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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766).
Regarding claim 1, KYOOKA et al. teaches a sensor disc (3) configured to measure a gap (G) between a first structure (corresponding to S1) and a second structure (corresponding to S2) in a processing chamber of a substrate processing system (as shown in fig. 2-5), the sensor disc (3) comprising: an upper surface (on C1, as shown in fig. 3); at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) arranged on the upper surface of the sensor disc (3), wherein the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) is configured to generate a first measurement signal indicative of a first distance (d1) between the upper surface (C1) of the sensor disc (3) and the first structure (corresponding to S1, and as disclosed in para. 0042-0047); a lower surface (on C3, as shown in fig. 3); and at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) arranged on the lower surface of the sensor disc (3), wherein the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) is configured to generate a second measurement signal indicative of a second distance (d2) between the lower surface (on C3) of the sensor disc (3) and the second structure (corresponding to S2, as disclosed in para. 0042-0047).
Regarding claim 2, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) includes three capacitive sensors arranged on the upper surface of the sensor disc (3) (as shown in fig. 2-4 and disclosed in para. 0021-0024).
Regarding claim 3, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) includes three capacitive sensors arranged on the lower surface of the sensor disc (3) (as shown in fig. 2-4 and disclosed in para. 0021-0024).
Regarding claim 4, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) is configured to (i) form a first capacitor with the first structure (corresponding to S1) (as disclosed in para. 0044) and (ii) generate the first measurement signal based on a first capacitance of the first capacitor (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044).
Regarding claim 5, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) is configured to (i) form a second capacitor with the second structure (corresponding to S2) (as disclosed in para. 0044) and (ii) generate the second measurement signal based on a second capacitance of the second capacitor (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044).
Regarding claim 7, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches a controller (30) configured to (i) receive the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044) and (ii) calculate a width (d) of the gap (G) between the first structure and the second structure based on the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044).
Regarding claim 11, KYOOKA et al. teaches system configured to measure a gap (G) between a first structure (corresponding to S1) and a second structure (corresponding to S2) in a processing chamber of a substrate processing system (as shown in fig. 2-5), the system comprising: a sensor disc (3) including at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) arranged on an upper surface of the sensor disc (3) (as shown in fig. 3) and at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) arranged on a lower surface of the sensor disc (3) (as shown in fig. 3); and a controller (30) configured to receive, from the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1), a first measurement signal indicative of a first distance (d1) between the upper surface of the sensor disc (3) and the first structure (corresponding to S1) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044), receive, from the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3), a second measurement signal indicative of a second distance (d2) between the lower surface of the sensor disc (3) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044), and calculate a width (d) of the gap (G) between the first structure (corresponding to S1) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) based on the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766) in view of Ramsey et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0231291).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 11, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the controller (30) is configured to calculate the width (d) of the gap (G) based on the first distance (d1) and the second distance (d2) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044).
KYOOKA et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate the width of the gap based on a thickness of the sensor disc. However, Ramsey et al. teaches wherein the controller (344) is configured to calculate the width of the gap based on a thickness of the sensor disc (100) (as disclosed in para. 0024 and 0030).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to calculate the width of the gap based on the thickness of the sensor disc as taught by Ramsey et al. with the invention of KYOOKA et al. in order to more precisely and accurately determine the determine the absolute gap distance.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766) in view of Ramsey et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0231291) as applied to claims 8 and 12 above, further in view or Eisenzopf (US 6,868,366).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, the combination of KYOOKA et al. and Ramsey et al. teaches the limitations of claims 8 and 12, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the controller (30) is configured to calculate the width (d) of the gap (G) further based on data (i) correlating a first capacitance formed between the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) and the first structure (corresponding to S1) to the first distance (d1) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044) and (ii) correlating a second capacitance formed between the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) to the second distance (d2) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0044).
The combination of KYOOKA et al. and Ramsey et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate the width of the gap based on stored data. However, Eisenzopf teaches wherein the controller is configured to calculate the width of the gap based on stored data (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to calculate the width of the gap based on stored data as taught by Eisenzopf with the invention of the combination of KYOOKA et al. and Ramsey et al. in order to perform calculations at a desired time other than the current time of the measurements.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766) in view of Potter et al. (US Pat. 10,794,681).
Regarding claim 10, KYOOKA et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KYOOKA et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the first structure is a showerhead and the second structure is a pedestal. However, Potter et al. teaches wherein the first structure (130) is a showerhead and the second structure (120) is a pedestal (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in col. 3, lines 21-37).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first structure as a showerhead and the second structure as a pedestal as taught by Potter et al. with the invention of KYOOKA et al. in order to efficiently manufacture a semiconductor wafer or LCD panel.
Claims 16-17, 21-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766) in views of Potter et al. (US Pat. 10,794,681) and Hunter (US Pat. 6,486,816).
Regarding claim 16, KYOOKA et al. teaches a method for measuring a gap (G) between a first structure (corresponding to S1) and a second structure (corresponding to S2) in a processing chamber of a substrate processing system (as shown in fig. 2-5), the method comprising: arranging a plurality of sensors (4) spaced apart from each other of a sensor disc (3) (as shown in fig. 2); arranging the sensor disc (3) on an end device (2) (as shown in fig. 2); positioning the sensor disc (3) in the gap (G) between the first structure (corresponding to S1) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) with the sensor disc (3) remaining on the end device (2) (as shown in fig. 2-5); determining, using the sensor disc (3), (i) a first distance (d1) between an upper surface of the sensor disc (3) and the first structure (corresponding to S1) (as disclosed in para. 0042-0047) and (ii) a second distance (d2) between a lower surface of the sensor disc (3) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) (as disclosed in para. 0042-0047); and calculating a width (d) of the gap (G) between the first structure (corresponding to S1) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) based on the first distance (d1) and the second distance (d2) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0042-0047).
KYOOKA et al. fails to specifically teach arranging a plurality of sensors circumferentially spaced apart from each other of a circular sensor disc and arranging the circular sensor disc on an end effector of a transfer robot. However, Potter et al. teaches arranging a plurality of sensors (315A-315D) circumferentially spaced apart from each other of a circular sensor disc (312) (as shown in fig. 3) and Hunter teaches arranging the circular sensor disc (200) on an end effector of a transfer robot (116 or 128) (as shown in fig. 2A-6).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and arrange a plurality of sensors circumferentially spaced apart from each other of a circular sensor disc and arrange the circular sensor disc on an end effector of a transfer robot as taught by Potter et al. and Hunter with the invention of KYOOKA et al. in order to provide an even more accurate parallelism measurement and determine inclination and movement of the surfaces without shutting down the system.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein the plurality of sensors (4) includes at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) arranged on the upper surface of the circular sensor disc (3) and at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) arranged on the lower surface of the circular sensor disc (3) (as shown in fig 2-5).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches wherein positioning the circular sensor disc (3) includes positioning the circular sensor disc (3) at a midpoint between the first structure (corresponding to S1) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, Potter et al. teaches wherein the first structure (130) is a showerhead and the second structure (120) is a pedestal (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in col. 3, lines 21-37).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first structure as a showerhead and the second structure as a pedestal as taught by Potter et al. with the invention of the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter in order to efficiently manufacture a semiconductor wafer or LCD panel.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, Hunter teaches supplying power to the sensors (204, 206 and 208) from a battery (214) arranged on the circular sensor disc (200) (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in col. 6, lines 48-66).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and supply power to the sensors from a battery arranged on the circular sensor disc as taught by Hunter with the invention of the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter in order to activate and operate the sensors.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, Hunter teaches transmitting signals from the sensors (204, 206 and 208) to an external controller by a wireless interface (212) arranged on the circular sensor disc (200) (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in col. 8, lines 25-53).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and transmit signals from the sensors to an external controller by a wireless interface arranged on the circular sensor disc as taught by Hunter with the invention of the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter in order to save space on the circular sensor disc.
Regarding claim 26, KYOOKA et al. teaches a sensor (1) comprising: a disc (3) arranged on an end device (2) (as shown in fig. 2); a plurality of sensors (4) arranged spaced apart from each other on the disc (3) (as shown in fig. 2), the plurality of sensors (4) configured to sense a gap (G) between the disc (3) and a structure (corresponding to either S1 or S2) with the disc (3) held on the end device (2) (as shown in fig. 5) and the end device (2) suspended at a distance from the structure (corresponding to either S1 or S2) (as shown in fig. 5).
KYOOKA et al. fails to specifically teach a circular disc arranged on an end effector of a transfer robot; a plurality of sensors circumferentially spaced apart from each other of a circular sensor disc; the circular sensor disc held on the end effector; a power supply arranged on the circular disc, the power supply configured to supply power to the plurality of sensors; and a wireless interface arranged on the circular disc, the wireless interface configured to transmit signals from the plurality of sensors to an external controller. However, Potter et al. teaches a plurality of sensors (315A-315D) circumferentially spaced apart from each other of a circular sensor disc (312) (as shown in fig. 3) and Hunter teaches a circular sensor disc (200) arranged on an end effector of a transfer robot (116 or 128) (as shown in fig. 2A-6); a power supply (214) arranged on the circular disc (200), the power supply (214) configured to supply power to the plurality of sensors (204, 206 and 208) (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in col. 6, lines 48-66); a wireless interface (212) arranged on the circular disc (200), the wireless interface (212) configured to transmit signals from the plurality of sensors (204, 206 and 208) to an external controller (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in col. 8, lines 25-53).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a circular disc arranged on an end effector of a transfer robot; a plurality of sensors circumferentially spaced apart from each other of a circular sensor disc; the circular sensor disc held on the end effector; a power supply arranged on the circular disc, the power supply configured to supply power to the plurality of sensors; and a wireless interface arranged on the circular disc, the wireless interface configured to transmit signals from the plurality of sensors to an external controller as taught by Potter et al. and Hunter with the invention of KYOOKA et al. in order to provide an even more accurate parallelism measurement, determine inclination and movement of the surfaces without shutting down the system, activate and operate the sensors, and save space on the circular sensor disc.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766), Potter et al. (US Pat. 10,794,681) and Hunter (US Pat. 6,486,816) as applied to claim 17 above, further in view or Ramsey et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0231291).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 17, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches generating, using the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1), a first measurement signal indicative of the first distance (d1) between the upper surface of the circular sensor disc (3) and the first structure (corresponding to S1) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in in para. 0042-0047); generating, using the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3), a second measurement signal indicative of the second distance (d2) between the lower surface of the circular sensor disc (3) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0042-0047); and calculating the width (d) of the gap (G) between the first structure (corresponding to S1) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) based on the first measurement signal, the second measurement signal (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0042-0047).
The combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter fails to specifically teach calculating the width of the gap based on a thickness of the sensor disc. However, Ramsey et al. teaches calculating the width of the gap based on a thickness of the sensor disc (100) (as disclosed in para. 0024 and 0030).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and calculate the width of the gap based on a thickness of the sensor disc as taught by Ramsey et al. with the invention of the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter in order to more precisely and accurately determine the determine the absolute gap distance.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al., Hunter and Ramsey et al. teaches the limitations of claim 18, in addition, KYOOKA et al. teaches generating the first measurement signal based on a first capacitance formed between the at least one first capacitive sensor (C1) and the first structure (corresponding to S1) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0042-0047); and generating the second measurement signal based on a second capacitance formed between the at least one second capacitive sensor (C3) and the second structure (corresponding to S2) (as shown in fig. 2-5 and disclosed in para. 0042-0047).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KYOOKA et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340766), Potter et al. (US Pat. 10,794,681) and Hunter (US Pat. 6,486,816) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view or NOVET (US PGPUB 2017/0212614).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter teaches the limitations of claim 16.
The combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter fails to specifically teach coating the sensors with a non-conductive material. However, NOVET teaches coating the sensors with a non-conductive material (as disclosed in para. 0042).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and coat the sensors with a non-conductive material as taught by NOVET with the invention of the combination of KYOOKA et al., Potter et al. and Hunter in order to protect the sensors from surface abrasions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14-15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to specifically teach a recessed region defined in the lower surface of the sensor disc, wherein the recessed region extends from an outer edge to a central region of the sensor disc, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 14-15, the prior art fails to specifically teach wherein a recessed region is defined in the lower surface of the sensor disc, and wherein the recessed region extends from an outer edge to a central region of the sensor disc, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art fails to specifically teach wherein the circular sensor disc includes a recessed region defined in the lower surface of the circular sensor disc, wherein the recessed region extends from an outer edge to a central region of the circular sensor disc, and wherein arranging the circular sensor disc on the end effector includes arranging the recessed region of the circular sensor disc on the end effector, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights