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. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 07/20/26 regarding rejected claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 21, pages 5-8, the new added limitation “comparing the total amount of eccentricity correction made for the substrate over the first period of time to a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction over the first period of time” has been found in new reference of Kiyotomi et al (U.S. 2023/0197480), ([0092]; [0141], lines 6-14; [0147, 216]. Note: “correct the detection result” is not different from amount of eccentricity correction; “each data piece included in the data sequence” is not different from total amount of eccentricity correction made; “reference line calculated by smoothing the data sequence of the target edge” is not different from a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction; and “calculating a difference” is not different from comparing. It is inherent that the data sequence must be in a specific period of time). In the other words, Kiyotomi discloses “correct the detection result by calculating a difference between a reference line calculated by smoothing the data sequence of the target edge and each data piece included in the data sequence”, this limitation is not different from “comparing the total amount of eccentricity correction made for the substrate over the first period of time to a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction over the first period of time”.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, Applicant argues “the acceptable error range of Chen (i.e., the alleged claimed allowable amount of eccentricity correction as recited in original claim 4 that is now in amended independent claim 1) is an acceptable error range for a detected deviation amount of the wafer from a center of the rotation table, which is completely different and irrelevant from how much a substrate can be corrected for eccentricity over time as claimed”. This limitation must be added into the claims in order to be considered.
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejected claim 9, see pages 6-7, Applicant argues “prior art references are completely silent with regard to actually determining the eccentricity correction directions using stored eccentricity correction data …”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current amended claim 9 discloses “determining, using the amount of eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit for the substrate that is stored in the storage, a first direction and a second direction of the eccentricity correction, the first direction being parallel to one axis on a horizontal plane and the second direction being perpendicular to the one axis on the horizontal plane”.
Chen discloses “The first moving mechanism 131 can move in a third direction (for example, the X-axis direction), and the second moving mechanism 132 can move in a fourth direction (for example, the Y-axis direction), and the third direction is perpendicular to the fourth direction. Therefore, when the rotation table 12 is arranged to the moving platform 13, the first moving mechanism 131 and the second moving mechanism 132 can work together to move the rotation table 12 in the third direction, the fourth direction, or both on a plane” ([0033], lines 4-13). Chen further discloses “the controller computes the eccentric position of the wafer and the position of the aiming feature according to the detection results and their rotation angles” (Abstract, lines 12-14), “the apparatus calculates the eccentric quantity, the eccentric direction, and the orientation of the center of the notch based on the accumulated detection results” ([0003], lines 15-18), “according to the accumulated detection results, the eccentric quantity, the eccentric direction, and the orientation of the notch center are calculated” ([0004], lines 8-11). Therefore, it is obvious that Chen discloses calculating the eccentric quality, the eccentric direction, the eccentric position of the wafer according to the detection results in X-axis direction and Y-axis direction. In the other words, Chen has disclosed “determining, using the amount of eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit for the substrate that is stored in the storage, a first direction and a second direction of the eccentricity correction”.
5. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
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) 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 21, 22, 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), further in view of Kiyotomi et al (U.S. 2023/0197480). Hereafter “Chen”, “Kikumoto”, “Kaneyama”, “Kiyotomi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 21, Chen teaches a method for monitoring performance of an eccentricity correction unit configured to move a substrate to correct eccentricity of the substrate (abstract; [0007], [0031], lines 1-6), the method comprising:
a first operation of measuring eccentricity of a substrate ([0002]) mounted on a support unit to obtain a measured eccentricity for the substrate (figure 1, base 11 or moving platform 13 or rotation table 12 is not different from a support unit; [0003], lines 15-18; [0004], lines 8-11) and storing an amount of eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit for the substrate in a storage (figure 3, storage device 16; [0035]), the eccentricity correction unit being configured to move the substrate such that the measured eccentricity for the substrate is corrected to within a preset allowable eccentricity value ([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 amount of the eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit, for the substrate that is stored in the storage, 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),
calculating a total amount of eccentricity correction made for the substrate over a first period of time using instances of the amount of eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit for the substrate that are stored in the storage over the first period of time (Abstract, lines 12-14; [0003], lines 15-18; [0004], lines 8-11; [0007, 0060]. Note: the eccentric quantity, the eccentric direction, or eccentric position of the wafer, is not different from a total amount of eccentricity correction. Further, it is inherent that the amount of eccentricity correction must be in a specific period of time).
However, Chen does not teach based on the amount of the eccentricity correction to move the substrate. Kikumoto teaches based on the amount of the eccentricity correction to move the substrate ([0030]; [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]; [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 the performance degradation of the eccentricity correction unit. Kaneyama teaches an operation of identifying a cause of the performance degradation of the eccentricity correction 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]).
Further, regarding to claim 1, Chen in view of Kikumoto and Kaneyama teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for comparing the total amount of eccentricity correction made for the substrate over the first period of time to a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction over the first period of time. Kiyotomi teaches comparing the total amount of eccentricity correction made for the substrate over the first period of time to a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction over the first period of time ([0092], lines 9-20; [0141], lines 6-14; [0147, 216]. Note: “correct the detection result” is not different from amount of eccentricity correction; “each data piece included in the data sequence” is not different from total amount of eccentricity correction made; “reference line calculated by smoothing the data sequence of the target edge” is not different from a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction; “calculating a difference” is not different from comparing. It is inherent that the data sequence must be in a specific period of time. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above). 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 and Kaneyama by comparing the total amount of eccentricity correction to a preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction in order to correct the detection result, ([0092]; [0141], lines 6-14; [0147, 216]).
Moreover, regarding to claim 9, Chen in view of Kikumoto, Kikumoto, Kaneyama, Kiyotomi, teach all the limitations of claim 9 as stated in claim 1 above except for determining, using the amount of eccentricity correction corrected by the eccentricity correction unit for the substrate that is stored in the storage, a first direction and a second direction of the eccentricity correction, the first direction being parallel to one axis on a horizontal plane and the second direction being perpendicular to the one axis on the horizontal plane. Chen further discloses “The first moving mechanism 131 can move in a third direction (for example, the X-axis direction), and the second moving mechanism 132 can move in a fourth direction (for example, the Y-axis direction), and the third direction is perpendicular to the fourth direction. Therefore, when the rotation table 12 is arranged to the moving platform 13, the first moving mechanism 131 and the second moving mechanism 132 can work together to move the rotation table 12 in the third direction, the fourth direction, or both on a plane” ([0033], lines 4-13). Chen further discloses “the controller computes the eccentric position of the wafer and the position of the aiming feature according to the detection results and their rotation angles” (Abstract, lines 12-14), “the apparatus calculates the eccentric quantity, the eccentric direction, and the orientation of the center of the notch based on the accumulated detection results” ([0003], lines 15-16), “according to the accumulated detection results, the eccentric quantity, the eccentric direction, and the orientation of the notch center are calculated” ([0004], lines 8-11). Therefore, it is obvious that Chen discloses calculating the eccentric quality, the eccentric direction, the eccentric position of the wafer according to the detection results in X-axis direction and Y-axis direction, (please see the explanation in paragraph 4 above).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Chen in view of Kikumoto, Kaneyama, Kiyotomi, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an operation of determining that performance of the eccentricity correction unit is degraded and operating an interlock, when the total amount of eccentricity correction made for the substrate over the first period of time is greater than or equal to the preset allowable amount of eccentricity correction over the first period of time. Chen further teaches this limitation, ([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, Kaneyama, Kiyotomi, 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) 11, Chen in view of Kikumoto, Kaneyama, Kiyotomi, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for 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. Chen further 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).
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Chen in view of Kikumoto, Kaneyama, Kiyotomi, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for rotating the substrate at a predetermined angle on the horizontal plane in both the first direction and the second direction. Chen further teaches rotating the substrate at a predetermined angle on the horizontal plane in both the first direction and the second direction (figures 1, 2; [0032, 0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 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), further in view of Kiyotomi et al (U.S. 2023/0197480), and further in view of Isley et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,923,439). Hereafter “Chen”, “Kikumoto”, “Kaneyama”, “Kiyotomi”, “Isley”.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Chen in view of Kikumoto further in view of Kaneyama and Kiyotomi 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 and Kiyotomi 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).
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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