Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said first environmental state when said environment state is in said first environment state" in line 7. A “first environmental state” has not been introduced prior to this limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “a first environmental state when said environment state is in said first environmental state”, as is recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 also recites the limitation "said second environmental state…when said environmental state is in a second environmental state different from said first environmental state”" in line 10. A “second environmental state” has not been introduced prior to this limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “a second environmental state…when said environmental state is in said second environmental state different from said first environmental state”, as is recited in claim 1.
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, 2, 5-7, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo (US20190172737A1)
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches a substrate processing apparatus (102, Fig. 3) comprising:
a chamber (10, Fig. 3);
a substrate holder (20, Fig. 3) that holds a substrate in said chamber ('W', Fig. 3);
a camera (70, Fig. 3) that captures an image of an imaging region including a monitoring target in said chamber to generate captured image data (for example, Fig. 11 or Fig. 12); and
a controller (10, Fig. 3) that specifies an environmental state in said imaging region (paragraph [0116] discloses the control unit determines the state of system), monitors a state of said monitoring target based on said captured image data in a first determination procedure (See steps S63c to S63d, Fig. 9) corresponding to a first environmental state when said environmental state is in said first environmental state (Fig. 12 depicts the first environmental state, when the system contains excessive fumes), and monitors said state of said monitoring target based on said captured image data in a second determination procedure (See steps S63c through S63h, Fig. 9) corresponding to a second environmental state and different from said first determination procedure when said environmental state is in said second environmental state different from said first environmental state (paragraph [0080] discloses the second state is a state of normal fumes, which are easily removed).
Regarding claim 2, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches said controller specifies said environmental state based on said captured image data (paragraph [0080] discloses a processing unit uses captured images to determine the state of the system; paragraph [0116] discloses the processing unit is part of the controller).
Regarding claim 5, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches an algorithm of said first determination procedure and an algorithm of said second determination procedure are different from each other (Fig. 9 discloses that the first determination procedure involves one averaging and threshold (steps S63c to S63d) while the second determination procedure involves multiple averages, integrations, and thresholds (steps S63c through S63h)).
Regarding claim 6, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a threshold for monitoring said state of said monitoring target that is used in said first determination procedure is different from a threshold for monitoring said state of said monitoring target that is used in said second determination procedure (see Fig. 9, which discloses a first threshold in step S63c, and a second threshold, which is different, in step S63g).
Regarding claim 7, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches a storage (83, Fig. 5) in which reference image data is recorded (paragraph [0082]),
wherein said first environmental state includes a state in which a predetermined object exists in said imaging region (Fig. 12 depicts the state with excessive fumes (a predetermined object)),
said second environmental state includes a state in which said object does not exist in said imaging region (lack of excessive fumes - paragraph [0080]),
said reference image data is an image that does not include said object and includes the monitoring target (Fig. 11), and
said controller
monitors said state of said monitoring target based on comparison between a similarity ratio of said captured image data and said reference image data and a first threshold as said first determination procedure when said environmental state is in said first environmental state (Fig. 13 disclose a comparison between captured image data and reference image data; Fig. 14 discloses the relationship of the ratio of that comparison to a first threshold) and
monitors said state of said monitoring target based on comparison between said similarity ratio of said captured image data and said reference image data and a second threshold smaller than said first threshold as said second determination procedure when said environmental state is in said second environmental state (Fig. 15 discloses the second threshold and how it compares to the comparison between captured and reference image data; paragraph [0091] discloses how the second threshold is found, which involves subtracting the target value from the first threshold value).
Regarding claim 10, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches said monitoring target includes at least one of a chuck pin of said substrate holder (22, Fig. 3), a nozzle (41, Fig. 3) that supplies a processing liquid (paragraph [0046]) to said substrate held by said substrate holder (paragraph [0046]), and a cylindrical guard (50, Figs. 2 or 3) that receives said processing liquid scattered from a peripheral edge of said substrate held by said substrate holder (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches a nozzle (41, Fig. 3) that supplies a processing liquid to said substrate held by said substrate holder (paragraph [0046]),
wherein said first environmental state includes a fume existence state in which fumes derived from said processing liquid are generated above said substrate held by said substrate holder (paragraph [0079]),
said second environmental state includes a fume non-existence state in which said fumes are not generated (paragraph [0088] discloses a situation when the fumes may not exist. The examiner is interpreting this to mean fumes may not be generated), and
the controller generates enhanced image data by performing contrast enhancement processing (Fig. 13 depicts the enhanced image data which has been found by subtracting a reference image on said captured image data) as said first determination procedure and monitors said state of said monitoring target based on said enhanced image data when said environmental state is in said fume existence state (see steps S63c through S63h, Fig. 9), and
monitors said state of said monitoring target based on said captured image data without performing said contrast enhancement processing as said second determination procedure when said environmental state is in said fume non-existence state (Fig. 11 depicts the reference image, and is also an image without fumes. It is the position of the examiner that without the generation of fumes, the enhancement processing would not need to be performed).
Regarding claim 13, Endo teaches a monitoring method (paragraph [0006]) comprising:
an environmental state specifying step of specifying an environmental state in an imaging region (steps S63d or S63h, Fig. 9) including a monitoring target (surface of substrate, W, Fig. 3) in a chamber (10, Fig. 3) accommodating a substrate holder (20, Fig. 3) holding a substrate ('W', Fig. 3);
an imaging step of capturing an image of said imaging region by a camera to generate captured image data (step S62, Fig. 9); and
a monitoring step of monitoring a state of said monitoring target based on said captured image data in a first determination procedure corresponding to said first environmental state when said environmental state is in said first environmental state (See steps S63c to S63d, Fig. 9), and monitoring said state of said monitoring target based on said captured image data in a second determination procedure corresponding to said second environmental state and different from said first determination procedure when said environmental state is in a second environmental state different from said first environmental state (see steps S63c through S63h, Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US20190172737A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uemae (US20160089688A1).
Regarding claim 3, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a storage (83, Fig. 5).
Endo fails to teach a plurality of reference image data corresponding to said environmental state are recorded,
wherein said controller monitors said state of said monitoring target based on comparison between said captured image data and first reference image data corresponding to said first environmental state as said first determination procedure when said environmental state is in said first environmental state, and
monitors said state of said monitoring target based on comparison between said captured image data and second reference image data corresponding to said second environmental state as said second determination procedure when said environmental state is in said second environmental state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate processing, Uemae discloses storing a plurality of reference images corresponding to the environmental state (paragraph [0083] discloses a plurality of images taken where liquid does exist and where liquid doesn't exist) and are used as a comparison for captured image data corresponding to the first and second states (paragraph [0084] discloses the plurality of images taken are compared to each other to determine if the liquid is present or not).
Uemae states the disclosed processing benefits from ensuring validity of the determination (paragraph [0010]), leading to an increased detection accuracy (paragraph [0011]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the processing apparatus comprising a storage as taught in Endo with the comparison of the captured image data to reference image data taught in Uemae in order to increase detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Endo as modified by Uemae teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches said first environmental state includes a state in which a predetermined object exists in said imaging region (Endo: Fig. 12 depicts the state with excessive fumes (a predetermined object)),
said second environmental state includes a state in which said object does not exist in said imaging region (Endo: lack of excessive fumes - paragraph [0080]),
said first reference image data is an image including said object and said monitoring target (Uemae: paragraph [0083] discloses a reference image with object and monitoring target; PA, Fig. 7), and
said second reference image data is an image not including said object but including said monitoring target (Uemae: paragraph [0083] discloses a reference image without object but including monitoring target; SA, Fig. 7).
As discussed above in claim 3, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the processing apparatus comprising a storage as taught in Endo with the comparison of the captured image data to reference image data taught in Uemae in order to increase detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Endo as modified by Uemae teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, and further teaches a nozzle (Endo: 41, Fig. 3) that supplies a processing liquid (Endo: paragraph [0046]) to said substrate from a nozzle processing position above said substrate held by said substrate holder (Endo: see Fig. 3; paragraph [0046] also discloses the nozzle supplies liquid to the substrate),
wherein said object includes fumes that are generated above said substrate and derived from said processing liquid (Endo: paragraph [0079]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US20190172737A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada (US20140240486A1).
Regarding claim 9, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches said first environmental state includes a state in which a predetermined object exists in said imaging region (Endo: Fig. 12 depicts the state with excessive fumes (a predetermined object)),
said second environmental state includes a state in which said object does not exist in said imaging region (Endo: non-excessive fumes - paragraph [0080]).
Endo fails to teach said controller inputs said captured image data to a first learned model as said first determination procedure, and inputs said captured image data to a second learned model as said second determination procedure,
said first learned model is a learned model generated based on a plurality of learning data including said monitoring target and said object, and classifies said captured image data into one of a normal category indicating that said captured image data is normal and an abnormal category indicating that said captured image data is abnormal, and
said second learned model is a learned model generated based on a plurality of learning data not including said object but including said monitoring target, and classifies the captured image data into one of said normal category and said abnormal category.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate processing, Okada teaches a device which determines a first and second environmental state (either normal or abnormal - abstract), where image data is fed to a first and second learned model which determines if the environmental state is normal or abnormal (paragraph [0044]). Further, the two learned models are based on a plurality of learning data which include images where the object is in and images where the object is not in (paragraph [0044]).
The use of a learned model to determine environmental state is more reliable than an operator's judgement (Okada: paragraphs [0022] and [0023]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Endo with the learned models of Okada in order to provide a more reliable determination of environmental state.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US20190172737A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Uemae (US20160089688A1) and Okada (US20140240486A1).
Regarding claim 11, Endo teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches a nozzle (41, Fig. 3) that supplies a processing liquid to said substrate (paragraph [0046]) from a nozzle processing position above said substrate held by said substrate holder (Fig. 3 depicts the nozzle 41 above the substrate W and substrate holder 20).
Endo fails to teach wherein said first environmental state includes a patterned substrate state in which a pattern is formed on an upper surface of said substrate held by said substrate holder,
said second environmental state includes a uniform substrate state in which a pattern is not formed on the upper surface of said substrate held by said substrate holder, and
said controller calculates an index indicating a variation in a pixel value in a discharge determination region located immediately below said nozzle in said captured image data and determines existence or non-existence of a droplet of said processing liquid dropped from said nozzle based on comparison between said index and a threshold as said first determination procedure when said environmental state is in said uniform substrate state, and
inputs said captured image data to a learned model to determine the existence or non-existence of said droplet as said second determination procedure when said environmental state is in said patterned substrate state.
However, Uemae discloses a first state with a patterned substrate (paragraph [0006] discloses it is the default of these systems to have a pattern due to a film from the treatment solution) and a second state without a patterned substrate (paragraph [0079] discloses a state where there is no film, and thus no pattern), as well as a pixel value determination which is compared to a threshold (paragraphs [0074], [0075]), to determine the existence or lack of existence of a droplet due to a nozzle above the determination region (paragraph [0074]). This is done for both the patterned substrate (after the solution treatment) and uniform substrate (paragraph [0078] discloses processing the substrate image to remove the pattern).
Uemae discloses this calculation enables a reliable detection of the treatment solution (which causes the pattern - paragraph [0009]), enabling a determination to be made if the treatment solution has been removed or not (paragraph [0008]), making the substrate safe for removal. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Endo with the patterned substrate and pixel value determination taught in Uemae in order to enable the safe removal of a substrate from the apparatus.
Endo as modified by Uemae fails to teach said controller inputs said captured image data to a learned model.
However, Okada teaches the use of a learned model which uses captured image data (paragraph [0044]).
The use of a learned model to determine environmental state is more reliable that an operator's judgement (Okada: paragraphs [0022] and [0023]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Endo as modified by Uemae with the learned model of Okada in order to provide a more reliable determination of environmental state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights