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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-20 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 100853298 B1) in view of Tsai et al. (US 20160020086 A1)(hereinafter, “Tsai”), further in view of Katsuragawa et al. (US 20150194329 A1) (hereinafter, “Katsuragawa”).
Regarding claim 16, Cho teaches a processing system (discloses a substrate processing alignment system, page 2, lines 17-22) for analyzing a calibrating substrate, comprising;
a substrate support (workpiece state 300, page 2, lines 18-22) disposed in the processing volume, the substrate support configured to receive a substrate(discloses receiving and holding the substrate via vacuum, page 2, lines 54-56);
an imaging apparatus(110) coupled to and connected to a controller(control unit, page 3, lines 1-5), the controller comprising instructions that, when executed, cause:
the imaging apparatus (110) to capture one or more images of a calibrating substrate disposed at a substrate position on the substrate support (discloses captures images of substrate alignment marks relative to stage marks, page 3, lines 10-15) by a transfer robot (discloses robot placing substrate onto a fixed stage, “the substrate 200 is positioned… of the workpiece stage 300”, “the transfer robot picks up the substrate and transfers the substrate to the upper portion of the workpiece stage,” page 2, lines 36-38), the one or more images showing a plurality of marking features on the calibrating substrate relative to one or more predefined features on the substrate support (discloses compares multiple substrate marks to reference marks on the stage, page 2, lines 50-54), the one or more predefined features being disposed at predetermined locations on the substrate support(discloses defines the location of reference marks on the stage, “alignment marks 310, which are reference 44 points, are provided on a fixed type workpiece stage 300”, page 2, lines 43-49); and each of the plurality of marking features on
the calibrating substrate having a predetermined and known size and known location (“alignment marks 310, which are reference points, are provided on a fixed type workpiece stage 300”, “alignment marks 310 of the workpiece stage 300, inherently known size and known location, page 2, lines 43-48);
a processor (control unit) to determine a true center of the calibrating substrate and a center of the substrate support using the one or more images (computes positional offset between substrate and stage based on marks, “the control unit compares the marks 310 and 310 and aligns the entirety of the transfer robot 100 by X-axis movement, Y-axis movement, and θ-axis rotation so as to be positioned at an absolute value”, page 3, lines 12-19); and
the processor (control unit) to determine whether adjustments to the substrate position is needed (discloses the control unit compares alignment state and judges whether alignment is correct, “the control unit compares and judges whether or not the substrate 200 … is aligned with the alignment mark 310 of the work stage 300”, page 3, lines 7-9) for calibrating the transfer robot (discloses the robot is actively adjusted in X, Y translation and θ rotation, “the control unit…aligns the entirety of the transfer robot 100 by X-axis movement, Y-axis movement, and θ-axis rotation”, page 3, lines 12-13) so that the substrate position of the substrate as placed by the transfer robot is on the substrate support(discloses matching substrate and stage alignment marks, placing substrate within defined alignment region, “the mark 210 is positioned inside the alignment mark 310 of the workpiece stage 300”, page 2, lines 50-51).
Cho fails to disclose a process chamber having a processing volume; each of the plurality of marking features on the calibrating substrate having a predetermined and known size; the substrate position of the substrate as placed by the transfer robot is centered on the substrate support.
Tsai teaches a process chamber (110, figure 1) having a processing volume (“a process chamber 110. The upper dome 102 and lower dome 104”, figure 1, [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the process chamber of Tsai to Cho to reduce cumulative alignment error.
Katsuragawa teaches the substrate position of the substrate as placed by the transfer robot is centered on the substrate support (discloses detect substrate center, support center, align centers and mechanically adjust position, [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the center detection, geometric center computation and center overlap adjustment control of Katsuragawa to Cho in view of Tsai to improve alignment accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, Cho teaches wherein the controller (control unit) further comprises instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to determine a difference between the center of the substrate support and the true center of the calibrating substrate (teaches calculates positional offset between substrate and workpiece stage reference marks, page 2, lines 43-58) and compare the difference to a predetermined threshold limit to determine if an offset correction is needed (teaches uses absolute value tolerance for alignment correction, page 2, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 18, Cho teaches wherein the controller (control unit) further comprises instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to transmit the offset correction (difference between substrate mark and stage mark, discloses alignment mark mismatch detection followed by axis-based adjustment, pages 3, lines 7-19) to the transfer robot(performs comparison, judgement, and movement control, “the control unit compares and judges whether or not the substrate 200 attracted by the horizontal movement and rotation of the X, Y, and θ axes of the entire transfer robot 100 is aligned”, page 3, lines 7-8) to adjust the substrate position of the substrate as placed by the transfer robot( discloses adjust substrate position, X/Y/ θ movement of robot, alignment step correcting position until marks match, pages 3, lines 7-19), if the offset correction is determined to be needed (teaches moves the robot in X/Y/θ axes to correct substrate position based on measured alignment error, page 3, lines 12-19).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 100853298 B1) in view of Tsai et al. (US 20160020086 A1)(hereinafter, “Tsai”), in view of Katsuragawa et al. (US 20150194329 A1) (hereinafter, “Katsuragawa”), further in view of Wang et al. (CN 109449249 A)(hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 19, Cho teaches wherein the controller (control unit) further comprises instructions that, when executed, the one or more images are captured by the imaging apparatus (110).
Cho is silent about the processor digitally implement in the one or more images the one or more predefined features on the substrate support.
Wang teaches the processor digitally implement in the one or more images the one or more predefined features on the substrate support (teaches digital processor identifies laser mark positions and computes coordinates relative to wafer, page 3, lines 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a digital processor of Wang to Cho in view of Tsai, in view of Katsuragawa to enhance alignment accuracy through precise digital feedback (page 2, lines 45-55).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 100853298 B1) in view of Tsai et al. (US 20160020086 A1)(hereinafter, “Tsai”), in view of Katsuragawa et al. (US 20150194329 A1) (hereinafter, “Katsuragawa”), further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2017082496 A1)(hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 20, Cho teaches wherein the controller (control unit) further comprises instructions that, when executed, cause:
the substrate support to the calibrating substrate (discloses rotates substrate via robot rotation, page 3, lines 12-19);
the imaging apparatus(110) to capture one or more images of the calibrating substrate (discloses captures substrate and workpiece stage marks during movement, page 3, lines 1-7 ); and
the processor to monitor a gap offset between the calibrating substrate and the substrate support (computes positional offset between substrate and stage based on marks, “the control unit compares the marks 310 and 310 and aligns the entirety of the transfer robot 100 by X-axis movement, Y-axis movement, and θ-axis rotation so as to be positioned at an absolute value”, page 3, lines 12-19) using at least one edge marking feature on the calibrating substrate ( discloses using edge features for alignment, “the multiple focus camera 110 may be mounted on the edge of the workpiece stage 300 and the edge of the substrate 200 without the alignment marks 310”, page 3, lines 14-15) and the one or more images of the calibrating substrate by the substrate support(discloses captures images of substrate alignment marks relative to stage marks, page 3, lines 10-15).
Cho is silent about the substrate support as the calibrating substrate is rotated; the imaging apparatus to capture one or more images of the calibrating substrate and the substrate support as the calibrating substrate is rotated; and the processor to monitor a gap offset between the calibrating substrate and the substrate support using at least one edge marking feature.
Lee teaches the substrate support as the calibrating substrate is rotated (discloses the wafer is rotated for imaging and alignment, “after the wafer W is rotated 180 degrees with respect to the center of the stage S, a second image of the wafer W is captured (S3). The second image can be photographed by the vision camera VC”, “the wafer W moved on the x-axis of the stage S is rotated 180 degrees with respect to the center of the stage S by the center O of the wafer , And the fourth image of the wafer W is photographed (S6). The fourth image can be photographed by the vision camera VC”, page 4, lines 18-36); the imaging apparatus (VC) to capture one or more images of the calibrating substrate and the substrate support as the calibrating substrate is rotated (discloses imaging is performed during rotation, page 1, lines 37-42); and the processor (30) to monitor a gap offset between the calibrating substrate and the substrate support using at least one edge marking feature (discloses the arithmetic unit calculates wafer center and alignment error using wafer notch, page 2, lines 7-11 and page 4, lines 50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the substrate rotation of Lee to Cho in view of Tsai, in view of Katsuragawa to improve alignment accuracy by capturing multiple images during rotation, detecting offsets, and dynamically correcting substrate positioning for precise and reliable alignment (page 4, lines 18-58).
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights