [0077]-[0078], citing the ratio of brightness that can be compared to a reference image to determine substrate misalignment. Color is determined in the HSB model by a combination of hue, saturation, and brightness, and so the brightness determination of Hiroki is a form of color determination. Note in this combination we do not invoke Hiroki’s structures, merely its color-analysis method, as the camera of Enomoto would suffice to provide the image data required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Toyomaki, Enomoto, and Adams to primarily determines the state of the substrate accommodated in the container by differently matching specific colors for each distance data, as taught by Hiroki, because range or misalignment determination by color analysis is an alternative to the also-claimed time of flight analysis and the combination of the two methods may give more accurate results or a more complete substrate state than either one alone.
13. Regarding claim 5,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the first module further includes an auxiliary observation unit (Toyomaki, MS unit: fig. 3) configured to selectively observe the states of the substrates by irradiating a laser (Toyomaki 25p: fig. 3, modified by Adams, claim 44) individually toward each of the substrates (Toyomaki, wafers with edge rings ER1-12: fig. 2) accommodated in the container (Toyomaki, FOUP, 100: fig. 2),We map the claimed structure of an auxiliary observation unit including laser irradiator and sensor that is directed toward individual substrates to Toyomaki’s base observation unit structure, which comprises a laser device and optical sensor. In combination with Enomoto’s camera teaching, Enomoto’s camera would be the primary observation unit installed on Toyomaki’s robotic hand, and Toyomaki’s laser sensor combination would be the auxiliary observation unit, modified by Adams which teaches a time of flight ranging laser sensor instead of Toyomaki’s transmissive sensor.
wherein the auxiliary observation unit observes the state of the substrate by measuring an actual distance between the substrate and the auxiliary observation unit by using the laser irradiated to the substrate accommodated in the container;Adams’ laser sensor measures distances using time of flight. In combination with Toyomaki, Adam’s laser emitter/sensor would replace or augment Toyomaki’s laser emitter/sensor in order to provide the claimed ranging capability.
14. Regarding claim 6,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki teaches the limitations of claim 5 and also:
wherein the auxiliary observation unit is installed in the end of the hand.Toyomaki teaches this positioning for its observation unit (sensors) MS in fig. 3. We consider the original observation unit of claim 1 and the auxiliary observation unit of claim 5, in combination with Enomoto, to both be sensors installed according to Toyomaki’s design, which places all its sensors MS at the end of its robot hand. Where Toyomaki individually discloses laser sensors on its robot hand, and Enomoto separately teaches a camera sensor, Toyomaki in view of Enomoto teaches both laser and camera sensors on its robot hand.
15. Regarding claim 7,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein the transfer unit further includes a driver configured to drive the hand, wherein the auxiliary observation unit irradiates the laser to the substrate accommodated in the container while the hand moves vertically by the driver.Toyomaki teaches this vertical movement in [0038] via an unnumbered servomechanism considered as the driver.
16. Regarding claim 8,
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki teaches the limitations of claim 7 and also:
wherein the controller (Toyomaki, 30: fig. 1) is further configured to control the transfer unit and the auxiliary observation unit, wherein the controller configured to control the transfer unit, the observation unit, and the auxiliary observation unit so as to primarily observe the state of the substrate accommodated in the container using the observation unit and secondarily observe the state of the substrate using the auxiliary observation unit.Toyomaki discloses these functions of its controller in [0028] as regards mechanical action and in [0040] as regards observation. In combination with Enomoto, Toyomaki’s controller, being responsible for the system’s operations, would assume control of both the original (unmodified in the claim, but in effect first or primary) observation unit of parent claim 1 and the auxiliary observation unit of parent claim 5.
17. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyomaki in view of Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki, and further in view of Hashimoto, et al., US 2005/0110974 (hereinafter Hashimoto).
Toyomaki in view of Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki teaches the limitations of claim 8 but not all aspects of:
wherein when the hand is moved to the reference position to primarily observe the substrate and the substrate accommodated in the container is determined to be in an abnormal state from the primary observation, the controller configured to control the transfer unit, the observation unit, and the auxiliary observation unit such that the hand is vertically moved to secondly observe the substrate in the abnormal state.While the combination of Toyomaki, Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki has been demonstrated in the rejection of claim 8 to perform both the claimed observations, these references do not explicitly teach performing a secondary observation in response to the detection of an abnormal state after a first observation. We note however, that a routine second observation following a first would include the situation in which the first observation discovered an abnormal state, and this is what the combination of Toyomaki, Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki already teaches.
Hashimoto, an invention in the field of substrate alignment, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
wherein when the hand is moved to the reference position to primarily observe the substrate and the substrate accommodated in the container is determined to be in an abnormal state from the primary observation, the controller configured to control the transfer unit, the observation unit, and the auxiliary observation unit such that the hand is vertically moved to secondly observe the substrate in the abnormal state.Hashimoto teaches in [0246] that following a first observation that detects an abnormal condition, a second observation to determine the precise position and abnormal status may then be conducted. Since the system of Toyomaki, Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki teaches the capability but not the triggering condition, Hashimoto’s teaching adds the triggering condition as a motivation without actually altering the system and method of the other references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Toyomaki, Enomoto, Adams, and Hiroki wherein when the hand is moved to the reference position to primarily observe the substrate and the substrate accommodated in the container is determined to be in an abnormal state from the primary observation, the controller configured to control the transfer unit, the observation unit, and the auxiliary observation unit such that the hand is vertically moved to secondly observe the substrate in the abnormal state, as taught by Hashimoto, because as Hashimoto explains in [0246], the follow-up or secondary observation of an abnormal substrate may more precisely determine its abnormality and/or position. This precision would more reliably enable a rectification action such as realigning the substrate, thus avoiding damage to the substrate during a subsequent transfer or processing operation.
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 LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3655