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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“multiple processing liquid flow path forming mechanisms” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goradia et al. (US Pub 20180128733 A1)(hereinafter, “Goradia”) in view of Norikazu et al. (WO 2020071273 A1)(hereinafter, “Norikazu”).
Regarding claim 1, Goradia teaches a foreign substance detection device configured to detect a foreign substance contained in a processing liquid configured to process a substrate(discloses detection of nanoparticles, contaminants in a processing liquid used for semiconductor substrates, [0023] and [0047]), the foreign substance detection device (100) comprising:
a radiator (laser 102/312) configured to radiate radiation light (108) from a light source (102) (discloses a laser emitting radiation light 108 to irradiate a flowing liquid, [0027] and [0038-0039]); and
a light receiver (114/116/ICCD/EMCCD) configured to receive light (scattered light 110) emitted from the processing liquid (140/302) flow paths by radiating the radiation light(incident light 108 from a laser 102 is directed to the sample cell 104, [0027]),
wherein the radiator (laser 102/312) comprises a light adjuster(beam attenuator 316/ neutral density filters, [0038]) configured to adjust a light amount of the radiation light radiated to the processing liquid flow path (“creating an empty volume 344 for the liquid to flow through “, [0037], “the excitation beam 314 is then directed…the microfluidic flow cell 302”, [0039]).
Goradia fails to disclose multiple processing liquid flow path forming mechanisms configured to form multiple processing liquid flow paths through which the processing liquid to be supplied to the substrate flows; and multiple processing liquid flow paths.
Norikazu teaches multiple processing liquid flow path forming mechanisms (microchannels A62, containers A64, mixing mechanism, A65, page 18, lines 1-19) configured to form multiple processing liquid flow paths through which the processing liquid to be supplied to the substrate flows (discloses “the microchannel is a first microchannel…and a second microchannel”, “first container… second container”, and “mixing mechanism that mixes the measurement target substance and a solution”, page 18, lines 6-14); and multiple processing liquid flow paths (“a first microchannel extending along the optical path of, and a second micropath including at least a part of the second optical path of the light emitted from the second light source”, page 18, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate multiple processing liquid flow path forming mechanisms of Norikazu to Goradia to improve measurement accuracy (page 8, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 2, Goradia teaches the radiator (laser 102/312) to radiate the radiation light (108) toward processing liquid flow path(“creating an empty volume 344 for the liquid to flow through “, [0037], “the excitation beam 314 is then directed…the microfluidic flow cell 302”, [0039]), and
the light adjuster (beam attenuator 316/ neutral density filters, [0038]) is provided on an optical path toward the processing liquid flow path(“creating an empty volume 344 for the liquid to flow through “, [0037], “the excitation beam 314 is then directed…the microfluidic flow cell 302”, [0039]).
Goradia fails to disclose the radiator is moved relative to the multiple processing liquid flow paths to radiate the radiation light toward each of the multiple processing liquid flow paths.
Norikazu teaches the radiator (A62, A63) is moved relative to the multiple processing liquid flow paths (A33-A35) to radiate the radiation light toward each of the multiple processing liquid flow paths (“a first microchannel extending along the optical path of, and a second micropath including at least a part of the second optical path of the light emitted from the second light source”, page 18, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate multiple processing liquid flow paths of Norikazu to Goradia to improve measurement accuracy (page 8, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 3, Goradia teaches light received by the light receiver (114/116/ICCD/EMCCD) and the light adjuster (beam attenuator 316/ neutral density filters, [0038])) adjusts the light amount([0038]).
Goradia fails to teach wherein, under a condition that intensity of a haze noise component, which fluctuates according to intensity of the radiation light, does not fall below intensity of a steady noise component, among noise components included in light received by the light receiver when the radiation light is radiated to one of the multiple processing liquid flow paths, that occurs regardless of the intensity of the radiation light, the light adjuster adjusts the light amount of the radiation light to be radiated to the one processing liquid flow path such that the intensity of the haze noise component becomes close to the intensity of the steady noise component.
Norikazu teaches wherein, under a condition that intensity of a haze noise component (discloses photodiode-based detection in which the output is proportional to the intensity of received light, inherently includes intensity-dependent components, page 11, lines 26-28), which fluctuates according to intensity of the radiation light(“the arithmetic circuit 350 can calculate the absorbance and the like by comparing the output signal of the light receiver 322 with the intensity of light when there is no measurement target substance 331”, page 5, lines 24-25), does not fall below intensity of a steady noise component, among noise components included in light received by the light receiver (“from the output of the light receiver 322, the intensity of the light received by the light receiver 322 can be obtained”, “the measurement information…is the sum of the information of the color forming substance… and the information based on the baseline”, page 5, lines 21-24 and page 11, lines 1-4) when the radiation light is radiated to one of the multiple processing liquid flow paths, that occurs regardless of the intensity of the radiation light (discloses intensity-independent noise component, “the baseline measurement in the second measurement optical path”, page 9, line 25, “the measurement information of the substance to be obtained is the information obtained by subtracting the information obtained by the baseline measurement”, page 11, lines 4-5), the light adjuster (A08, A09, A33/A34/A35) adjusts the light amount of the radiation light(“the light sources may be turned on sequentially or alternately so that light from one light source passes through the flow path at some point”, page 10, lines 20-22) to be radiated to the one processing liquid flow path (discloses each flow path is measured individually, light irradiation is applied per channel, page 10, lines 1-13) such that the intensity of the haze noise(light intensity dependent photodiode output) component becomes close to the intensity of the steady noise (background noise) component (“may be obtained based on the output of the light receiver, without calculating the absorbance”, page 15, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate controller based automatic light control, baseline signal handling, and closed-loop feedback of Norikazu to Goradia to reduce intensity dependent noise and improve measurement accuracy (page 8, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 4, Goradia teaches a controller configured to acquire an electric signal according to the intensity of the light received by the light receiver(discloses detectors 114/116 collect light; signals projected onto the ICCD/EMCCD for measurement, [0028] and [0039-0040]), and
the light adjuster (beam attenuator 316/ neutral density filters, [0038]) adjusts the light amount ([0038]).
Goradia fails to disclose wherein the controller estimates the intensity of the steady noise component and the intensity of the haze noise component based on the electric signal corresponding to the light received by the light receiver when the radiation light is radiated to the one processing liquid flow path; the light adjuster adjusts the light amount of the radiation light to be radiated to the one processing liquid flow path based on an estimation result in the controller such that the intensity of the haze noise component, which fluctuates according to the intensity of the radiation light, becomes close to the intensity of the steady noise component.
Norikazu teaches wherein the controller (discloses a controller that receives detector signals, controls light emission, and signal-based control, “further comprising: a controller for a second light receiver that controls so that the light emission amount of is substantially constant over time”, “a receiver controller configured to receive information about the brightness measured by the receiver”, page 17, lines 11-15) estimates the intensity of the steady noise (background noise) component and the intensity of the haze noise (light intensity dependent photodiode output) component based on the electric signal corresponding to the light received by the light receiver when the radiation light is radiated to the one processing liquid flow path (discloses intensity-independent noise component, “the baseline measurement in the second measurement optical path”, page 9, line 25, “the measurement information of the substance to be obtained is the information obtained by subtracting the information obtained by the baseline measurement”, page 11, lines 4-5); the light adjuster (A08, A09, A33/A34/A35) adjusts the light amount of the radiation light (“the light sources may be turned on sequentially or alternately so that light from one light source passes through the flow path at some point”, page 10, lines 20-22) to be radiated to the one processing liquid flow path (discloses each flow path is measured individually, light irradiation is applied per channel, page 10, lines 1-13) based on an estimation result (“the measurement information of the substance to be obtained is the information obtained by subtracting the information obtained by the baseline measurement”, page 11, lines 4-5 and lines 11-19) in the controller such that the intensity of the haze noise component(discloses photodiode-based detection in which the output is proportional to the intensity of received light, inherently includes intensity-dependent components, page 11, lines 26-28), which fluctuates according to the intensity of the radiation light(“the arithmetic circuit 350 can calculate the absorbance and the like by comparing the output signal of the light receiver 322 with the intensity of light when there is no measurement target substance 331”, page 5, lines 24-25), becomes close to the intensity of the steady noise (background noise) component (“may be obtained based on the output of the light receiver, without calculating the absorbance”, page 15, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the controller of Norikazu to Goradia to reduce intensity dependent noise and improve measurement accuracy (page 8, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 5, Goradia fails to disclose wherein the controller estimates the intensity of the steady noise component and the intensity of the haze noise component from the electric signal corresponding to the light received by the light receiver when different light amounts of the radiation light are radiated to the one processing liquid flow path.
Norikazu teaches wherein the controller (discloses a controller that receives detector signals, controls light emission, and signal-based control, “further comprising: a controller for a second light receiver that controls so that the light emission amount of is substantially constant over time”, “a receiver controller configured to receive information about the brightness measured by the receiver”, page 17, lines 11-15) estimates the intensity of the steady noise (background noise) component and the intensity of the haze noise (light intensity dependent photodiode output) component from the electric signal corresponding to the light received (“the light receivers 922a, 922b, 922c of the measuring device of FIG. 9 are diodes, and the output is a current…the current value is proportional or related to the intensity of the input light”, page 11, lines 26-28) by the light receiver when different light amounts of the radiation light are radiated (discloses radiates different light amounts, temporally and spectrally, page 17, lines 12 and 33-37) to the one processing liquid flow path (discloses each flow path is measured individually, light irradiation is applied per channel, page 10, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the controller of Norikazu to Goradia to reduce intensity dependent noise and improve measurement accuracy (page 8, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 6, Goradia teaches a foreign substance detection method in a foreign substance detection device configured to detect a foreign substance contained in a processing liquid configured to process a substrate (discloses detection of nanoparticles, contaminants in a processing liquid used for semiconductor substrates, [0023] and [0047]), the foreign substance detection method comprising:
radiating, by a radiator (laser 102/312), radiation light (108) from a light source (102, discloses a laser emitting radiation light 108 to irradiate a flowing liquid, [0027] and [0038-0039]); and
receiving, by a light receiver (114/116/ICCD/EMCCD), light emitted from the processing liquid (140/302) flow paths by radiating the radiation light (incident light 108 from a laser 102 is directed to the sample cell 104, [0027]),
wherein the radiator varies, by a light adjuster (beam attenuator 316/ neutral density filters, [0038]), a light amount of the radiation light to be radiated to the processing liquid flow path (“creating an empty volume 344 for the liquid to flow through “, [0037], “the excitation beam 314 is then directed…the microfluidic flow cell 302”, [0039]).
Goradia fails to disclose multiple processing liquid flow paths through which the processing liquid to be supplied to the substrate flows and multiple processing liquid flow paths.
Norikazu teaches multiple processing liquid flow path forming mechanisms (microchannels A62, containers A64, mixing mechanism, A65, page 18, lines 1-19) configured to form multiple processing liquid flow paths through which the processing liquid to be supplied to the substrate flows (discloses “the microchannel is a first microchannel…and a second microchannel”, “first container… second container”, and “mixing mechanism that mixes the measurement target substance and a solution”, page 18, lines 6-14); and multiple processing liquid flow paths (“a first microchannel extending along the optical path of, and a second micropath including at least a part of the second optical path of the light emitted from the second light source”, page 18, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate multiple processing liquid flow path forming mechanisms of Norikazu to Goradia to improve measurement accuracy (page 8, lines 27-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877