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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically for the independent claims 1, 13 and 20, the following limitations such as
On claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “an analysis part configured to…” perform numerous functional operations, including “calculate a center coordinate value of the substrate and a center coordinate value of the support unit,” “set a calculated center coordinate value of the support unit as a center coordinate value of the measurement unit,” “set a calculated center coordinate value of the substrate as a center coordinate value of the transfer robot,” “record the center coordinate value of the transfer robot on a plane coordinate system of the measurement unit,” “convert a recorded center coordinate value of the transfer robot and a center coordinate value of the measurement unit to a plane coordinate system of the transfer robot,” and “teach the transfer robot.” The term “analysis part” is indefinite because the claim provides no structural definition for the component performing these tasks, nor does it provide any algorithm or configuration that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the bounds of the term. The recited “analysis part” is purely functional and lacks structural context, causing uncertainty as to what specific apparatus is covered by the claim.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites that the measurement unit is configured to detect “an information with respect to a boundary of the substrate and the support unit,” but the claim does not define what constitutes such “information,” how the “boundary” is determined, or what measurement parameters or criteria are involved. Furthermore, the repeated use of “center coordinate value” for the substrate, support unit, measurement unit, and transfer robot is indefinite because the claim does not identify the coordinate system, dimensionality, reference frame, units, orientation, or method of determining these centers. The claim further requires converting values to “a plane coordinate system of the measurement unit” and “a plane coordinate system of the transfer robot,” but neither coordinate system is defined within the claim, leaving the meaning and scope of these limitations uncertain. Likewise, the requirement “to teach the transfer robot” is indefinite because “teaching” may involve physical guidance, software updating, calibration, updating stored reference coordinates, or other operations not specified in the claim, and the claim provides no indication of which meaning applies.
Because Claim 1 relies on multiple indefinite terms, including “analysis part,” “an information with respect to a boundary,” “center coordinate value,” “plane coordinate system,” and “teach the transfer robot,” and because these terms lack structural, definitional, or operational clarity, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Similar limitations are found in the other independent claims, Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claims 8 and 20 contains a parenthesis after the period, and both claims do not end with a period, thus its unclear to the examiner whether these formulas are part of the claims or not mainly because prior to the formula, there is a period where claims seem to end.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakiya US 7,933,665.
Claims 1 and 13, Sakiya discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising a support unit configured to include a support region for supporting a substrate. Sakiya teaches a holding portion that physically supports the wafer, stating that “the holding portion 14 of the carrying robot 4 … holds the wafer or disc-like object” (col. 17, lines 22–27). This holding portion constitutes the claimed support unit having a support region for supporting a substrate;
The reference also teaches a transfer robot for transferring the substrate to the support unit. Sakiya describes that “The carrying robot 4 which mounted the wafer 13 on the holding portion 14 … and carried it” (col. 19, lines 9–15), thereby disclosing a robot that transfers a substrate to the support region as claimed;
The reference further teaches a measurement unit configured to measure the substrate and the support unit and to detect information with respect to a boundary of the substrate and the support unit; Sakiya discloses the optical sensor 9 that measures the wafer by detecting boundary intersections, explaining that the robot “passes the wafer 13 … and cuts the outer peripheral rim of the wafer 13 with sensor light in a circular arc,” and that “two points on the outer peripheral rim” are detected (col. 19, lines 15–18). Additional disclosure states that “the outer peripheral rim portion of the disc-like object 13 … is detected” (col. 17, lines 30–36). These teachings collectively establish measurement of the substrate and detection of boundary information relevant to the support region;
Sakiya teaches an analysis part configured to calculate a center coordinate value of the substrate and a center coordinate value of the support unit using the detected boundary information; Sakiya states that “The center position of the disc-like object 13 … is determined from the positional information of 2 points on the outer peripheral rim” (col. 17, lines 9–14), and further that “The intersection coordinate and the center coordinate of the disc-like object are calculated based on these measurement values” (col. 21, lines 55–60). Sakiya additionally explains that “the position of the wafer on the holding portion 14 … is determined” (col. 19, lines 21–22), thereby providing a calculated center coordinate for both substrate and support region;
setting the calculated center coordinate value of the support unit as a center coordinate value of the measurement unit. Sakiya discloses that “the reference position being the original co-ordinate on the reference co-ordinate system … is previously taught to the control portion” (col. 17, lines 9–13), and that “the positional relation between the holding portion and the disc-like object is taught as the reference position” (col. 17, lines 48–49). This demonstrates that the support unit center is adopted as the reference coordinate of the measurement system;
setting the calculated center coordinate value of the substrate as a center coordinate value of the transfer robot. Sakiya clearly states that “The center position of the disc-like object 13 … is transmitted as the reference position to a carrying robot operation controlling program” (col. 17, lines 14–16), thereby disclosing that the substrate center becomes the robot’s center reference value;
recording the center coordinate value of the transfer robot on a plane coordinate system of the measurement unit. Sakiya states that “the position … in the above-mentioned reference co-ordinate system is detected” (col. 17, lines 9–10), and additionally that “the center position … is transmitted … and memorized in the control portion 11” (col. 18, lines 14–17). This indicates that the robot center is recorded in the plane coordinate system used by the measurement system;
Finally, the reference teaches converting a recorded center coordinate value of the transfer robot and a center coordinate value of the measurement unit to a plane coordinate system of the transfer robot to teach the transfer robot. Sakiya describes that “the carrying position and carrying route are corrected by adding a corrected value considering the transition quantity to the information of the carrying position preliminarily taught” (col. 19, lines 23–27) and further explains that “the initial value … is renewed … and a series of the teaching is terminated” (col. 19, lines 60–64). These disclosures clearly demonstrate conversion of measurement-based coordinate information into robot-coordinate teaching values as required by the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakiya (US 7933665), in view of Leong (US 7525649).
Claim 2, recites an analysis part including a support-unit-side reference line detection unit configured to analyze digital image information to detect a support-unit-side reference line, and a support-unit center calculation unit configured to calculate a center of that reference line. Sakiya teaches detecting the boundary of the support region using optical measurement, stating that the “outer peripheral rim portion of the disc-like object 13 … is detected” (col. 17, lines 30–36), and that positional intersections relative to the holding portion are obtained through sensor light (col. 17, lines 7–10). Sakiya further teaches calculating the center of the support-related geometry because “the position of the wafer on the holding portion 14 … is determined” (col. 19, lines 21–22). However, Sakiya does not explicitly teach using digital image information or a camera-based reference line detection unit. Leong teaches obtaining digital image information and analyzing line structures within the image by illuminating a line-shaped laser onto the substrate surface and imaging it using a detector array, disclosing “illumination line focused onto the surface of the workpiece and imaged onto an array of detectors” (Leong, Abstract; see also col. 3–4). It would have been obvious to replace Sakiya’s light-beam boundary detection with Leong’s camera-based digital image detection to improve robustness and allow detection of reference lines with higher resolution, resulting in the claimed support-unit-side reference line detection unit and center calculation unit.
Claim 3, adds that the analysis part includes a substrate-side reference line detection unit configured to analyze digital image information and detect a substrate-side reference line, and a substrate center calculation unit configured to calculate a center coordinate of the substrate. Sakiya teaches detecting multiple points on the wafer rim using light and computing the wafer center, stating that “the center position of the disc-like object 13 … is determined from the positional information of 2 points on the outer peripheral rim” (col. 17, lines 11–14). Sakiya therefore already discloses calculating the substrate center, but does not explicitly use digital imaging. Leong teaches detecting lines within digital image information formed from the imaged laser stripe and using that line change to detect boundaries of the substrate surface (col. 3–5). It would have been obvious to substitute Sakiya’s optical-beam measurement with Leong’s camera-based image acquisition to detect substrate reference lines more reliably and compute the center based on digital image data. Thus, Claim 3 would have been obvious over the combined teachings.
Claim 4, recites that the analysis part includes a measurement-unit-and-transfer-robot center calculation unit configured to receive the center coordinate values of the support unit and substrate, set the support center as the measurement-unit center, and set the substrate center as the transfer-robot center. Sakiya expressly teaches this functional relationship, stating that “the center position of the disc-like object 13 … is transmitted as the reference position to a carrying robot operation controlling program” (col. 17, lines 14–16), and that the reference coordinate system is defined by the positional relation of the holding portion and wafer (col. 17, lines 9–13; col. 17, lines 48–49). Leong contributes digital image-derived boundary detection, which would enhance the underlying coordinate acquisition without altering the fundamental coordinate assignment described in Sakiya. It would have been obvious to use Leong’s accurate digital image data to populate Sakiya’s coordinate-system mapping and calculation steps.
Claim 10, recites a measurement unit including a camera configured to image the support unit and substrate to obtain image information, and an image conversion unit configured to convert the image information into digital image information. Sakiya teaches measuring wafer boundary relative to support via optical detection (col. 17, lines 30–36), but not using a camera. Leong teaches an imaging system in which a laser line is projected onto a substrate and imaged by an array of detectors, forming digital image information for analysis (Leong Abstract; col. 3–5). Substituting the beam-interrupt detector of Sakiya with Leong’s camera-based digital image capture would have been an obvious enhancement to provide richer boundary information and improve measurement resolution. Thus, the claimed camera and image conversion unit would have been obvious.
Claims 11 and 18, a laser irradiation unit projecting a line-shaped laser onto the support unit and substrate, the camera generating an image including the laser line, and the analysis part detecting line changes to distinguish support-side and substrate-side reference lines. Sakiya teaches boundary detection using optical measurement but not a laser line. Leong teaches projecting an illumination line onto the workpiece and imaging it to detect line changes representing surface or boundary transitions (Leong Abstract; col. 3–4). It would have been obvious to apply Leong’s laser-line imaging method to Sakiya’s support-substrate boundary measurement to enable digital detection of boundary lines from laser-line deformation. This yields the claimed functionality.
Claims 12 and 19, placing at least four cameras facing the center of the support unit and obtaining at least four images showing intercept differences between substrate and support. Sakiya provides the context of detecting substrate-to-support boundary geometry for robot teaching (col. 17–19). Leong’s laser-line imaging system is well known to be implemented with multiple imaging heads to increase coverage and accuracy, and such multi-camera configuration is standard in structured-light metrology. Given Sakiya’s need for precise boundary measurement and Leong’s teaching of camera-based line-imaging, it would have been obvious to use multiple cameras oriented around the support center to gather redundant boundary measurements. Thus, the claimed four-camera configuration would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakiya (US 7933665), in view of Leong (US 7525649), further in view of Mccham et al (US 6314340).
Claim 5, recites a first-phase value calculation unit configured to calculate a first-phase value with an angle representing the position of the transfer robot center relative to the measurement-unit center when transformed into the measurement coordinate system. Sakiya teaches calculating wafer and robot positions in a reference coordinate system and using these to correct robot motion (col. 19, lines 23–27; col. 19, lines 60–64). Leong again provides the digital image selection that enables precise boundary-line detection. However, the explicit concept of a “first-phase value” representing an angular relation during a coordinate transformation appears in MCCHAM, which teaches robotic coordinate transformations, calibration, and angular correction based on measured positions (see 6,314,340 at col. 2–4, describing angular offset computation and transformation between coordinate systems). It would have been obvious to apply the well-known coordinate-transform and angular correction techniques of 6,314,340 B1 to Sakiya’s teaching of robot positional correction to compute an angular value (first-phase value) representing the orientation difference between substrate-center and support-center coordinates.
Claims 6 and 15, adds a movement record unit configured to move the transfer robot by a first distance and record a movement coordinate in the robot coordinate system and a virtual coordinate in the measurement coordinate system, and further recites a second-phase value calculation unit configured to compute an angle between lines connecting these coordinate sets. Sakiya teaches robot movement, measurement of robot position, and correction of robot locus based on deviation values (col. 19, lines 23–27; col. 18, lines 14–17). 6,314,340 B1 teaches recording both measured and predicted (virtual) robot position values and computing angular deviation between them to calibrate coordinate transformations (col. 3–6). Leong enhances coordinate acquisition precision through digital imaging, which supports the measurement aspect. Combining these teaches the claimed concept of a movement record unit generating both actual and virtual coordinate values and a second-phase value computed from angular deviation between coordinate vectors. Under KSR, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate angular deviation calculation and dual-coordinate recording from Mccham into Sakiya’s robot-teaching method to improve calibration accuracy.
Claim 7 and 14, 16, recites a teaching coordinate calculation unit configured to generate a teaching coordinate value using a trigonometric formula applied to the first-phase value, second-phase value, and a distance value. Sakiya discloses that the robot’s carrying path is corrected by applying corrected values derived from measured deviations (col. 19, lines 23–27; col. 19, lines 60–64). Mccham explicitly teaches deriving robot teaching coordinates from trigonometric and angular correction formulas during coordinate transformation calibration (Mccham at col. 3–6); A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that converting angular and distance parameters into robot teaching coordinates through trigonometric relationships is standard practice in robot calibration. In combination with Leong’s enhanced measurement precision, it would have been obvious to implement the claimed teaching-coordinate computation.
Claims 8 and 17, specifies the actual formula for calculating the teaching coordinate value (x4, y4) using x4 = d1·cos(θ2 + θ1) and y4 = d1·sin(θ2 + θ1). Sakiya teaches the need to correct robot paths based on measured deviations of position, which inherently involves calculating positions relative to reference axes (col. 19, lines 23–27); Mccham provides detailed teachings of using trigonometric coordinate transformations to compute corrected robot coordinates after determining angular deviations and distances (col. 3–6). The application of standard trigonometric coordinate transformation formulas to derive a teaching coordinate from distance and accumulated angle values is a routine mathematical technique in robot calibration. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply Mccham trigonometric coordinate-transform methods to Sakiya’s deviation-based teaching corrections, yielding the formula form recited in Claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakiya (US 7933665), in view of Leong (US 7525649), further in view of Satoh (US 2009/0255902).
Claim 9, recites that the support unit includes an electrostatic chuck on which the substrate is mounted and sucked, and an outer protective body positioned outside the electrostatic chuck. Sakiya teaches a holding portion for supporting the wafer (col. 17, lines 22–27), but does not specify an electrostatic chuck; Satoh teaches a substrate support including an electrostatic chuck 41 that electrostatically adsorbs a wafer and a surrounding focus ring or protective member positioned outside the chuck (Satoh FIGS. 1–2; col. 3–4). A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement Sakiya’s support unit as a standard electrostatic chuck with an outer protective body, as this is well known in semiconductor wafer handling and improves wafer stability and edge protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten addressing the 112b rejection without changing the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657