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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 8/11/2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that undue search is not required. This is not found persuasive because the requirement illustrates that the groups are independent and distinct and require divergent subject matter that would require different search strategies and terminology, and thus meets the requirement of a serious search burden. The divergent subject matter of the instant claims would require various and different search, including different classifications and search terms that are not encompassing and a search for a single disclosed group above would not be expected to include the other described groups. See also MPEP for discussion of serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090059599 A, hereinafter KR 599 taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20140174351 by Aikawa
Claim 1: KR 599 discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing container (CVD device); a rotary table rotatably provided in the processing container (120, see Figure 5) ; a stage having a rotation center positioned away from a rotation center of the rotary table (110, see Figure 5), the stage being rotatable relative to the rotary table (see Figure 5, both stage and table are rotatable relative to each other);
KR 599 discloses rotation of the stage and table for CVD; however, fails to disclose the camera and controller as claimed. However, Aikawa, also in the art of CVD processing of substrate discloses a camera provided in the processing container and configured to capture an image of the rotary table and substrate (Figure 7) and a controller (paragraph 0120). Aikawa discloses the controller configured to process imaging information from the camera (0048, “The camera 140 forms an example of an image pickup means or an image pickup device that picks up the image inside the chamber 1”), and to control rotation of the rotary table and operation of the stage (0120, “that controls the operation of the entire deposition apparatus”). Akiawa discloses “Because the susceptor 2, the position of the wafer W set on the susceptor 2 is not fixed, and the position of the wafer W needs to be detected when performing the deposition process.” (0039). As such, taking the references collectively, as KR 599 discloses the rotation, it would have been obvious to include the mechanism for detecting the position of the substrate during process, including a camera, marks, and controller as suggested by Akiawa as one would desire to reap the benefits of detecting the substrate position during process.
Aikawa discloses the rotary table includes a rotary table side marker capable of being positioned within an imaging range of the camera by rotation of the rotary table (see e.g. susceptor mark at 0039).
While the references fails to disclose a stage side marker, Akiawa discloses the rotation requires a marker to determining the location and therefore, as KR 599 discloses a rotating susceptor, it would have been obvious to include a mark on the stage as claimed to reap the benefits as articulated by Akiawa, that is to determining the position of the substrate while rotating.
the controller is configured to control the entire deposition apparatus, including the position of the rotary table and stage as claimed (i.e. control rotation of the rotary table and operation of the stage, see 0120, “that controls the operation of the entire deposition apparatus”). As for the misalignment, and correct position based “when” the mark is misaligned. Here, this requirement is not required by the claims, but is rather optional based on the some undefined or unclaimed misalignment and therefore as the claims fail to quantify misalignment, the examiner notes that this claim requirement is met by the prior art, i.e. when there is no misalignment the controller will be configured to correct position as claimed. Claim 3: Aikawa discloses the processing container has a processing container side marker formed within the imaging range of the camera, and the controller is configured to recognize the circumferential position of the rotary table based on a relative position between the processing container side marker and the rotary table side marker included in the imaging information (0037, 0064), including such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in Aikawa.
Claim 4: Aikawa discloses controller is configured to rotate the stage by a set angle (0120, “that controls the operation of the entire deposition apparatus”), thereby capturing an image with the camera (0064), when the stage side mark is not included in the imaging information (this is optional requirement and thus not required by the claims), and including such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in Aikawa.
Claim 5: Aikawa discloses a pair of stage side markers are formed on an outer periphery of the stage, and the controller rotates the stage such that the pair of stage side markers are positioned within the imaging range of the camera (0064-0065), including such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in Aikawa.
Claim(s) 2, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 599 taken collectively with Aikawa and further in view of KR 20120032447, hereinafter KR 447.
KR 599 taken collectively with Aikawa discloses all that is taught above and discloses the camera for determining the position of the substrate for rotation and correcting the position amount. The examiner cites here KR 447, which discloses the substrate position detection and correction similar to that as specifically taught by Aikawa and discloses using a pair of markers on the rotating susceptor and a pair of markers on the chamber and, based on an image, discloses using the camera to facilitate the positional correction of the susceptor and wafer based on the image captured (see step 103, “the susceptor 2 can be rotated by the drive unit 23 of the film forming apparatus 200 to correct the position of the stacking unit 24 (step S104).” and “the position of the susceptor 2 can be corrected by rotating the susceptor 2 by the drive unit 23 of the film forming apparatus 200 (step S504)”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of the invention to have used set the correction amount and direction based on the measured camera value of the marks as KR 447 discloses using the marks to determine if the susceptor and table are at the proper location and providing rotation by drive units to correct position and Aikawa specifically discloses using a controller to control the entire apparatus.
Claim 5: KR 447 discloses rotating the stage such that the pair of markers are within the camera (see Figure 7-8) and using the pair to generate the correction amount (see Figure 7-8 and accompanying text) and thus using a pair as claimed would have been obvious to provide control over the position of stage.
Claim 6: KR 447 discloses rotating the stage in a first direction when one of the stage side markers in the pair is included in the imaging information; end correction of the position of the stage when both of the stage side markers in the pair are included in the imaging information captured after rotation in the first direction; and rotate the stage in a second direction opposite to the first direction to position the pair of stage side markers within the imaging range of the imaging device when only one of the stage side markers in the pair is included in the imaging information captured after rotation in the first direction (see Figure 7-8 and accompanying text, see e.g. the calculation of Ny, “As a result, a straight line X (X axis) passing through the centers of the two chamber marks 120a and a straight line Y (Y axis) passing through the rotation center RC of the susceptor 2 perpendicular to the straight line are pixels. Obtained from These form the X-Y coordinates. Next, among the pixels of the CCD camera, a pixel corresponding to one center of the two susceptor marks 2a and a pixel corresponding to the other center are specified, and the repair line N is specified based on these. Subsequently, the length of the waterline Ny lowered to the Y axis is obtained from the end point of the waterline N (a point opposite to the rotation center RC of the susceptor 2). From the length of the waterline N and the length of the waterline Ny, the angle θ .sub.M [= tan .sup.-1 (Ny / N)] formed by the waterline N and the Y axis is obtained. The length of the repair line N and the repair line Ny can be obtained by converting the number of pixels in the column of pixels corresponding to each repair line using the number of pixels per unit length.”)
Here, based on the understanding that the marks should be in the image window, when one mark is within the window, it would be obvious to rotate the stage by controller when both marks 2a are not within the image, in a first direction or opposite direction (i.e. claimed one of the markers of the pair is included in image) and when both are included in image, end correction as needed to provide the unit in the predetermine range (see KR 447 discussion related to determination of the stacking unit in the predetermined range).
Claim 7: KR 447 discloses the controller is configured to calculate a correction amount for correction of the position of the stage based on positions of the stage side markers in the imaging information (See Figure 7-8 and accompanying text as it relates to the determination of the Ny “From the length of the waterline N and the length of the waterline Ny, the angle θ .sub.M [= tan .sup.-1 (Ny / N)] formed by the waterline N and the Y axis is obtained. The length of the repair line N and the repair line Ny can be obtained by converting the number of pixels in the column of pixels corresponding to each repair line using the number of pixels per unit length.” And “ it is determined whether the angle θ .sub.M is in a predetermined angle range. If the position of the stacking portion 24 is shifted beyond the predetermined range, the wafer W cannot be stored in the stacking portion 24 . . . the position of the susceptor 2 can be corrected by rotating the susceptor 2 by the drive unit 23 of the film forming apparatus 200 (step S504).”)
Claim 8: KR 599 taken collectively with Aikawa make obvious the utilization of rotary table side maker as noted above and while the references fail to disclose the controller is configured to calculate a correction amount for correcting the position of the stage based on positions of the stage side markers with respect to the rotary table side marker included in the imaging information. Here, KR 447 makes obvious using pair of marks and calculating the correction amount based on the pair of marks (see claim 7 above) and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have used the controller to have determine the correction amount of the rotary table with respect to the stage using the mechanism as outlined by KR 599, as such disclose that positional determination and correction amount utilized a pair of marks based on another pair of marks.
In other words, as KR 599 discloses wafers on a rotating rotary table and a rotating stage with a different axis of rotation, Aikawa discloses using markers for rotatable wafer holders to determine the position of the wafers and KR 447 discloses image device for determining the relative position alignment of the rotating table/stage using markers on the rotating table/stage and determining the position of the table/stage relatively based on additional markers of known location (rotating stage relative to chamber markers) and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the relative position of the rotary table relative to the stage using rotary table markers and stage markers as claimed (i.e. as the rotary table rotates relative to the stage) as one would desire the position location of the rotary table.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5747113 by Tsai taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20140174351 by Aikawa
Claim 1: Tsai discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing container (CVD device); a rotary table (secondary susceptor) rotatably provided in the processing container (see Figure 3 related to CVD apparatus, i.e. processing container) ; a stage having a rotation center positioned away from a rotation center of the rotary table (see 14 at Figure 2,4 and accompanying text), the stage being rotatable relative to the rotary table (see Figure 2,4 and accompanying text);
Tsai discloses rotation of the stage and table for CVD; however, fails to disclose the camera and controller as claimed. However, Aikawa, also in the art of CVD processing of substrate discloses a camera provided in the processing container and configured to capture an image of the rotary table and substrate (Figure 7) and a controller (paragraph 0120). Aikawa discloses the controller configured to process imaging information from the camera (0048, “The camera 140 forms an example of an image pickup means or an image pickup device that picks up the image inside the chamber 1”), and to control rotation of the rotary table and operation of the stage (0120, “that controls the operation of the entire deposition apparatus”). Akiawa discloses “Because the susceptor 2, the position of the wafer W set on the susceptor 2 is not fixed, and the position of the wafer W needs to be detected when performing the deposition process.” (0039). As such, taking the references collectively, as Tsai discloses the rotation, it would have been obvious to include the mechanism for detecting the position of the substrate during process, including a camera, marks, and controller as suggested by Akiawa as one would desire to reap the benefits of detecting the substrate position during process.
Aikawa discloses the rotary table includes a rotary table side marker capable of being positioned within an imaging range of the camera by rotation of the rotary table (see e.g. susceptor mark at 0039).
While the references fails to disclose a stage side marker, Akiawa discloses the rotation requires a marker to determining the location and therefore, as Tsai discloses a rotating susceptor, it would have been obvious to include a mark on the stage as claimed to reap the benefits as articulated by Akiawa, that is to determining the position of the substrate while rotating.
the controller is configured to control the entire deposition apparatus, including the position of the rotary table and stage as claimed (i.e. control rotation of the rotary table and operation of the stage, see 0120, “that controls the operation of the entire deposition apparatus”). As for the misalignment, and correct position based “when” the mark is misaligned. Here, this requirement is not required by the claims, but is rather optional based on the some undefined or unclaimed misalignment and therefore as the claims fail to quantify misalignment, the examiner notes that this claim requirement is met by the prior art, i.e. when there is no misalignment the controller will be configured to correct position as claimed. Claim 3: Aikawa discloses the processing container has a processing container side marker formed within the imaging range of the camera, and the controller is configured to recognize the circumferential position of the rotary table based on a relative position between the processing container side marker and the rotary table side marker included in the imaging information (0037, 0064), including such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in Aikawa.
Claim 4: Aikawa discloses controller is configured to rotate the stage by a set angle (0120, “that controls the operation of the entire deposition apparatus”), thereby capturing an image with the camera (0064), when the stage side mark is not included in the imaging information (this is optional requirement and thus not required by the claims), and including such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in Aikawa.
Claim 5: Aikawa discloses a pair of stage side markers are formed on an outer periphery of the stage, and the controller rotates the stage such that the pair of stage side markers are positioned within the imaging range of the camera (0064-0065), including such would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in Aikawa.
Claim(s) 2, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai taken collectively with Aikawa and further in view of KR 20120032447, hereinafter KR 447.
Tsai taken collectively with Aikawa discloses all that is taught above and discloses the camera for determining the position of the substrate for rotation and correcting the position amount. The examiner cites here KR 447, which discloses the substrate position detection and correction similar to that as specifically taught by Aikawa and discloses using a pair of markers on the rotating susceptor and a pair of markers on the chamber and, based on an image, discloses using the camera to facilitate the positional correction of the susceptor and wafer based on the image captured (see step 103, “the susceptor 2 can be rotated by the drive unit 23 of the film forming apparatus 200 to correct the position of the stacking unit 24 (step S104).” and “the position of the susceptor 2 can be corrected by rotating the susceptor 2 by the drive unit 23 of the film forming apparatus 200 (step S504)”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of the invention to have used set the correction amount and direction based on the measured camera value of the marks as KR 447 discloses using the marks to determine if the susceptor and table are at the proper location and providing rotation by drive units to correct position and Aikawa specifically discloses using a controller to control the entire apparatus.
Claim 5: KR 447 discloses rotating the stage such that the pair of markers are within the camera (see Figure 7-8) and using the pair to generate the correction amount (see Figure 7-8 and accompanying text) and thus using a pair as claimed would have been obvious to provide control over the position of stage.
Claim 6: KR 447 discloses rotating the stage in a first direction when one of the stage side markers in the pair is included in the imaging information; end correction of the position of the stage when both of the stage side markers in the pair are included in the imaging information captured after rotation in the first direction; and rotate the stage in a second direction opposite to the first direction to position the pair of stage side markers within the imaging range of the imaging device when only one of the stage side markers in the pair is included in the imaging information captured after rotation in the first direction (see Figure 7-8 and accompanying text, see e.g. the calculation of Ny, “As a result, a straight line X (X axis) passing through the centers of the two chamber marks 120a and a straight line Y (Y axis) passing through the rotation center RC of the susceptor 2 perpendicular to the straight line are pixels. Obtained from These form the X-Y coordinates. Next, among the pixels of the CCD camera, a pixel corresponding to one center of the two susceptor marks 2a and a pixel corresponding to the other center are specified, and the repair line N is specified based on these. Subsequently, the length of the waterline Ny lowered to the Y axis is obtained from the end point of the waterline N (a point opposite to the rotation center RC of the susceptor 2). From the length of the waterline N and the length of the waterline Ny, the angle θ .sub.M [= tan .sup.-1 (Ny / N)] formed by the waterline N and the Y axis is obtained. The length of the repair line N and the repair line Ny can be obtained by converting the number of pixels in the column of pixels corresponding to each repair line using the number of pixels per unit length.”)
Here, based on the understanding that the marks should be in the image window, when one mark is within the window, it would be obvious to rotate the stage by controller when both marks 2a are not within the image, in a first direction or opposite direction (i.e. claimed one of the markers of the pair is included in image) and when both are included in image, end correction as needed to provide the unit in the predetermine range (see KR 447 discussion related to determination of the stacking unit in the predetermined range).
Claim 7: KR 447 discloses the controller is configured to calculate a correction amount for correction of the position of the stage based on positions of the stage side markers in the imaging information (See Figure 7-8 and accompanying text as it relates to the determination of the Ny “From the length of the waterline N and the length of the waterline Ny, the angle θ .sub.M [= tan .sup.-1 (Ny / N)] formed by the waterline N and the Y axis is obtained. The length of the repair line N and the repair line Ny can be obtained by converting the number of pixels in the column of pixels corresponding to each repair line using the number of pixels per unit length.” And “ it is determined whether the angle θ .sub.M is in a predetermined angle range. If the position of the stacking portion 24 is shifted beyond the predetermined range, the wafer W cannot be stored in the stacking portion 24 . . . the position of the susceptor 2 can be corrected by rotating the susceptor 2 by the drive unit 23 of the film forming apparatus 200 (step S504).”)
Claim 8: Tsai taken collectively with Aikawa make obvious the utilization of rotary table side maker as noted above and while the references fail to disclose the controller is configured to calculate a correction amount for correcting the position of the stage based on positions of the stage side markers with respect to the rotary table side marker included in the imaging information. Here, KR 447 makes obvious using pair of marks and calculating the correction amount based on the pair of marks (see claim 7 above) and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have used the controller to have determine the correction amount of the rotary table with respect to the stage using the mechanism as outlined by Tsai, as such disclose that positional determination and correction amount utilized a pair of marks based on another pair of marks.
In other words, as Tsai discloses wafers on a rotating rotary table and a rotating stage with a different axis of rotation, Aikawa discloses using markers for rotatable wafer holders to determine the position of the wafers and KR 447 discloses image device for determining the relative position alignment of the rotating table/stage using markers on the rotating table/stage and determining the position of the table/stage relatively based on additional markers of known location (rotating stage relative to chamber markers) and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the relative position of the rotary table relative to the stage using rotary table markers and stage markers as claimed (i.e. as the rotary table rotates relative to the stage) as one would desire the position location of the rotary table.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights