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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that DAEIL does not teach the newly added limitation “the predefined motion data representing future movement of the transferring device” of claim 1 and none of the other reference cures this deficiency. Specially, citing paras. [55-58] of DAEIL, applicant argues that DAEIL’s position and acceleration information represents only instantaneous, real-time information obtained while the linear stage is already moving, rather than “predefined motion data representing future movement of the transferring device” from which movement is determined “before the transferring device moves.” Applicant further argues that DAEIL’s position and acceleration commands are merely per-cycle drive commands that cause instantaneous motion during the same sampling cycle and therefore do not constitute data defined in advance of the movement. These arguments are not persuasive because they apply an unduly narrow interpretation to “predefined motion data” and do not address DAEIL’s complete command-based feedback disclosure.
Amended claim 1 does not require that the predefine motion data be an entire stored motion profile, be supplied by a manufacturer, be programmed by an operator, include a plurality of position/time parings, or be obtained a particular amount of time before commencement of the overall movement. Those details are described as exemplary embodiment in Applicant’s specification and, in the case of the plurality of position/time paring, are separately recited in claim 21. Claim 1 broadly requires motion data has been defined before the corresponding movement and represents movement that has not occurred. DAEIL expressly teaches that “the feed weight of the linear stage 1100 preliminarily input, the mounting position of the linear stage 1100, and the center of gravity of the base 1200, and calculates the force required for each of the vertical and horizontal VCMs 1520 and 1530 in order to apply a canceling force to the predicted reaction force disturbance in the six axial directions…. The center-of-gravity movement compensator 1422 receives the position command, The disturbance due to the movement of the center of gravity can be predicted from the information such as the conveying weight of the linear stage previously input together with the position command value, and the predicted weight in the six-axis direction” (DAEIL paras. [55-56]). Thus, the relied-upon data in DAEIL is not limited to measurement taken after movement of after a disturbance have occurred. The position and acceleration commands define the movement that the stage is being instructed to perform and are used to predict the resulting disturbance before the corresponding mechanical movement and reaction-force disturbance occur. Accordingly, DAEIL may employ both: (1) feedback control based on sensor and current-position information (e.g., [53,58-59]), and (2) feedforward disturbance compensation based on position and acceleration commands (e.g., [55-56]).
Moreover, Shigeoka confirms that the stage movement is defined by an operation program or “recipe” prepared for automatic inspection and measurement. The sequence control unit processes the recipe and transfer control instruction to the XY stage, and further “notifies the arithmetic operation control unit 31 of the control instruction corresponding to the sequence to be executed before the sequence such as stage driving and opening and closing of the vacuum valve described above is executed. As a result, the arithmetic operation control unit 31 can apply the vibration suppression control in advance for the vibrations caused by driving the machine.”
Accordingly, in the combination, Shigeoka’s prepared recipe and sequence-control instruction define the stage movement to be performed, while DAEIL uses the resulting position and acceleration commands to determine the command movement, predict the reaction force caused by the movement, and generate the counteracting force before the corresponding physical movement and disturbance occur.
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.
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 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019045155A1 [hereinafter DAEIL] in view of US 2019/0311876 A1 [hereinafter Shigeoka].
Regarding Claim 1:
DAEIL teaches an apparatus (Abstract: active-vibration damping system 1000) comprising:
a transferring device (Fig. 11-linear stage 1100) stiffly coupled to the chamber (Fig. 11 and paras. [2, 37]: DAEIL identifies a linear stage as a “transfer device,” which is installed on the base 1200 and causes disturbance/vibration to the base when it moves); and
a support device (Fig. 11- vibration damping mount 1500) configured to support the [chamber] (Fig.11 shows the vibration damping mount 1500 supports the base 1200 via its air spring upper plate 1511), the support device comprising circuitry (Fig. 11-vibration suppression device controller 1400) configured to:
obtain predefined motion data associated with the transferring device, the predefined motion data representing future movement of the transferring device (paras. [15, 41-42, 55-56, 58-59]: The transfer device disturbance compensator 1420 receives the position and acceleration commands and obtains the predicted repulsive force and the center-of-gravity disturbance in the six-axis direction. The position and acceleration commands constitute pre-defined motion data because they define the position and acceleration that the stage is commanded to have before the corresponding mechanical response is carried out. The commands represent future movement because they specify the movement that linear stage 1100 is instructed to perform and are used to predict the disturbance that will be caused by the movement);
determine movement of the transferring device based on the predefined motion data before the transferring device moves (paras. [15, 41-42, 55-56, 58-59]: determining the stage movement from the received position and acceleration commands. The disturbance due to the repulsive force is also determined and this calculation necessarily determines the relevant movement represented by the commands before the corresponding predicted reaction-force disturbance occurs);
determine, based on the movement, a first force to be applied to the [chamber] caused by the movement (paras. [55-56]: “The transfer device disturbance compensator 1420 receives the position and acceleration commands and obtains the predicted repulsive force and the center-of-gravity disturbance in the six-axis direction. The disturbance due to the repulsive force is determined by the position and acceleration command values”); and
cause the support device to apply a second force to the [chamber] to counteract the first force when the transferring device moves (paras. [15, 41-44 and 55-57]: the controller “calculates the force required for each of the vertical and horizontal VCMs 1520 and 1530 in order to apply a canceling force to the predicted reaction force disturbance in the six axial directions, And the vibration of the base 1200 due to the repulsive force is prevented,” where the cancelation force is the same magnitude but opposite direction of the predicted disturbance).
However, DAEIL does not teach a chamber. Shigeoka teaches a chamber (Fig.1 -vacuum chamber 3).
DAEIL teaches that using the transfer device’s position and acceleration information to calculate a reaction-force disturbance caused to the base, and to generate a canceling force, reduces vibration and settling time caused by movement of the transfer device. Shigeoka teaches that, in a charged-particle device, the relevant supported structure is a vacuum chamber and that movement of the stage causes direct motion disturbance to that vacuum chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the vacuum chamber of Shigeoka into the system taught by DAEIL, so that DAEIL’s vibration damping mount supports and actively damps a chambered charged-particle device, because DAEIL expressly states that its pneumatic active vibration suppression system is used for precision equipment such as SEM, TEM, and LCD inspection equipment, and that driving a stage or gantry transfer device causes residual vibration and rolling of the supported structure, which increases waiting time and lowers productivity. Thus, the combined system would use the known stage-induced disturbance compensation on a chamber structure to achieve predictable results, including reducing chamber vibration, shortening settling time, and improving throughput and positioning accuracy.
Regarding Claims 12 and 16:
Claims 12 and 16 direct to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a support device, respectively, performing the identical steps as the support device recited in claim 1, which are taught by DAEIL in view of Shigeoka, as discussed. As such, DAEIL in view of Shigeoka also taught the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the support device of claims 12 and 16, respectively.
Regarding Claims 2, 13 and 17:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus, the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the support device of claims 1, 12 and 16, respectively. DAEIL further teaches wherein the support device comprises an airmount device (Fig. 11 and paras. [37, 39, 49]: the vibration damping mount comprises air spring 1510, air spring upper plate 1511, and air spring chamber 1513).
Regarding Claim 3:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. DAEIL further teaches wherein the transferring device is configured to have more than two degrees of freedom for the movement (para. [18]: disturbance estimation and control of the transferring device is along six axes, X, Y, Z, roll, pitch, and yaw).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus and the support device of claims 1 and 16, respectively. DAEIL further teaches wherein the predefined motion data represents a relationship between a spatial position of the transferring device and a time point (paras. [41-42 and 53]: DAEIL teaches receiving the position of the linear stage and using that position information in the controller as part of the disturbance predication and compensation process and “the parameter of the vibration feedback controller 1430 is updated with reference to the position of the stage 1100 at every sampling time”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus and the support device of claims 6 and 18, respectively. DAEIL further teaches wherein the circuitry configured to determine the movement of the transferring device based on the predefined motion data before the transferring device moves is further configured to:
determine a speed of the transferring device based on a first derivative of the relationship with respect to time (paras. [13, 54]: DAEIL teaches the base vibration can be suppressed by feedback control using a vibration sensor, which can be a speed or acceleration sensor, and further teaches the vibration of base can be prevented by predicting the excitation force to be transmitted to the base from the detected speed or acceleration); or
determine an acceleration of the transferring device based on a second derivative of the relationship with respect to time (paras. [15, 41-42]: the vibration suppression apparatus controller 1400 receives the position and acceleration signal of the linear stage from the stage controller 1110 of the linear stage 1100).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus and the support device of claims 7 and 19, respectively. DAEIL further teaches wherein the circuitry configured to determine, based on the movement, the first force to be applied to the chamber caused by the movement is further configured to
determine the first force based on the acceleration of the transferring device (paras. [15, 41-42]: the vibration suppression apparatus controller 1400 receives the position and acceleration signal of the linear stage from the stage controller 1110 of the linear stage 1100, predicts the direction and magnitude of the disturbance, and calculates a reaction/repulsive force based on the received information).
Regarding Claim 9:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. DAEIL further teaches wherein magnitude of the second force is substantially equal to magnitude of the first force (paras. [15, 41-44]: calculating and generating a cancelation force, which is the same magnitude but opposite direction of the predicted disturbance).
Regarding Claims 11 and 15:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 1 and 12, respectively. Shigeoka further teaches a sensor coupled to the chamber (Fig.1 – acceleration sensors 19/20), wherein the support device comprises circuitry configured to:
obtain, from the sensor, data representing the movement of the chamber (paras. [0044, 0054]: “In the vacuum chamber 3, acceleration sensors 19 and 20 are respectively provided on the X axis and the Y axis,” “The arithmetic operation control unit 31 receives the acceleration information obtained from the acceleration sensors 19 and 20 and the position signal 29”);
cause, based on the data, the support device to apply a third force to the chamber to counteract the movement of the chamber when the transferring device moves (para. [0054]: “receives the acceleration information obtained from the acceleration sensors 19 and 20 …and outputs a control amount matrix. The obtained control amount matrix and the feedback matrix storage unit 32 are multiplied by the multiplier 33 and the reaction force to the vacuum chamber 3…so that the vacuum chamber 3 does not rotate in the θZ direction”).
Claims 4-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAEIL in Shigeoka, further in view of US 20100329827A1 [hereinafter Hoey].
Regarding Claim 4:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, the combined references does not teach wherein the transferring device comprises a robotic arm. Hoey teaches wherein the transferring device comprises a robotic arm (Abstract and para. [0041]: “A linear transport chamber includes linear tracks and robot arms riding on the linear tracks to linearly transfer substrates”’ and wafers are transferred from load lock compartment 35 along transport chamber 32 and into processing chambers 31 by support arms 41).
The modified system of DAEIL/Shigeoka teaches using a supported base structure and chamber arrangement in semiconductor production and inspection equipment to control vibration caused by movement of a transferring device. Hoey teaches that robot arms within a transfer chamber move wafers between a load lock and processing chambers in vacuum or controlled-atmosphere substrate processing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use the robot arm of Hoey as the transferring device in the modified DAEIL/Shigeoka system, because Hoey explains that the robot-arm transfer arrangement is used specifically to feed wafers to and from processing chambers independently of chamber design, to move wafers along straight-line paths into and out of chambers and load locks, to allow chamber openings to remain only slightly larger than the wafer diameter, and to reduce unwanted particles in the enclosed vacuum area by placing the drive mechanism outside the vacuum wall. Thus, using Hoey’s robot arm as the transferring device in the DAEIL/Shigeoka system would provide a known wafer-transfer mechanism particularly suitable for vacuum or controlled-atmosphere chamber transport while maintaining compact chamber interfaces and cleaner transfer operation.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 1 and 12, respectively. However, the combined references does not teach wherein the transferring device comprises a multi-joint robotic arm. Hoey teaches wherein the transferring device comprises a multi-joint robotic arm (para. [0049]: “One type of arm that may be used to move and manipulate the wafers through transport chamber 32 … is described as a selective compliant articulated assembly robotic arm,” i.e., a SCARA robot, which shown in figs. 18A-C as having multiple joints).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Hoey’s multi-joint robotic arm, such as the articulated SCARA arm, as the transferring device in the combined system of DAEIL/Shigeoka, because Hoey teaches that the SCARA system tends to be faster and cleaner than the Cartesian system it would likely replace, while also disclosing a four-axis articulated robot arm for wafer transfer in the transport chamber. As such, integrating Hoey’s articulated multi-joint arm into the modified DAEIL/Shigeoka system would achieve faster, cleaner chamber-to-chamber wafer transfer in the vacuum transport environment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAEIL in Shigeoka, further in view of US 4908519A [hereinafter Park].
Regarding Claim 10:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, the combined references does not teach a sample stage configured to be enclosed by the chamber and not stiffly connected to the chamber. Park teaches a sample stage configured to be enclosed by the chamber and not stiffly connected to the chamber (2: 15-21 and 3:1-5 and 13-29: “in a scanning tunneling microscope application, a platform for holding a workpiece is suspended in a fixed support which is readily accommodated in a vacuum chamber…The platform is suspended by a multiple-stage spring suspension with eddy-current damping for vibration isolation,” the support structure is sealed within the vacuum chamber, and the support platform 30 is supported by a double-stage spring suspension with eddy-current damping, i.e., the platform is mounted in a non-rigid vibration-isolated manner rather than being stiffly connected to the chamber).
The modified system of DAEIL/Shigeoka teaches a chamber-based vibration suppression system in which movement of the stage causes direct motion disturbance/reaction force to the vacuum chamber and the support system applies control force to suppress vibration of the chamber. Park teaches that, in a vacuum-chamber microscope environment, the workpiece-supporting platform is suspended within the chamber by a multiple-stage spring suspension with eddy-current damping for vibration isolation, rather than being stiffly connected to the chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide the modified DAEIL/Shigeoka system with Park’s suspended sample-supporting platform inside the chamber, so that the sample stage is enclosed by the chamber yet not stiffly connected to it, in order to reduce transmission of chamber vibration to the sample stage and improve vibration isolation and sample-position stability
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAEIL in view of Shigeoka, further in view of US20210347047A1 [hereinafter Bandari].
Regarding Claim 1:
DAEIL in view of Shigeoka teach the apparatus of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially teach wherein the predefined motion data comprises a plurality of pairings of spatial positions of the transferring device and corresponding time points, each of the time points representing a future timestamp before the transferring device moves (paras. [0005, 0018-0021, 0022-0023]: teaches that robot trajectory planning involves “generating a plurality of trajectory points that each correspond to a desired robot pose at a particular time step”, and thus each trajectory point pairs a desired robot pose with a respective time step. Bandari explains that a robot rose reference to “an orientation, a position, or both of the robot with reference to the predetermined coordinate frame,” and that the sequence of trajectory points is “time-parameterized” and specifies the pose that the robot should occupy “at each of a plurality of time steps.” Bandari distinguishes trajectory generation at path-planning time from execution of the resulting trajectory by the robot at run time, therefore the trajectory is generated the robot executes the movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to represent the position and acceleration commands used by DAEIL’s disturbance compensator as the time-parameterized trajectory taught by Bandari, which would allow the disturbance compensator to determine the position, velocity, and acceleration associated with each future position of the planned movement and synchronize the calculated cancelation force with the corresponding movement, thereby predictably improving feedforward disturbance compensation, movement accuracy, and setting time.
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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights