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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 02/06/26, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “claim 1 is amended to incorporate claim 5 which is indicated as allegedly being allowable in the Office Action. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 5 is allowable, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of § 103 rejection of claim 1”.
2. As indicated in the Advisory mailed 02/13/26, amended independent claim 1 does not contain all allowance subject matter including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims 1, 2 and 5. Therefore, new amended independent claim 1 raises new issues that would require further consideration and/or search. Similarly, amended independent claim 9 does not contain all allowance subject matter including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims 1, 2, 8, 9. Therefore, new amended independent claim 9 raises new issues that would require further consideration and/or search.
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No. 2022/0059382) in view of Kikumoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350632), further in view of Kaneyama (U.S. 2007/0190437). Hereafter “Chen”, “Kikumoto”, “Kaneyama”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 9, 21, Chen teaches a method for monitoring performance of an eccentricity correction unit ([0007], [0031], lines 1-6), the method comprising:
a first operation of measuring eccentricity of a substrate ([0002]) mounted on a support unit (figure 1, base 11 or moving platform 13 or rotation table 12 is not different from a support unit) and storing an amount of eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit such that measured eccentricity of the substrate is within a preset allowable eccentricity value (figure 3, storage device 16; [0035, 0040]. Thresholds required for the operation of the system or preset measurement threshold is not different from a preset allowable eccentricity value); and
a second operation of monitoring, based on the stored amount of the eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit, performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit ([0002], [0065], lines 22-50, [0066], lines 1-3, [0067], lines 5-8. Calculating the position of the eccentric center within the error range, the error of the calculation result of the eccentric position can be maintained within an allowable range, is not different from monitoring, based on the stored amount of the eccentricity correction, performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit).
However, Chen does not teach to move the substrate to correct eccentricity of a substrate. Kikumoto teaches to move the substrate to correct eccentricity of a substrate ([0030] lines 4-12; [0145] lines 1-4; [0169, 0187]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen by moving the substrate to correct eccentricity of a substrate in order to have higher precision, (Kikumoto, [0030] lines 4-12; [0145] lines 1-4; [0169, 0187]).
Further, regarding to claim 1, Chen in view of Kikumoto teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an operation of identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a degree of change over time in the amount of eccentricity correction of the substrate or an amount of misalignment of the support unit. Kaneyama teaches an operation of identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a degree of change over time in the amount of eccentricity correction of the substrate or an amount of misalignment of the support unit ([0174]; [0040], lines 1-7; [0222, 0225, 0258, 0376]. Note: there are many different cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit and misalignment of the support unit, for example: the center of the substrate W not coinciding with the axis of the spin chuck 201, or the substrate W is detected with the substrate W not rotated, or at real time on the eccentricity detection line EL such that the relative position (distance) between the rotation center of the substrate W and the center of the blush, or the center W1 of the substrate W coincides with the axis P1 of the spin chuck). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen in view of Kikumoto by identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity in order to have higher precision, ([0174]; [0040], lines 1-7; [0222, 0225, 0258, 0376]).
Moreover, regarding to claim 9, Chen in view of Kikumoto teach all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above except for identifying a cause of the performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a direction of the eccentricity correction, among the direction, parallel to the-one axis, and the direction, perpendicular to the one axis, on the horizontal plane. Kaneyama teaches identifying a cause of the performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a direction of the eccentricity correction, among the direction, parallel to the-one axis, and the direction, perpendicular to the one axis, on the horizontal plane ([0174]; [0040], lines 1-7; [0222, 0225, 0258, 0376]. Note: there are many different cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit and misalignment of the support unit, for example: the center of the substrate W not coinciding with the axis of the spin chuck 201, or the substrate W is detected with the substrate W not rotated, or at real time on the eccentricity detection line EL such that the relative position (distance) between the rotation center of the substrate W and the center of the blush, or the center W1 of the substrate W coincides with the axis P1 of the spin chuck. Figure 4, shows that direction of the eccentricity correction, among the direction, parallel to the-one axis is the axis of the wafer W, and the direction, perpendicular to the one axis of rotation shaft 203, on the horizontal plane is the plane of the wafer W). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen in view of Kikumoto by identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity in order to have higher precision, ([0174]; [0040], lines 1-7; [0222, 0225, 0258, 0376]).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Chen teaches an operation of calculating an amount of misalignment of the support unit by adding the amount of eccentricity correction and a degree of corrected eccentricity of the substrate, and storing the calculated amount of misalignment ([0062], the position of the rotation center of the rotation table 12 is not different from misalignment of the support unit).
Regarding Claim(s) 3-4, Chen teaches an operation of determining that performance of the eccentricity correction unit is degraded and operating an interlock, when the calculated amount of misalignment is greater than or equal to a preset allowable amount of misalignment ([0002], [0065], lines 22-50, [0066], lines 1-3, [0067], lines 5-8. The allowance error range +0.1mm is not different from amount of misalignment is greater than a preset allowable amount of misalignment).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Chen in view of Kikumoto teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the cause of performance degradation includes wear of a contact portion being in contact with the substrate to secure the substrate, or shaking of the support unit. Kikumoto teaches the cause of performance degradation includes wear of a contact portion being in contact with the substrate to secure the substrate, or shaking of the support unit ([0222]. Contact of the spin chuck that hold the substrate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen in view of Kikumoto by including wear of a contact portion being in contact with the substrate in order to cause the position of the substrate W to be corrected, ([0222]).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Chen teaches the first operation includes an operation of rotating the substrate at a predetermined angle on a horizontal plane to measure and store amounts of eccentricity correction in both a direction, parallel to one axis, and a direction, perpendicular to the one axis, on the horizontal plane ([0008-0009]. The limitation “controlling the rotation table to stop rotating, and according to rotation angles” is inherent a predetermined angle).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Chen teaches a third operation of providing a user with a repair point in time of the eccentricity correction unit or the support unit predicted using monitored performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit ([0008], lines 24-28; [0009], lines 29-32; [0055-0056]. estimating the eccentric position of the wafer and the position of the aiming feature according to the accumulation of contour data and the rotation angles corresponding thereto is not different from predicting using monitored performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No. 2022/0059382), in view of Kikumoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350632), further in view of Kaneyama (U.S. 2007/0190437), and further in view of Isley et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,923,439). Hereafter “Chen”, “Kikumoto”, “Kaneyama”, “Isley”.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Kikumoto further in view of Kaneyama teach all the limitations of claims 1, 2, as stated above except for identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a direction of eccentricity correction. Isley teaches identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a direction of eccentricity correction, (column 18, lines 33-41, 48-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen and Kikumoto and Kaneyama by identifying a cause of performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit depending on a direction of eccentricity correction in order to control the eccentricity, (Isley, column 1, lines 9-10).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Kikumoto further in view of Kaneyama teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an operation of treating the substrate without performing, by the eccentricity correction unit, eccentricity correction, when an amount of misalignment of the support unit is present and eccentricity of the substrate is within the preset allowable eccentricity value. Isley teaches unit is present and eccentricity of the substrate is within the preset allowable eccentricity value, (column 22, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen and Kikumoto and Kaneyama by having unit is present and eccentricity of the substrate is within the preset allowable eccentricity value in order to preset the unit with preset tolerable reference level, (Isley, column 22, lines 4-10).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
April 18, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights