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 Interpretation
The term “processor” is interpreted as a microprocessor according to the original specification in [0052] and illustrated as processor 912 in Fig. 8.
The term “memory” is interpreted as element 914 and stores various data and programs 930, and is formed by, for example, a volatile memory (DRAM, SRAM), a non-volatile memory (ROM), a flash memory, etc., that functions as a main memory see [0052].
The terms “polishing units”, “finishing units”, and “transport units” are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)/means plus function as the amendments to the claims 1-8 have clarified their specific structure.
The terms “calculation processing part”, “event reception part”, “re-calculation part”. “schedule generation part”, “integral control processing part”, and “distributed control processing part” have all been deleted from the claims in the amendments and thus are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)/means plus function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection were necessitated by the amendments.
The amendments to claim 1 reciting the specific type of finishing units and that a plurality of polishing units performing a polishing process on the substrates in parallel necessitated the introduction of the prior art held to Torikoshi et al (US 2010/0015890). Likewise the amendment to claim 1 reciting a processor that is configured to perform the steps of calculating start timings and managing the timings and processing of the polishing and finishing units necessitated the introduction of the prior art of Norman (US 2023/0107813).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2008/0081540) in view of Torikoshi et al (US 2010/015890) and Norman (US 20023/0107813).
Regarding claim 1: Sato et al teaches an information processing device configured to communicate a substrate processing device comprising a processor (control unit 11) see [0053] a memory 16 see [0053]. The processor of Sato executes the program to be configured to calculate start timing via (timer unit 30 see timing of polishing discussed in [0075], timing of finishing units discussed in [0083], and time of transport units see [0085]), calculating start timings of respective processes when the respective processes are performed in order on a predetermined number of substrates in and the event information when the event information is received by the abnormality determiner 15 during execution of the respective processes by the substrate processing device in accordance with the start timings of the respective processes calculated see [0025], [0053], [0088] – [0093]).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sato et al
The prior art of Sato et al fails to teach that the processor recalculates the start timings as recited.
The prior art of Norman teaches time constraint management at a manufacturing system where a computer system 700, processing device 702 (processor), and memory 704 and 706 are provided see [0105] and [0106]. See [0004], [0005], and [006-] where the start time calculations are discussed. According to Norman the start times can be re-calculated upon observation of the occurrence situation a see [0021] or an event of the substrate processing device (substrate manufacturing system) see [0030] –[0037] via a machine learning model see the discussion of noting an error [0049], [0050]. The motivation to modify the processor of Sato et al to include the program of Norman to recalculate and calculate the start timing is that the teachings of Norman enhance the time management of substrate processing system especially when there are time constraints. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Sato et al to include the program of Norman to recalculate and calculate the start timings.
The substrate processing device of Sato et al comprises a plurality of polishing units 2 (made of polishing platens P1-P3) performing a polishing process on the substrates in parallel see [0065], a plurality of finishing units (cleaning units C0-C3), performing a finishing process on the substrates after the polishing process in a finishing processing order; and a plurality of transport units (dry robot R1, wet robots R2, R3). Each of the polishing units of Sato et al comprises a polishing table P1-P3 and a top ring H1-H3 see Fig. 1 below.
The transport unit for the polishing process of Sato et al is the rotating head mechanism 4 while the transport units of the finishing units are R1-R3.
The plurality of finishing units of Sato et al are recited in [0069] – [0073].
The combined teachings of prior art of Sato et al and Norman fail to teach that the plurality of finishings comprises a roll sponge cleaning unit and a pen sponge cleaning unit.
The prior art of Torikoshi et al teaches a substrate processing device with a plurality of polishing units 30A-30C and a plurality of finishing units (cleaning devices 42-44. See [0047] where Torikoshi et al teaches that the primary cleaning device 42 and second cleaning device 43 may comprises a roll type cleaning device where the roll type using roll shaped sponge to clean the wafer and the third cleaning device 44 may comprises a pencil type cleaning device which rotates a hemispherical sponge against a wafer to clean it see Fig. 1. See also in Fig. 1 of Torikoshi et al transport robots (first and second linear transporters 5 and 6) are provided to the polishing units and the finishing units (second transfer robot 40). The motivation to provide the roll sponge cleaning unit and a pen sponge cleaning unit as the specific types of finishing units is that the roll sponges is known to clean both the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate while the pen sponge is known to provide more focused area cleaning. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sato et and Norman with the specific type of finishing/cleaning units as taught by the prior art of Torikoshi et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Torikoshi et al
Regarding claim 2: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to rework (wafer put in reverse due to confirmation of abnormality), which indicates that the polishing process is performed again on the substrate on which the polishing process has been performed, or that the finishing process is performed again on the substrate on which the finishing process has been performed. See [0094] of Sato et al where it is recited that a wafer is placed in reserve and then processed based customized conditions/recipe.
Regarding claim 3: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to hot lot which indicates that the respective processes are performed on an interrupt substrate not included in the substrates when the start timings of the respective processes . See [0094] Sato et al. where it is recited that a wafer is placed in reverse and then processed based customized conditions/recipe and an alarm unit 20 issues an alert.
Regarding claim 4: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to unit arrival, which indicates that the substrate has arrived at the polishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the polishing unit, or that the substrate has arrived at the finishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the finishing unit. See [0095] – [0097] of Sato et al.
Regarding claim 5: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to a unit failure (abnormality/error), which indicates that a failure occurs in the polishing unit, the finishing unit, or the transport unit. See [0088] – [0097] of Sato et al.
Regarding claim 6: The information processing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event information is information related to recipe change, which indicates that recipe information determining processing contents of the polishing process is changed or that recipe information determining processing contents of the finishing process is changed, see [0118]-[0120], [0123], and [0129] of Sato et al where polishing conditions/recipe are changed. See [0084] where cleaning conditions are discussed.
Regarding claim 7: Recall the rejection of claim1 above where the processor of Sato et al as modified by Norman teaches a substrate processing schedule determined by using the start timings of the respective processes calculated and re-calculated by the processor that controls the polishing units, the finishing units, and the transport units by instructing the start timings of the respective processes based on the substrate processing schedule (order of conveyance path/order of processing to transfer units) generated by the processor.
If an abnormality is determined in a process (polishing and/or finishing) it will affect the schedule or order of operation see [0095]. See also [0107] – [0117] and [0121] – [0123] of Sato et al where flow chart is discussed and also illustrated in Fig. 5 of Sato et al.
Regarding claim 8: Recall in the rejection of claim 1 where the prior art of Sato et al teaches calculating start timing. Recall the prior art of Torikoshi et al teaches the finishing units include a roll sponge cleaning unit and a pen sponge cleaning unit.
The prior art of Sato et al fails to teach that the processor recalculates the start timings as recited.
The prior art of Norman teaches time constraint management at a manufacturing system where a computer system 700, processing device 702 (processor), and memory 704 and 706 are provided see [0105] and [0106]. See [0004], [0005], and [006-] where the start time calculations are discussed. According to Norman the start times can be re-calculated upon observation of the occurrence situation a see [0021] or an event of the substrate processing device (substrate manufacturing system) see [0030] –[0037] via a machine learning model see the discussion of noting an error [0049], [0050]. The motivation to modify the processor of Sato et al to include the program of Norman to recalculate and calculate the start timing is that the teachings of Norman enhance the time management of substrate processing system especially when there are time constraints. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Sato et al to include the program of Norman to recalculate and calculate the start timings.
Thus the combined teaching so Sato et and Norman obviates a processor that executes a program to control the polishing unit by instructing the polishing unit a start timing of the polishing process calculated or re-calculated by the processor which works within conjunction of (timer unit 30) or the re-calculation (see [0026] of Sato et al where the polishing condition is changed) in accordance with a timing at which the substrate arrives at the polishing unit when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the polishing unit, and controlling the finishing unit by instructing the finishing unit a start timing of the finishing process calculated or re-calculated by the processor of Sato et al as modified by Norman in accordance with a timing at which the substrate arrives at the finishing unit according to the teachings of Torikoshi et al when the transport process transporting the substrate is performed with respect to the finishing unit. See [0100] – [0105] of Sato et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winkler et al (US 2008/0241971) teaches a method and apparatus for performing site dependent dual pattern procedures with a system controller 195 (processor) and discussion of start timings in [0094] and [0397].
Yamamato et al (US 10,409,271) where a scheduling method and program are discussed see abstract where scheduling the start of the processes are recited.
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights