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 § 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, 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) 1, 5-7, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvenkyy (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0381943 A1) in view of Saitou (KR 101167062 B1, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claims 1, 10 and 16, Syvenkyy does disclose and show in figure 2 a device manufacturing system comprising:
a sensor controller comprising (Fig. 2; [0015]):
a sensor circuit comprising (Fig. 2; [0015]):
a light source driver (46) to generate a driving signal (i.e. signal sent to LED 48) ([0026], ll. 14-18);
one or more signal delivery devices to:
deliver individual output driving signals of the plurality of output driving signals to respective sensors of a plurality of sensors (as disclosed the detectors can also be plural) ([0026], ll. 18-26; [0032]); and
receive a first signal from a first sensor of the plurality of sensors, wherein the first signal is representative of a first position of a substrate within a device manufacturing machine ([0026], ll. 18-26; where the examiner is interpreting object 26 as a substrate as the broadest reasonable interpretation of substrate is for example “a substance or layer which is under something or on which something happens, for example the surface on which a living thing grows and feeds” from https://www. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/English/substrate, the examiner notes for compact prosecution that for arguments sake a substrate is also modified in below as obvious in view of Saitou); and
Syvenkyy does disclose using a plurality of driving signals ([0025], ll. 7-19; where inherently if multiple sources are used as explicitly disclosed each requires its own drive signal as is done between emitter circuit 46 and LED 48)
Syvenkyy does not explicitly disclose using a demultiplexer to produce, using the driving signal, a plurality of output driving signals.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that the use of a demultiplexer is well known in the art to route one signal to many outputs efficiently and in a low cost manner. Therefore since Syvenkyy already discloses using a drive circuit and many sources, the most obvious choice to relay the drive signal to many sources in a predictable manner is using a demultiplexer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvenkyy with using a demultiplexer to produce, using the driving signal, a plurality of output driving signals in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using a demodulator which is well known in the optical arts and all electronic arts one can predictably relay one signal to many sources in a low cost efficient manner in contrast with having multiple driving circuits.
Syvenkyy does disclose the use of a logic circuit to detect (i.e. processor 40 and amplification circuit 52 detect and provide feedback) ([0026], ll. 18-26).
Syvenkyy does not explicitly disclose a logic circuit to detect, using the first signal, the first position of the substrate within the device manufacturing system.
However, Saitou does disclose in (page 1, ll. 11-15 and ll. 17-29, page 7, ll. 6-16) the use of a common photoelectric sensor similar to that of Syvenkyy’ s in order to detect position (e.g. storage position in a wafer cassette or storage shelf, for example overlapped abnormal state as disclosed). With the use of a computer/logic circuit (e.g. sensor control section 8 or mother station 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvenkyy with a logic circuit to detect, using the first signal, the first position of the substrate within the device manufacturing system in order to provide the advantage increased versatility, in using a circuit to detection a position of a substrate within a device manufacturing system, obviously as explicitly noted within Saitou one can allow for more efficient automation during manufacturing by determining position location and for example abnormal states as also disclosed.
Syvenkyy does not explicitly disclose a plurality of chambers and where the first signal is from at least one of the plurality of chambers.
However, Saitou does disclose and show in figure 4 and in (page 6, l. 28 thru page 7, l. 5) the use of a plurality of chambers (i.e. area defined between each two sensor combs 13 where target 11 is stored). Each of the chambers have an optical sensor (18/19) the measures the presence or absence of target object 11 as disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvenkyy does not explicitly disclose a plurality of chambers and where the first signal is from at least one of the plurality of chambers in order to provide the advantage of increased utility in the application of the sensors of Syvenkyy into each chamber of Saitou one can predictability rapidly measure the presence or absence of an object in said chamber in a high contrast manner.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 10 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 10, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claims 5 and 14, Syvenkyy discloses and shows in figure 2, a sensor controller, wherein the first sensor comprises:
a sensor head (i.e. the end of fiber Tx) to output a light signal driven by a first output driving signal of the plurality of output driving signals ([0026], ll. 14-22); and
a light detector (50) to generate the first signal responsive to detection of at least one of: the light signal outputted by the sensor head, or an occlusion (i.e. interrupted) of the light signal outputted by the sensor head ([0026], ll. 18-22).
As to claim 6, Syvenkyy discloses a sensor controller, wherein the sensor head comprises an open end of an output optical fiber (explicitly shown as fiber Tx) and the light detector comprises an open end of an input optical fiber (explicitly shown as fiber Rx) ([0026], ll. 14-22).
As to claim 7, Syvenkyy discloses a sensor controller, wherein the light detector comprises a photoelectric element (as disclosed the detector is a photodetector) to generate the first signal ([0003], ll. 1-3; [0026], ll. 18-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument regarding the official notice of a demultiplexer as improper, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly applicant’s statement that “the examiner is not making the case that the references of record themselves demonstrate that a demultiplexer is well-known” is accurate. This in the fundamental assumption when using Official Notice. That the prior art does not demonstrate clearly a feature, but nevertheless this feature is extremely well-known in the art and thus official noticed by the office. Applicant’s argument regarding ([0026]) from Syvenkyy and [0
60] from Saitou is considered moot. Neither of these noted paragraphs were provided in the official notice to support the claim limitation in question. As to the official notice being challenged, the examiner will now response with a supporting document to provide evidence to the official notice assertion. The examiner would like to note for clarity of the record that Syvenkyy explicitly states “The board 16 can include a switching device to select one or more channels. This switching device can be a separate device (not shown) or an interface 55 for all of the channels can connect directly to the controller (e.g., the processor 40) as shown in FIG. 2. The processor 40 in this example can perform the switching between channels using firmware. Each channel includes an input to the emitter circuit 46 that regulates the current through the LED 48 and thus the light intensity through the (e.g., fiber optic) light source cable(s) 20, to provide light source signal(s) 24 via LEDs 48 in this example.” ([0026]). As such Syvenkyy explicitly discloses multiple source signals to drive multiple LEDs. Syvenkyy even hints a structure that could be considered a demultiplexer (i.e. the switching device). As one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize demultiplexers commonly switch inputs among multiple outputs. This is evidenced by the first figure in EL-PRO-CUS. Replicated here for efficiency
PNG
media_image1.png
213
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further as evidenced by Electronics Coach “Communication System: Demultiplexers play a crucial role in the data transmission process. In the conversion of parallel data to serial, demultiplexers are used. Besides, in various communication circuits, demultiplexers are used for providing a single source to multiple users.” (page 4, ll. 3-8). It is therefore commonly known to use a Demultiplexer to take one input and distribute it to multiple outputs. As such the “switching device” already disclosed in Syvenkyy can clearly and predictably be a demultiplexer to allow one input to be applied to the multitude of LEDs to drive them as desired. The demultiplexer itself provides the predictable result of allowing one signal instead of many to drive a multitude of outputs/LEDs thus increasing the efficiency of the system. For this reason the official notice is being maintained as supported now by the evidentiary references.
As to the argument that the motivation to combine is deficient, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner will further elaborate the rational underpinning for the combination/motivation here. Firstly, Syvenkyy is directed at a general optical sensor for detecting objects “The following relates to an object detection sensor. Such sensors are commonly used in industrial and commercial applications to detect the presence, absence or condition of an object.” ([0011]) from Syvenkyy. Syvenkyy further explicitly discloses optimizing contrast, and detecting contrast difference ([0022], ll. 10-15; [0025], ll. 2-7). Saitou uses an object detection based system to determine if an object (wafer/glass/circuit board) is within a desired location or in for example an abnormal state with undesired overlap. (page 7, ll. 6-18) and further is motivated to remove noise and adjust brightness/sensitivity (which defines contrast) (page 2, ll. 28-30). The “increased versatility” put more precisely is the application of the single board, fast response time sensor of Syvenkyy modified into a semiconductor environment so that it can perform its function in one of many known and obvious environments. Syvenkyy does not put an particular restrictions on what the object can be that is measured, as such the modification into wafer position location obviously benefits Syvenkyy in finding a particular area to apply the known sensor. Further since the sensor can detect an object in a high contrast and rapid manner one can automate wafer position analysis in a predictable manner. For this reason the rejection is maintained at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights