DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 9 recites:
A method of monitoring a wafer detection system, comprising:
capturing a plurality of images of a plurality of standard wafers exposed to a light source, wherein the images of the standard wafers have a standard brightness range, and wherein the light source has a luminous power with a maximum limit;
analyzing time-dependent data of the luminous power of the light source to predict a replacement time point; and
issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: capturing a plurality of images of a plurality of standard wafers exposed to a light source, wherein the images of the standard wafers have a standard brightness range, and wherein the light source has a luminous power with a maximum limit;… and issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit.
The limitations “capturing a plurality of images of a plurality of standard wafers exposed to a light source, wherein the images of the standard wafers have a standard brightness range, and wherein the light source has a luminous power with a maximum limit” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device and/or computer components.
The limitation “issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of issuing or outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering data using a generic device and outputting information using a generic computer/computing components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Kreh et al. US 2005/0134839 (hereinafter, Kreh), ([0016], [0022], Fig. 2), and Hisano et al. US 2012/0307045 (hereinafter, Hisano), ([0049], Fig. 3). Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10, recite additional element of “adjusting the luminous power of the light source to maintain a brightness of each of the images of the standard wafers within the standard brightness range.” The step of adjusting the luminous power of the light source to maintain a brightness of each of the images of the standard wafers within the standard brightness range, integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed invention is patent eligible based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A).
Dependent claims 11 and 12, the claims include similar eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claim 10 as discussed above. The claims are found to be patent eligible.
Dependent claims 13-15, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16, recites additional element of “storing the time-dependent data of the luminous power of the light source after capturing the images of the standard wafers exposed to the light source”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a storing information using a computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Kreh ([0018], [0021]), and Hisano, ([0043]). Therefore, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreh et al. US 2005/0134839 (hereinafter, Kreh), in view of Hisano et al. US 2012/0307045 (hereinafter, Hisano).
7. Regarding claim 1, Kreh discloses a method of monitoring a wafer detection system, comprising:
capturing an image of a standard wafer exposed to a light source ([0012]- [0013]), wherein the image of the standard wafer has a standard brightness range, and wherein the light source has a luminous power with a maximum limit ([0013], [0020], claim 14);
adjusting the luminous power of the light source to maintain a brightness of the image of the standard wafer within the standard brightness range as the light source deteriorates ([0014], [0015], [0020]); and
issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than the maximum limit ([0022], [0041], claim 14).
Kreh does not disclose:
the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit.
However, Hisano discloses:
the luminous power is equal or greater than a [predetermine allowable range] (Abstract, [0044], [0068]: an allowable range of the actual brightness value (or an allowable range of deviation of the actual brightness values from the target value; and an upper limit value of the instruction value. The allowable range ranges from a value slightly or somewhat lower than the target value, to the target value…. the target brightness value is 200 and the actual brightness value is 180, the difference (200-180) is divided by the predetermined increment 5 (five), and then multiplied by the necessary increment "c" ((200-180)/5.times.c is calculated). Then, the calculated value is added to the instruction value, and the brightness value is again measured. If the measured brightness value is smaller than 200 (target value), the instruction value is increased one by one until the brightness value reaches the target value (or falls within the allowable range), similarly to the foregoing embodiment. On the other hand, if the measured brightness value is larger than 200 (target value), the instruction value is decreased one by one until the brightness value reaches the target value (or falls within the allowable range.” Kreh does discloses issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than the maximum limit as disclosed above. Kreh in view of Hisano does not disclose a preset value lower than the maximum limit. However, defining a preset value lower than the maximum limit would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Kreh in view of Hisano as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kreh to use the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit as taught by Hisano. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to adjust the luminous power of the light source efficiently (Hisano, [0068]).
8. Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
9. Regarding claim 2, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses increasing or decreasing the luminous power to adjust a luminance of the light source when the brightness of the image of the standard wafer is out of the standard brightness range ([0014], [0015], [0020]). See also Hisano ([0068], Fig. 8).
10. Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
11. Regarding claim 3, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kreh in view of Hisano further disclose wherein adjusting the luminous power of the light source further comprises: increasing the luminous power to increase a luminance of the light source when the brightness of the image of the standard wafer is less than a lower limit of the standard brightness range; and decreasing the luminous power to decrease the luminance of the light source when the brightness of the image of the standard wafer is greater than an upper limit of the standard brightness range (see, Kreh ([0014], [0015], [0020], Fig. 4), and Hisano ([0068], Fig. 8).
12. Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
13. Regarding claim 4, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses wherein capturing the image of the standard wafer exposed to the light source is performed repeatedly and periodically ([0013], [0015], [0039]-[0040]). See also Hisano ([0068], Fig. 8).
14. Regarding claim 5, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses collecting data of the luminous power of the light source and data of the brightness of the image of the standard wafer after capturing the image of the standard wafer exposed to the light source ([0013]-[0016], [0020]). See also Hisano ([0068], Fig. 8).
15. Regarding claim 6, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses storing the data of the luminous power of the light source and the data of the brightness of the image of the standard wafer after collecting the data of the luminous power of the light source and the data of the brightness of the image of the standard wafer ([0020], [0040]). See also Hisano ([0043]).
16. Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
17. Regarding claim 7, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 5, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses analyzing the data of the luminous power of the light source and the data of the brightness of the image of the standard wafer after collecting the data of the luminous power of the light source and the data of the brightness of the image of the standard wafer ([0020], [0039]-[0040]). See also Hisano ([0062], [0068]).
18. Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
19. Regarding claim 8, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses the maximum limit of the luminous power of the light source ([0020]).
Kreh does not disclose:
wherein the preset value is 80 percent of the maximum limit of the luminous power of the light source.
However, Hisano discloses:
[predetermine allowable range] of the luminous power of the light source (Abstract, [0044], [0068]: an allowable range of the actual brightness value (or an allowable range of deviation of the actual brightness values from the target value; and an upper limit value of the instruction value. The allowable range ranges from a value slightly or somewhat lower than the target value, to the target value…. the target brightness value is 200 and the actual brightness value is 180, the difference (200-180) is divided by the predetermined increment 5 (five), and then multiplied by the necessary increment "c" ((200-180)/5.times.c is calculated). Then, the calculated value is added to the instruction value, and the brightness value is again measured. If the measured brightness value is smaller than 200 (target value), the instruction value is increased one by one until the brightness value reaches the target value (or falls within the allowable range), similarly to the foregoing embodiment. On the other hand, if the measured brightness value is larger than 200 (target value), the instruction value is decreased one by one until the brightness value reaches the target value (or falls within the allowable range.” Kreh does discloses defining the maximum limit of the luminous power of the light source as disclosed above. Kreh in view of Hisano does not disclose the preset value is 80 percent of the maximum limit. However, defining the preset value is 80 percent of the maximum limit would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Kreh in view of Hisano as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kreh to use wherein the preset value is 80 percent of the maximum limit of the luminous power of the light source as taught by Hisano. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to adjust the luminous power of the light source with different setting (Hisano, [0068]).
20. Regarding claim 9, Kreh discloses a method of monitoring a wafer detection system, comprising:
capturing a plurality of images of a plurality of standard wafers exposed to a light source, wherein the images of the standard wafers have a standard brightness range, and wherein the light source has a luminous power with a maximum limit ([0013], [0020], [0035], [0038]);
analyzing time-dependent data of the luminous power of the light source to predict a replacement time point ([0020], [0040]-[0041]); and
issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than the maximum limit ([0022], [0041], claim 14).
Kreh does not disclose:
the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit.
However, Hisano discloses:
the luminous power is equal or greater than a [predetermine allowable range] (Abstract, [0044], [0068]: an allowable range of the actual brightness value (or an allowable range of deviation of the actual brightness values from the target value; and an upper limit value of the instruction value. The allowable range ranges from a value slightly or somewhat lower than the target value, to the target value…. the target brightness value is 200 and the actual brightness value is 180, the difference (200-180) is divided by the predetermined increment 5 (five), and then multiplied by the necessary increment "c" ((200-180)/5.times.c is calculated). Then, the calculated value is added to the instruction value, and the brightness value is again measured. If the measured brightness value is smaller than 200 (target value), the instruction value is increased one by one until the brightness value reaches the target value (or falls within the allowable range), similarly to the foregoing embodiment. On the other hand, if the measured brightness value is larger than 200 (target value), the instruction value is decreased one by one until the brightness value reaches the target value (or falls within the allowable range.” Kreh does discloses issuing an alert when the luminous power is equal or greater than the maximum limit as disclosed above. Kreh in view of Hisano does not disclose a preset value lower than the maximum limit. However, defining a preset value lower than the maximum limit would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Kreh in view of Hisano as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kreh to use the luminous power is equal or greater than a preset value lower than the maximum limit as taught by Hisano. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to adjust the luminous power of the light source efficiently (Hisano, [0068]).
21. Regarding claim 10, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 9, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses adjusting the luminous power of the light source to maintain a brightness of each of the images of the standard wafers within the standard brightness range ([0014], [0020], [0038]). See also Hisano ([0068], Fig. 8).
22. Regarding claim 13, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 9, wherein analyzing the time-dependent data of the luminous power of the light source as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses generating a time sequence of the time-dependent data of the luminous power of the light source; and calculating a predicted replacement time point based on the time sequence ([0020], [0040]-[0041]). See also Hisano ([0040], [0047]-[0048], Fig. 7).
23. Regarding claim 14, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 13, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses wherein calculating the predicted replacement time point based on the time sequence ([0020], [0022], [0040]-[0041]: Dashed line 42 indicates that the stored illumination setpoints can be read out at different times as necessary… The check of illumination device 12 initiated with step 48 can thus be performed at regularly succeeding time intervals, for example on the order of hours, days, or months…. The new setpoints for the new combination of illumination device 12 and image acquisition device 14 can be stored…When the new setpoints are compared with the old setpoints, conclusions can also be drawn, from this difference, as to the aging status of illumination device 12 or image acquisition device 14. It is therefore also possible to infer from this difference that maintenance is imminent, or even that a component is about to fail. With this comparison, a warning signal can thus be outputted to the user). Further, Hisano discloses wherein calculating the predicted replacement time point based on the time sequence is performed by calculating a curve of the time sequence ([0040], [0047]-[0049], Fig. 7: illumination replacement and estimated upper limit value reaching time). Kreh in view of Hisano does not disclose
the time sequence is performed by calculating a fitting curve of the time sequence. However, the time sequence is performed by calculating a fitting curve of the time sequence would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Kreh and Hisano as explained above.
24. Regarding claim 15, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 13, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses wherein the predicted replacement time point is before a time point when the luminous power of the light source reaches the maximum limit ([0020], [0022], [0041]). See also Hisano ([0040], [0047]-[0049], Fig. 7).
25. Regarding claim 16, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the method of claim 9, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses storing the time-dependent data of the luminous power of the light source after capturing the images of the standard wafers exposed to the light source ([0013], [0020], [0040]). See also Hisano ([0043], [0068], Fig. 7).
26. Regarding claim 18, Kreh in view of Hisano disclose the wafer detection system of claim 17, as disclosed above.
Kreh further discloses an alert unit electrically or communicatively connected to the processing device, wherein the alert unit is configured to perform at least one of: sending an abnormal warning message in response to the alert; and sounding an alarm in response to the alert ([0022], [0041]: a warning signal can thus be outputted to the user). See also Hisano ([0049]).
Conclusion
27. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights