CTNF 18/622,541 CTNF 99704 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Cormier et al. (US20130100278A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cormier”) . Regarding claim 1, Cormier teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus for detecting objects in a fluid, comprising: processing circuitry configured to receive video data including a plurality of frames (met by video segments are recorded; further met by bubble detection algorithm). This is read in (Paragraph [0074]). PNG media_image1.png 148 623 media_image1.png Greyscale Cormier further teaches to detect, in a first frame of the video data, a first object, determine first metrics for the first object in the first frame, the first metrics including a position of the first object and a size of the first object (met by the connected pixels are clusters, which are considered to be bubbles; further met by a circle can be drawn around each cluster and the clusters can be counted frame by frame to find the bubble count for each image), detect, in a second frame of the video data, a second object, determine second metrics for the second object in the second frame, the second metrics including a position of the second object and a size of the second object, determine a first difference between the first metrics of the first object in the first frame and the second metrics of the second object in the second frame, and based on the determined first difference, determine whether the first object in the first frame is a same object as the second object in the second frame (met by the closest two positions, one from the previous frame and a second from the current frame are connected; further met by spots that do not move vertically from frame to frame are removed from consideration as bubbles; further met by first bubbles are determined by showing at least one bubble passing through two seconds worth of frames). This is read in (Paragraph [0076]-[0078]). PNG media_image2.png 702 652 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Cormier as read in the rejection of claim 1 at (Paragraph [0076]), incorporated herein, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the first difference by determining a difference between the size of the first object in the first frame and the size of the second object in the second frame (met by a circle can be drawn around each cluster and the clusters can be counted frame by frame; see also paragraph [0075]). Regarding claim 5, Cormier as read in the rejection of claim 1 at (Paragraph [0077]), incorporated herein, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the first difference by determining a distance between the position of the first object in the first frame and the position of the second object in the second frame (met by the closest two positions, one from the previous frame and a second from the current frame are connected; further met by the vector is the gradient of a certain spot). Regarding claim 7, Cormier further teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a first light source configured to emit light having a predetermined wavelength range (met by mounting a light (30); further met by the light (30) is a blue LED backlight); and an imaging device configured to obtain the video data by capturing the emitted light from the first light source (met by camera (12)), the imaging device being sensitive to the predetermined wavelength range of the emitted light (met by blue LED backlight… helps provide necessary contrast to detect and record video segments of bubbles within the tube (26)). This is read in (Paragraph [0062]). PNG media_image3.png 321 632 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, Cormier further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to after determining the second metrics for the second object in the second frame, determine whether additional objects are disposed in the second frame (met by spots that do not move vertically from frame to frame are removed from consideration as bubbles, as read in (Paragraph [0077]) in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein), upon determining additional objects are disposed in the second frame, detect, in the second frame, a third object, and determine third metrics for the third object in the second frame, the third metrics including a position of the third object and a size of the third object (met by if the value of pixels in three previous frames are each greater than the current frame pixel plus a threshold value of 10, then a bubble is suspected to have moved through and the position of that pixel is marked in a vector). This is read in (Paragraph [0075]). PNG media_image4.png 404 630 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, Cormier as read in the rejection of claim 10, incorporated herein, meets wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a second difference by determining a difference between the first metrics of the first object in the first frame and the third metrics of the third object in the third frame, and the processing circuitry determines whether the first object in the first frame is the same object as the second object in the second frame or the same object as the third object in the second frame based on the determined first difference and the determined second difference (met by if the value of pixels in three previous frames are each greater than the current frame pixel plus a threshold value of 10, then a bubble is suspected to have moved through and the position of that pixel is marked in a vector). Regarding claim 15, Cormier as read in (Paragraph [0074]) in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, meets wherein the first object and the second object are bubbles (met by bubble detection algorithm). Regarding claim 16, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1, the analysis of which is incorporated herein. Regarding claim 19, the claim is substantially identical to claim 4, the analysis of which is incorporated herein. Regarding claim 20, the claim is substantially identical to claim 5, the analysis of which is incorporated herein . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of Mauer et al. (US20180294196Al, hereinafter referred to as “Mauer”) . Regarding claim 2, Cormier fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive data related to a quality of a wafer processed in the fluid using a corresponding first processing recipe defining a first set of parameters, and based on the wafer quality data, the first metrics, and the second metrics, adjust the first set of parameters of the first recipe to generate a second recipe. However, Mauer amends this deficiency. Mauer teaches determining whether an etch recipe successfully etched the desired amount of wafer at the desired locations and resulted in a processed wafer having the desired physical characteristics, including thickness uniformity. This meets receiving data related to a quality of a wafer processed in the fluid using a corresponding first processing recipe defining a first set of parameters. Further, Mauer teaches, based on the analysis, adjusting the etch recipe. The parameters used to determine the successfulness of the etch in addition to the metrics that may be measured by Cormier, or by the method of Cormier to obtain metrics similar to those taught by Mauer, meet the claimed invention’s intended goal of determining image metrics to adjust a processing recipe. This is read in (Paragraph [0167]). PNG media_image5.png 152 421 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 152 421 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cormier to incorporate the teachings of Mauer in order to provide a system and method for performing a wet etching process (Abstract). Regarding claim 17, the claim is substantially identical to claim 2, the analysis of which is incorporated herein . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of Lei et al. (US20220414894Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lei”) . Regarding claim 3, Cormier fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the first object in the first frame is the same object as the second object in the second frame based on the determined first difference by based on the determined first difference, assigning a probability value to the second object in the second frame defining a likelihood of the first object in the first frame being the same object as the second object in the second frame. However, Lei amends this deficiency. Lei teaches a matching probability assigned to each candidate. The probability then evolves after a few iterations to reach an optimized value. This meets the claimed invention’s goal of assigning a probability value to the second object in the second frame defining a likelihood of the first object in the first frame being the same object as the second object in the second frame (in the case Lei, the object being a “particle” and its candidate partners). This is read in (Paragraph [0057]). PNG media_image6.png 257 628 media_image6.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cormier to incorporate the teachings of Lei in order to provide tracking of movement of an object in a channel via video images based on known flow dynamics of the channel (Abstract). Regarding claim 6, Lei further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the first difference by determining an area overlap between an area of the first object in the first frame and an area of the second object in the second frame (met by a detected particle may be identified based on certain particle characteristics (e.g., size, shape, color, and the like) in frame k and subsequent frame k+1; further met by confidence level may be scored based on how close the prediction was to the determined location). By comparing the size and location of two identified particles, Lei effectively compares the area overlap between the two objects. This is read in (Paragraph [0046]-[0047]). PNG media_image7.png 121 619 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 121 619 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claim 8, Lei further teaches wherein the first light source is configured to emit light along a predetermined plane through a volume of the fluid, and the imaging device is configured to only capture the emitted light by the first light source along the predetermined plane through the volume of the fluid (met by camera may capture a layer or plane within the flow field or may capture multiple planes within the flow field (e.g., with a depth sensing camera)). This is read in (Paragraph [0042]). PNG media_image8.png 146 626 media_image8.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Lei further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the first object in the first frame and detect the second object in the second frame by applying, to each pixel in each frame of the video data, a filter to generate a transformed frame, and detecting, in the transformed frames, the first object and the second object (met by predict a velocity and location in a subsequent frame (e.g., frame k+1) of the video images captured by the camera; further met by methods or processes such as Kalman filter, Median Flow tracker, and the like). This is read in (Paragraph [0045]). PNG media_image9.png 205 621 media_image9.png Greyscale Regarding claim 12, Cormier in view of Lei as read previously meets wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the first object in the first frame is the same object as the second object in the second frame or the same object as the third object in the second frame based on the determined first difference and the determined second difference (met by the analysis of claim 11, incorporated herein) by based on the determined first difference, assigning a first probability value to the second object in the second frame defining a likelihood of the first object in the first frame being the same object as the second object in the second frame, based on the determined second difference (met by the analysis of claim 3, incorporated herein), assigning a second probability value to the third object in the second frame defining a likelihood of the first object in the first frame being the same object as the third object in the second frame, and determining whether the first object in the first frame is the same object as the second object in the second frame or the same object as the third object in the second frame based on the second object or the third object having the higher probability value (also met by the analysis of claim 3, incorporated herein). The added limitation of the second object or the third object having the higher probability value is met by the probability then evolves after a few iterations to reach an optimized value as previously read in Lei in (Paragraph [0057]). Regarding claim 13, Lei further meets wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the first object in the first frame by determining a first region of interest in an area of the first frame, the first region of interest including the first object disposed therein, and detecting, in the first region of interest, the first object (met by instructions to define a search area in the second image based on known flow dynamics of the flow field at a location of the object in the first image; further met by instructions to detect the object in the second image of the flow field within the search area). This is read in (Paragraph [0070]). PNG media_image10.png 289 622 media_image10.png Greyscale Regarding claim 14, Lei as read in (Paragraph [0070]) in the analysis of claim 13, incorporated herein, meets wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the second object in the second frame by determining a second region of interest in an area of the second frame, the second region of interest including the second object disposed therein, the second region of interest having a position and size within the area of the second frame that is the same as a position and size of the first region within the area of the first frame, and detecting, in the second region of interest, the second object (met by instructions to detect the object in the second image of the flow field within the search area). Regarding claim 18, the claim is substantially identical to claim 3, the analysis of which is incorporated herein. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK whose telephone number is (703)756-5378. The examiner can normally be reached 8a-5p. 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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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. /MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 /VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 2 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 3 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 4 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 5 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 6 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 7 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 8 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 9 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 10 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 11 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 12 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/622,541 Page 13 Art Unit: 2668
Prosecution Insights