DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment / Arguments
The response, filed 06/03/2026, has been entered. Claims 13-14 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are added. Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending, with claims 12 and 15-20 being withdrawn from consideration. The previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-11 and 21-22 have been fully considered but are moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhare et al. (US 20120271590 A1, prior art of record) in view of Freed et al. (US 7282889 B2, prior art of record) and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20180366354 A1).Regarding claim 1:Sakhare teaches a diagnostic disc comprising:
a disc-shaped body (e.g., FIG. 9A) comprising raised walls (e.g., FIG. 10A) that encircle an interior of the disc-shaped body, wherein the raised walls of the disc-shaped body define a cavity (e.g., FIGS. 10A-10B, the one or more cavities where all the components are housed that aren’t the cover of base / cavity which houses main PCB 1020) of the disc-shaped body; a plurality of non-contact sensors (e.g., FIG. 8 - 858, 860, 862, 864 and/or 866, 868) attached to the disc-shaped body; a printed circuit board (PCB) (FIG. 10A - 1020 or 1020+1018) positioned within the cavity on the disc-shaped body; circuitry disposed on the PCB and coupled to each non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors (e.g., [0069]; also, inherent to the operation of the device of FIGS. 8-10B given that 1020 is the main PCB), the circuitry comprising at least a wireless communication circuit (FIG. 8 - 872, 874, and/or 876) and a memory (inherent or rendered obvious by [0070]); a power source (FIG. 10A - 1020) disposed on the PCB; and a cover (e.g., FIG. 10A - 1016, 1012, 1014) positioned over the cavity of the disc-shaped body, wherein the cover shields at least portions of the PCB, the circuitry, and the power source within the cavity from an external environment (inherent to the aluminum cover of Sakhare)Sakhare fails to teach:
a wireless charger disposed on the PCB
wherein a first non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is directed in a first direction and is configured to sense a first chamber component, and wherein a second non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is directed in a second direction opposite the first direction and is configured to sense a different second chamber componentFreed teaches:
a wireless charger (e.g., Col. 11, Line 22 through Col. 12, Line 19)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wireless charger of Freed in the device of Sakhare to allow for remote, non-contact charging of the batteries or power of the device. The examiner notes that “disposed on the PCB” is either met upon combination due to the location of the battery and battery PCB of Sakhare, rendered obvious as a finite number of locations to incorporate the teachings of Freed into the device of Sakhare, and/or rendered obvious as it is merely re-arrangement of parts pursuant to MPEP 2144.04 VI C.Nguyen teaches:
wherein a first non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is directed in a first direction and is configured to sense a first chamber component, and wherein a second non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is directed in a second direction opposite the first direction and is configured to sense a different second chamber component(e.g., FIG. 3B; [0049]. Nguyen teaches cameras on the top and bottom of the disc.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cameras of Nguyen (which are non-contact sensors and the top and bottom cameras point in opposite direction) in addition to the non-contact sensors of Sakhare to yield a diagnostic disc capable of both alignment and temperature diagnostics. Alternatively, the cameras of Nguyen could replace two or more of the non-contact sensors of Sakhare to yield a temperature diagnostic disc.
Regarding claim 2:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare also teaches:
an illumination component (FIG. 8 - 856; [0070]) attached to the disc-shaped body, wherein the circuitry disposed on the PCB is further coupled to each illumination component
Regarding claim 3:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare also teaches:
a plurality of protrusions extending approximately horizontally from the disc-shaped body, the plurality of protrusions positioned around the disc-shaped body and approximately perpendicular to a circumference of the disc-shaped body, wherein each non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is attached to a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions(FIG. 9A - elements 920, 922, 924, and 926 are “sensor mounts”; See FIG. 10A which shows one of the sensor mounts, unlabeled, at the top of the image, as a protrusion)
Regarding claim 4:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.Sakhare either teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the disc-shaped body comprises a notch at a first position on the circumference (FIG. 2A - 202)
Sakhare fails to explicitly teach if the embodiment of FIG. 9A-10B may have the notch of FIG. 2A. In the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner also treats these as separate embodiments and finds it would be obvious to include the notch of FIG. 2A in the device shown in FIGS. 9A-10B for the same reason it is shown in FIG. 2A (as an alignment means).Sakhare fails to explicitly teach:
wherein a first non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is positioned at an angle of about 170-180° from the first position of the notch, wherein a second non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is positioned at an angle of about 225°-235° from the first position of the notch, wherein a third non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is positioned at an angle of about 295°-305° from the first position of the notch, and wherein a fourth non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is positioned at an angle of about 55°-65° from the first position of the notch
However, Sakhare does teach four sensors in sensor mounts 920, 922, 924, and 926. Although Sakhare fails to explicitly teach the claimed angular positioning of the sensors, this is rendered obvious pursuant to MPEP 2144.04 VI C as mere arrangement of parts. One would be motivated to place the sensors at particular locations based on the specific arrangement / design of the machine that it will be used in. Indeed, although not directly relied upon, the instant specification ([00104]) explicitly states that the position of the protrusions/sensors “should not be construed as limiting as their positions could vary depending on the processing chamber used, the main frame robot used, the transfer chamber robot used, the end effectors of the robots”.
Regarding claim 5:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare either teaches or renders obvious:
wherein: the disc-shaped body has a diameter of about 310 millimeters (mm) to about 320 mm; and each non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors is positioned at about 280 mm to about 320 mm from an outer perimeter of the disc-shaped body
Specifically, Sakhare teaches an example diameter of 300 mm ([0083]), which the examiner finds reasonable to interpret as “about” 310 mm since an increase from 300 mm to 310 mm is merely ~3%.
As for the remaining claim limitations, under BRI, the examiner construes this measurement as a diametral distance (i.e., the distance from a point on the outer perimeter, across the disc through the center, to the sensor position near the opposite periphery). This interpretation is supported by the instant specification (e.g., [00103]) which describes non-contact sensors at “about 295 mm to about 305 mm from an outer perimeter of the disc-shaped body”. For a disc with a diameter of approximately 310-320 mm, a measurement of 280-320 mm from the outer perimeter clearly is commensurate with the examiner’s diametral interpretation since a non-diametral interpretation would place the sensor at a position past the edge of the disc. The sensors of Sakhare are on the outer edge of the 300 mm disc and, thus, explicitly meet or render obvious the instant claim limitations.
Additionally/alternatively, one would be motivated to place the sensors at particular locations based on the specific arrangement / design of the machine that it will be used in. Indeed, although not directly relied upon, the instant specification ([00104]) explicitly states that the position of the protrusions/sensors “should not be construed as limiting as their positions could vary depending on the processing chamber used, the main frame robot used, the transfer chamber robot used, the end effectors of the robots”.
Regarding claim 6:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare also teaches:
wherein the disc-shaped body and the cover are comprised of at least one of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or an aluminum alloy([0073], [0075], [0077])
Regarding claim 9:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare also teaches:
wherein the disc-shaped body has a height of up to about 9 millimeters (mm)(FIG. 9B and [0074])
Regarding claim 21:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Sakhare and Nguyen teach:
wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially perpendicular with a raised surface of the cover
The “raised surface of the cover” is met by Sakhare and is essentially parallel to the overall disc (“horizontal”). Nguyen teaches cameras (e.g., FIG. 3B; [0049]) on the top and bottom of the disc (one or more pointing “up” and one or more pointing “down”). Thus, the combination yields “wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially perpendicular with a raised surface of the cover”
Regarding claim 22:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Nguyen teaches:
wherein the first non-contact sensor comprises a first camera, and wherein the second non-contact sensor comprises a second camera(e.g., FIG. 3B; [0049])
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhare et al. (US 20120271590 A1, prior art of record) in view of Freed et al. (US 7282889 B2, prior art of record) and Nguyen et al. (US 20180366354 A1) and further in view of Pareek et al. (US 20160258064 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 7:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare fails to teach:
a coating on the disc-shaped body and the cover, wherein the coating has a surface roughness finish ranging from about 4 microinches (µin) to about 16 µinPareek teaches:
a coating ([0047], claim 9) on the disc-shaped body and the cover (“disc-shaped body and the cover” are met upon combination), wherein the coating has a surface roughness finish ranging from about 4 microinches (µin) to about 16 µin ([0047], claim 9)
Pareek teaches “16 Ra or smoother”. Pareek fails to explicitly teach if the 16 Ra is in µm or µin; however, the context of the disclosure makes this clearly µin. Specifically, the entire coating thickness is between 0.1 µm and 1 µm ([0021]). A 16µin Ra is about a 0.4 µm Ra. A 16µm Ra would be 640 µin, which would be far larger than the total film thickness. Thus, the examiner concludes that Pareek clearly teaches a surface roughness (Ra) of 16 µin or less.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating of Pareek on the device of Sakhare to protect it from the harsh environments. Sakhare’s aluminum diagnostic disc is subject to extreme conditions during use. Pareek explicitly teaches coating aluminum components in the processing chamber with an anodized coating to protect them from the environment ([0045]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 8:Sakhare, Freed, Nguyen, and Pareek teach all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 7 rejection above, Pareek teaches:
wherein the coating comprises an anodized material (e.g., [0045]-[0047])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhare et al. (US 20120271590 A1, prior art of record) in view of Freed et al. (US 7282889 B2, prior art of record) and Nguyen et al. (US 20180366354 A1) and further in view of Ramsey et al. (US 7289230 B2, prior art of record).Regarding claim 10:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare fails to teach:
a non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors comprises a camera having a depth of focus of about 25 millimeters (mm) to about 45 mmRamsey teaches:
a non-contact sensor of the plurality of non-contact sensors comprises a camera having a depth of focus of about 25 millimeters (mm) to about 45 mm(Col. 7, Lines 17-30; Col. 3, Lines 21-26)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the camera non-contact sensor of Ramsey in the device of Sakhare as it is an art-recognized equivalent sensor for use in a diagnostic disc. The examiner notes that Sakhare does not explicitly teach away from a camera, but merely states that a camera is more expensive and complex. This is not sufficient to teach away as it clearly discloses that a camera can be used and functional, just merely more complex and expensive to implement. Although this may be the case, a camera also gives more information and, thus, there is a trade-off.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhare et al. (US 20120271590 A1, prior art of record) in view of Freed et al. (US 7282889 B2, prior art of record) and Nguyen et al. (US 20180366354 A1) and further in view of Grande et al. (US 6242817 B1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 11:Sakhare, Freed, and Nguyen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sakhare also teaches or renders obvious:
a coupling interface in the disc-shaped body configured to engage with a substrate support assembly to achieve a target position and a target orientation (notch 202 in FIG. 2A)
Sakhare fails to explicitly teach if the embodiment of FIG. 9A-10B may have the notch of FIG. 2A. In the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner also treats these as separate embodiments and finds it would be obvious to include the notch of FIG. 2A in the device shown in FIGS. 9A-10B for the same reason it is shown in FIG. 2A (as an alignment means).Sakhare fails to teach:
a plurality of kinematic coupling interfaces in a bottom of the disc-shaped body and configured to engage with a substrate support assembly in a processing chamber to achieve a target position and a target orientation in the processing chamberGrande teaches:
a plurality of kinematic coupling interfaces (FIG. 1 - e.g., 22, 24, 26, 21) in a bottom of the disc-shaped body (FIG. 1 - 18) and configured to engage with a substrate support assembly (FIG. 1 - 12) in a processing chamber to achieve a target position and a target orientation in the processing chamber(Note: although FIG. 1 is cited, FIGS. 8A-8D are also relied upon)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coupling interfaces of Grande in the device of Sakhare to facilitate better alignment of the disc and/or other substrates/wafers. Additionally, the examiner notes that the coupling/alignment features of the diagnostic device of Sakhare should match any coupling/alignment features of whatever device/system is being tested.
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 Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights