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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 25 (dependent on amended claim 16) recites “the frame comprises a main frame portion” (emphasis added), and claim 16 recites “a frame comprising a main frame portion” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for two distinct ‘main frame portions’.
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 19 and 25 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.
Amended claim 19 recites the limitations "at least one of the alignment members" and “the at least one alignment member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “at least one alignment member of the plurality of alignment modules” for antecedent basis.
New claim 25 (dependent on amended claim 16) recites “the frame comprises a main frame portion” (emphasis added), and claim 16 recites “a frame comprising a main frame portion” (emphasis added), rendering claim 25 indefinite as to whether the “a main frame portion” is intended to refer back to the “main frame portion” of claim 16, or a distinct “main frame portion” thereof.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 12, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kulkarni et al (US 2022/0282380) with evidence by Lee et al (US 10,665,490) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kulkarni et al (US 2022/0282380) in view of Lee et al (US 10,665,490).
With respect to claim 1, Kulkarni discloses an apparatus for aligning an “annular member” (i.e. claimed “focus ring”) (Abstract), wherein figs. 2 and 4 depict the apparatus comprises: a “fixture” (i.e. claimed “frame”) [200]; at least one camera (i.e. claimed “sensing member“) [302] on a “camera wafer” [300] (para 0073), wherein the camera wafer [300] “rests on” the frame [200] (para 0042), thus the at least one camera [302] is connected to the frame [200]; and at least one ‘horizontal element’ (i.e. claimed “alignment module”) [206] connected to the frame [200] and including a pin [210] (para 0058 and 0063-0064), wherein the at least one alignment module [206] is configured to move the annular member to change a position of the annular member via pin [210] (Abstract; para 0017 and 0092). The at least one sensing member [302] acquires images of a structure above, such as a showerhead, for the aligning or moving the focus ring (Abstract; fig. 12; para 0019-0021 and 0034); as such:
the at least one sensing member [302] is fully capable of being “oriented towards a focus ring and configured to image an area including the focus ring” for then aligning or moving the focus ring, as evidenced by Lee showing in fig. 1 a “disk-type image sensor“ (i.e. Kulkarni’s at least one sensing member) [200] that photographs alignment of an “edge ring ER [that] may serve as a focus ring” above the focus ring alignment apparatus [200] for aligning or moving the ER or focus ring (Lee: col. 3, lines 36-40; col. 4, lines 13-15); or alternatively
Kulkarni does not specify a particular location of the focus ring; Lee teaches an alignment apparatus for an “edge ring ER [that] may serve as a focus ring” (Abstract; col. 3, lines 36-40; col. 4, lines 13-15), similar to the focus ring alignment apparatus of Kulkarni. Lee further shows in fig. 1 that the ER (i.e. focus ring) is oriented toward a “disk-type image sensor“ (i.e. Kulkarni’s at least one sensing member) [200] that photographs alignment of the focus ring (col. 5, lines 1-65), also similar to Kulkarni. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the focus ring of Kulkarni is above the at least one sensing member as taught by Lee to yield the predictable result of photographing or imaging the focus ring to determine alignment or misalignment.
With respect to claim 2, Kulkarni further depicts in figs. 2 and 4 the frame [200] comprises: an “annular platform” (i.e. claimed “main frame portion”) [202] having a circular outer circumference (para 0054-0055); and the at least one alignment module [206] is connected to the main frame portion [202] (para 0058 and 0063). Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2 the at least one alignment module [206] comprises at least three alignment modules [206] (para 0058 and 0063), wherein the at least three alignment modules [206] are connected to the main frame portion [202] in both a circumferentially spaced apart relationship and radially spaced apart from a center of the main frame portion [202] by a preset distance.
With respect to claim 4, Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2 the at least one alignment module [206] comprises a module body connected to the main frame portion [202], and a “level indicator” (i.e. claimed “alignment member”) [220] connected to the module body, wherein the alignment member [220] is capable of being moved toward a center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068). Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2: the at least one alignment module [206] comprises the pin (i.e. elevation member) [210] being both movably connected to the module body of the at least one alignment module [206] and configured to move vertically (e.g. claimed “opposite first and second directions”) relative to the main frame portion [202] (para 0063-0064); and the alignment member [220] is connected to the module body (the at least one alignment module [206]) via the elevation member [210] (para 0063 and 0065-0066).
With respect to claim 6, Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2 the at least one alignment module [206] comprises a module body connected to the main frame portion [202], and a “level indicator” (i.e. claimed “alignment member”) [220] connected to the module body, wherein the alignment member [220] is capable of being moved toward a center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068). Kulkarni also depicts in fig. 2 the alignment member [220] capable of moving along a movement axis that passes through the center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068).
With respect to claim 7, Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2 the at least one alignment module [206] comprises a module body connected to the main frame portion [202], and a “level indicator” (i.e. claimed “alignment member”) [220] connected to the module body, wherein the alignment member [220] is capable of being moved toward a center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068). Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2: the at least one alignment module [206] comprises the pin (i.e. elevation member) [210] being both movably connected to the module body of the at least one alignment module [206] and configured to move vertically (e.g. claimed “opposite first and second directions”) relative to the main frame portion [202] (para 0063-0064). Kulkarni also depicts in fig. 2 the alignment member [220] comprises a rod-shaped contact member extending from a bolt or fastener that is oriented toward the center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068).
With respect to claim 8, Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2 the alignment member [220] comprises an auxiliary contact member movably connected to the rod-shaped contact member, and a biasing member extending from the rod-shaped contact member and contacting the auxiliary contact member (para 0066 and 0093), wherein the biasing member is between the rod-shaped contact member and the auxiliary contact member.
With respect to claim 9, Kulkarni further depicts in figs. 2 and 4 the main frame portion [202] has an annular structure, wherein the frame [200] comprises an inner diameter (i.e. claimed “auxiliary frame portion”) within an inner area of the main frame portion [202], and the at least one sensing member [302] rests (e.g. is connected) to the auxiliary frame portion (para 0054).
With respect to claim 12, Kulkarni further discloses a “computing device” (i.e. claimed “controller”) configured to receive imaged data of the annular member (i.e. focus ring) from the at least one sensing member [302] (para 0099), which then controls the at least one alignment module [206] to move the annular member (Abstract; para 0058, 0063, and 0099). Kulkarni further discloses the at least one alignment module [206] comprises at least three alignment modules [206] configured for moving the annular member (para 0058 and 0063); thus the controller that receives the imaged data extracts at least three features points for adjustment of the annular member (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0058, 0063, and 0099). As shown in figs. 2 and 4, the at least three alignment modules [206] are arranged in a circle, the at least three alignment modules [206] each being a feature point; thus an actual position of the annular member is derived by a circle passing through the at least three feature points (para 0063-0066).
With respect to claim 14, Kulkarni further discloses the controller is configured to determine whether the imaged data is aligned with a preset position of the annular member (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0099); thus the controller is capable of storing data about a target position for the annular member. The controller is configured to then move the annular member via the at least three alignment modules [206] so that the annular member is aligned with a desired position from the actual position (e.g. the at least three alignment modules [206] move the annular member “so that a deviation between the target position and the actual position is smaller than a preset value”) (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0099). Kulkarni further discloses the controller is configured to control the at least one alignment module [206] to move the annular member by a particular distance (e.g. claimed “correction distance”) (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0058, 0063, and 0099); the claim requirement of “the correction distance is a value obtained by subtracting a radius of the target position from a distance from a center of the target position to the actual position” relates to the intended use of the claimed controller and apparatus, with the controller and apparatus of Kulkarni fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
With respect to claim 16, Kulkarni discloses an apparatus for aligning an “annular member” (i.e. claimed “focus ring”) (Abstract), wherein figs. 2 and 4 depict the apparatus comprises: a “fixture” (i.e. claimed “frame”) [200] comprising an “annular platform” (i.e. claimed “main frame portion”) [202] having a circular outer circumference (para 0054-0055); at least one camera (i.e. claimed “sensing member“) [302] on a “camera wafer” [300] (para 0073), wherein the camera wafer [300] “rests on” the frame [200] (para 0042), thus the at least one camera [302] is connected to the frame [200]; and plural “horizontal elements” (i.e. claimed “alignment modules”) [206] connected to the frame [200] and radially spaced apart from a center of the main frame portion [202] by a preset distance (para 0058 and 0063-0064). The at least one sensing member [302] acquires images of a structure above, such as a showerhead, for the aligning or moving the focus ring (Abstract; fig. 12; para 0019-0021 and 0034); as such:
the at least one sensing member [302] is fully capable of being “oriented towards a focus ring and configured to image an area including the focus ring” for then aligning or moving the focus ring, as evidenced by Lee showing in fig. 1 a “disk-type image sensor“ (i.e. Kulkarni’s at least one sensing member) [200] that photographs alignment of an “edge ring ER [that] may serve as a focus ring” above the focus ring alignment apparatus [200] for aligning or moving the ER or focus ring (Lee: col. 3, lines 36-40; col. 4, lines 13-15); or alternatively
Kulkarni does not specify a particular location of the focus ring; Lee teaches an alignment apparatus for an “edge ring ER [that] may serve as a focus ring” (Abstract; col. 3, lines 36-40; col. 4, lines 13-15), similar to the focus ring alignment apparatus of Kulkarni. Lee further shows in fig. 1 that the ER (i.e. focus ring) is oriented toward a “disk-type image sensor“ (i.e. Kulkarni’s at least one sensing member) [200] that photographs alignment of the focus ring (col. 5, lines 1-65), also similar to Kulkarni. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the focus ring of Kulkarni is above the at least one sensing member as taught by Lee to yield the predictable result of photographing or imaging the focus ring to determine alignment or misalignment.
Kulkarni also discloses a “computing device” (i.e. claimed “controller”) configured to receive the imaged data of the annular member (i.e. focus ring) from the at least one sensing member [302] (para 0099), which then controls the alignment modules [206] to move the annular member (Abstract; para 0058, 0063, and 0099).
With respect to claim 17, Kulkarni further depicts in fig. 2 each of the alignment modules [206] comprises: a module body connected to the main frame portion [202], and a “level indicator” (i.e. claimed “alignment member”) [220] connected to the module body, wherein the alignment member [220] is capable of being moved toward a center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068), and wherein the alignment member [220] is capable of moving along a movement axis that passes through the center of the main frame portion [202] (para 0066-0068); and the controller is configured to determines whether the imaged data is aligned with a preset position of the annular member (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0099); thus the controller is capable of storing data about a target position for the annular member.
With respect to claim 18, Kulkarni further discloses the alignment modules [206] comprises at least three alignment modules [206] configured for moving the annular member (para 0058 and 0063); thus the controller that receives the imaged data extracts at least three features points for adjustment of the annular member (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0058, 0063-0066, and 0099). As shown in figs. 2 and 4, the at least three alignment modules [206] are arranged in a circle, the at least three alignment modules [206] each being a feature point; thus an actual position of the annular member is derived by a circle passing through the at least three feature points. Kulkarni also discloses the controller is configured to determine whether the imaged data is aligned with a preset position of the annular member (Abstract; fig. 13; para (para 0063-0066 and 0099); thus the controller is capable of storing data about a target position for the annular member. The controller is configured to then move the annular member via the at least three alignment modules [206] so that the annular member is aligned with a desired position from the actual position (e.g. the at least three alignment modules [206] move the annular member “so that a deviation between the target position and the actual position is smaller than a preset value”) (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0099).
With respect to claim 19, the claim requirement of “the controller is further configured to move at least one of the alignment members of the plurality of alignment modules by a separation distance between the at least one alignment member and the focus ring, to stop the at least one alignment member, and then to move the at least one alignment member again” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed apparatus and controller, with the apparatus and controller of Kulkarni fully capable of operating in the claimed manner, such as suggested in the Abstract, fig. 13, and para 0058, 0063, and 0099.
With respect to claim 20, Kulkarni discloses an apparatus for aligning an “annular member” (i.e. claimed “focus ring”) (Abstract), wherein figs. 2 and 4 depict the apparatus comprises: a “fixture” (i.e. claimed “frame”) [200] comprising an “annular platform” (i.e. claimed “main frame portion”) [202] having a circular outer circumference, and “vertical elements” (i.e. claimed “support frame portion”) [204] extending away from the main frame portion [202] (para 0054-0055); at least one camera (i.e. claimed “sensing member“) [302] on a “camera wafer” [300] (para 0073), wherein the camera wafer [300] “rests on” the frame [200] (para 0042), thus the at least one camera [302] is connected to the frame [200]; and plural “horizontal elements” (i.e. claimed “alignment modules”) [206] connected to the frame [200] and radially spaced apart from a center of the main frame portion [202] by a preset distance (para 0058 and 0063-0064). The at least one sensing member [302] acquires images of a structure above, such as a showerhead, for the aligning or moving the focus ring (Abstract; fig. 12; para 0019-0021 and 0034); as such:
the at least one sensing member [302] is fully capable of being “oriented towards a focus ring and configured to image an area including the focus ring” for then aligning or moving the focus ring, as evidenced by Lee showing in fig. 1 a “disk-type image sensor“ (i.e. Kulkarni’s at least one sensing member) [200] that photographs alignment of an “edge ring ER [that] may serve as a focus ring” above the focus ring alignment apparatus [200] for aligning or moving the ER or focus ring (Lee: col. 3, lines 36-40; col. 4, lines 13-15); or alternatively
Kulkarni does not specify a particular location of the focus ring; Lee teaches an alignment apparatus for an “edge ring ER [that] may serve as a focus ring” (Abstract; col. 3, lines 36-40; col. 4, lines 13-15), similar to the focus ring alignment apparatus of Kulkarni. Lee further shows in fig. 1 that the ER (i.e. focus ring) is oriented toward a “disk-type image sensor“ (i.e. Kulkarni’s at least one sensing member) [200] that photographs alignment of the focus ring (col. 5, lines 1-65), also similar to Kulkarni. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the focus ring of Kulkarni is above the at least one sensing member as taught by Lee to yield the predictable result of photographing or imaging the focus ring to determine alignment or misalignment.
The alignment modules [206] comprises at least three alignment modules [206] configured for moving the annular member (para 0058 and 0063), and a “computing device” (i.e. claimed “controller”) configured to receive imaged data of the annular member (i.e. focus ring) from the at least one sensing member [302] (para 0099), which then controls the alignment modules [206] to move the annular member (Abstract; para 0058, 0063, and 0099); thus the controller receives imaged data extracts at least three features points for adjustment of the annular member (Abstract; fig. 13; para 0058, 0063, and 0099). As shown in figs. 2 and 4, the at least three alignment modules [206] are arranged in a circle, the at least three alignment modules [206] each being a feature point; thus an actual position of the annular member is derived by a circle passing through the at least three feature points for adjustment of the annular member (para 0063-0066).
With respect to claims 21-25, Kulkarni further discloses the frame [200] comprises an “annular platform” (i.e. claimed “main frame portion”) [202] (para 0054-0055), wherein the at least one alignment module [206] is configured to move the annular member by “aligning a center of the annular member to a center of the pedestal” via pin (i.e. claimed “contact member”) [210] (Abstract; para 0017 and 0092), which includes both horizontal (i.e. radial) and vertical directions with respect to the center of the frame [200] (which also includes both the center and an inner center area of the main frame portion [202]). In addition the claim requirements of: “the at least one alignment module is configured to move the focus ring in a radial direction with respect to a center of the main frame portion to change a position of the focus ring” (claims 21 and 25); “the contact member is configured to move the focus ring with respect to an inner center area of the main frame portion” (claims 22 and 24); and “the at least one alignment module is configured to move the focus ring horizontally” (claim 23) each relates to the intended use of the claimed at least one alignment module and contact member, with the at least one alignment module [206] and contact member [210] fully capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al (US 2022/0282380) in view of Lee et al (US 10,665,490).
With respect to claim 11, Lee further teaches in figs. 10-13 depict a plate [206] comprising plural cameras (i.e. sensing members) [212],[214],[216] (col. 5, lines 54-65), similar to the camera wafer [300] and camera [302] of Kulkarni.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 8-11 filed 4/14/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 8 has been amended to provide antecedent basis; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 13 has been canceled; the previous 112(b) rejection is moot.
Claim 19 has been amended to provide clarity; the previous 112(b) rejection is maintained for the new reasoning set forth above.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-11 with respect to independent claims 1, 16, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Kulkarni and Lee being applied in the current rejections.
103 Rejections
All other arguments on p. 11 to claim 11 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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 A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights