Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments/remarks received on March 17, 2026.
3. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
4. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed moot in view of a necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1, 2 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKUMA et al.(US 2019/0259172 A1)(hereinafter Kakuma) in view of FURUKAWA et al.(US 2014/0261577 A1)(hereinafter Furukawa) in further view of SUZUKI et al.(US 2014/0333921 A1)(hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Kakuma discloses a substrate processing apparatus [See /Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 34-53 regarding a substrate treatment system including a substrate treatment apparatus], comprising:
a chamber[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 39-40 regarding chamber 90 is provided in its treatment space SP with a substrate holder 10.];
a substrate holder that holds a substrate in said chamber[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 39-40 regarding chamber 90 is provided in its treatment space SP with a substrate holder 10.];
a nozzle that discharges a processing liquid toward said substrate held by said substrate holder[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 45-48, 50, 52 regarding While the substrate W is rotated at a predetermined rotational speed by rotation of the spin chuck 11, the treatment liquid discharge units 30, 40, and 50 position the corresponding nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53 above the substrate W in a predetermined sequential order to supply corresponding treatment liquids to the substrate W, thereby applying liquid treatment to the substrate W…];
a camera that captures an image of an imaging region including a monitoring target in said chamber to generate captured image data[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 49-52, 60-65, 96-99 regarding The camera 72 acquires image data that is given to an image processing unit 86 of the control unit 80. The image processing unit 86 performs image processing such as correction processing and pattern matching processing, described below, to the image data. As described below, the present embodiment allows positioning of each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, and detection of a drop of the treatment liquid from each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, to be performed on the basis of images taken by the camera 72…Specifically, imaging is performed by the camera 72 while the nozzle 43a is being moved, and a region substantially matching a reference pattern RP is retrieved for each image by pattern matching processing to detect the position of the nozzle 43a. The reference pattern RP is prepared prior to substrate treatment, and is acquired by cutting out a partial region corresponding to the image of the nozzle 43a from the reference image Iref. The reference pattern RP is cut out by an operator who specifies a rectangular area including the image of the nozzle 43a in the reference image Iref with the UI unit 87, for example…First, the camera 72 takes an image for one frame (step ST1). The image processing unit 86 cuts out a partial region corresponding to the determination discharge region Rj from this image (step ST2).]; and
a controller that monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by at least a part of a droplet region indicating a droplet in said captured image data when said captured image data includes the droplet[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 49-53, 60-65, 75, 96-107 regarding The control unit 80 of the substrate treatment system 1 includes a CPU 81 for executing a predetermined processing program to control operation of each unit, a memory 82 for storing the processing program to be executed by the CPU 81 and data and the like created during processing, and an user interface (UI) unit 87…For example, a calculation unit 811 calculates a difference between images in respective frames taken at times adjacent to each other. Then, a determination unit 812 determines whether or not the nozzle 43a is stopped, depending on whether the difference is equal to or less than a predetermined value… FIG. 16 is a flowchart of the determination process. First, the camera 72 takes an image for one frame (step ST1). The image processing unit 86 cuts out a partial region corresponding to the determination discharge region Rj from this image (step ST2). The calculation unit 811 integrates brightness values of respective pixels constituting the determination discharge region Rj for each pixel row (step ST3). The calculating unit 811 further calculates the standard deviation σ of the brightness integrated values as the evaluation value (step ST4). The determination unit 812 compares the value of the standard deviation σ, which is the evaluation value, with a preset determination threshold value (step ST5). When the value of the standard deviation σ is equal to or larger than the determination threshold value, it is determined that there is a drop of the treatment liquid from the nozzle 43a (step ST6). When the evaluation value is less than the determination threshold value, it is determined that there is no drop of the treatment liquid from the nozzle 43a (step ST7) As a result, it is determined whether or not there is a drop of the treatment liquid in the image of the frame.].
Kakuma does not explicitly disclose a controller that determines whether a determination region of said captured data includes a droplet and, in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet.
However, monitoring a target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region in a captured image was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Furukawa[See Furukawa: at least Figs. 4-16, par. 11, 23, 49-50, 63, 72-79 regarding The output from the imaging part 52 is transmitted to the inspection calculation part 73 of the control unit 7 (see FIG. 4). The inspection calculation part 73 performs binary processing on the inspection image 8 so as to extract the bright dots 81 and remove background noise or the like…an imaging part for capturing an image of the plurality of flying droplets passing through the light existing plane to acquire an inspection image that includes a plurality of bright dots appearing on the plurality of flying droplets, a determination frame setting part for setting, in the inspection image, a plurality of normal ejection determination frames corresponding respectively to the plurality of outlets, and a determination part for acquiring existence information that indicates whether or not a bright dot exists in each of the plurality of normal ejection determination frames… When determining the existence or non-existence of a bright dot 81, the determination part 75 excludes the area of the inspection image 8 outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89 from target areas used for the detection of bright dots. Accordingly, the maximum ejection determination frame 89 functions as a bright dot detection mask for masking the area outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89…].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakuma with Furukawa teachings by including “a controller that determines whether a determination region of said captured data includes a droplet and, in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet” because this combination has the benefit of improving the accuracy of the monitoring method and apparatus.
Kakuma and Furukawa do not explicitly disclose a controller that determines whether a determination region of said captured data includes a droplet and, in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet from said determination region.
However, removing at least a part of drop region when it is determined that the drop or droplet in within a determination region was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Suzuki[See Suzuki: at least Figs. 2-11 and par. 15-27, 93-120 regarding According to the present invention, the composite image obtained by optically synthesizing the transmission image and the reflection image of the photomask and the transmission image are picked up in parallel, and the signal processing for deleting the drop image generated at the edge portion of the pattern portion is performed on the composite image, thereby making it possible to carry out a defect inspection that is not affected by the drop image generated due to the diffraction effect… Limiter processing is performed on the original composite image signal to delete the drop image. In this case, the threshold level b0 of the limiter processing is set so as to satisfy b2<b0<b1, and image signals having a luminance value equal to or smaller than the luminance value b0 are uniformly converted into a signal representing the luminance value b0. FIG. 9B shows the composite image signal obtained after the limiter processing…].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakuma and Furukawa with Suzuki teachings by including “a controller that determines whether a determination region of said captured data includes a droplet and, in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet from said determination region” because this combination has the benefit of providing an inspection method and inspection apparatus which are not affected by the drop image formed in the vicinity of the examined substrate[See Suzuki: at least par. 3-14].
Regarding claim 2, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach or suggest further comprising a storage that stores region data indicating a first region and a second region corresponding to surfaces of different objects in said captured image data[See Kakuma: at least Fig. 5 and par. 52-53 regarding he control unit 80 of the substrate treatment system 1 includes a CPU 81 for executing a predetermined processing program to control operation of each unit, a memory 82 for storing the processing program to be executed by the CPU 81 and data and the like created during processing…See Furukawa: at least Figs. 4-16 and par. 49, 63 regarding . The control unit 7 includes a processing control part 71, an inspection control part 72, and an inspection calculation part 73…The output from the imaging part 52 is transmitted to the inspection calculation part 73 of the control unit 7 (see FIG. 4). The inspection calculation part 73 performs binary processing on the inspection image 8 so as to extract the bright dots 81 and remove background noise or the like…], wherein said controller monitors said monitoring target using a region excluding a contour region of said droplet region in said captured image data when said droplet is included in said first region, and said controller monitors said monitoring target using a region excluding an entire of said droplet region in said captured image data when said droplet is included in said second region[See Furukawa: at least Figs. 6-16 and par. 62-63, 74-79 regarding FIG. 6 illustrates an inspection image 8. In the inspection image 8, a plurality of bright dots 81 that correspond respectively to the plurality of outlets 314a to 314d of the ejection head 31 are arranged in a direction corresponding to the arrangement direction of the outlets 314a to 314d….each of the bright dots 81 has a substantially ellipsoidal shape that is long in a direction corresponding to the vertical direction in the inspection image 8… The determination part 75 is configured to determine that a bright dot 81 exists in an ejection determination frame if at least a portion of the bright dot 81 is located within the ejection determination frame. If a bright dot 81 spans two ejection determination frames, namely, an inner ejection determination frame and an outer ejection determination frame, the determination part 75 determines that the bright dot 81 exists in the inner ejection determination frame but does not exist in the outer ejection determination frame…At the time of acquiring the existence information on bright dots 81, the determination part 75 first acquires existence information on bright dots 81 in the respective normal ejection determination frames 85. Specifically, one of the bright dots 81 is detected as a bright dot of interest in the inspection image 8. Then, a normal ejection determination frame 85 and an oblique ejection determination frame 87 that are located at a position closest to the bright dot of interest are extracted as the normal ejection determination frame 85 and the oblique ejection determination frame 87 corresponding to the bright dot of interest…When determining the existence or non-existence of a bright dot 81, the determination part 75 excludes the area of the inspection image 8 outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89 from target areas used for the detection of bright dots… See Suzuki: at least Figs. 2-11 and par. 15-27, 93-120 regarding According to the present invention, the composite image obtained by optically synthesizing the transmission image and the reflection image of the photomask and the transmission image are picked up in parallel, and the signal processing for deleting the drop image generated at the edge portion of the pattern portion is performed on the composite image, thereby making it possible to carry out a defect inspection that is not affected by the drop image generated due to the diffraction effect… Limiter processing is performed on the original composite image signal to delete the drop image. In this case, the threshold level b0 of the limiter processing is set so as to satisfy b2<b0<b1, and image signals having a luminance value equal to or smaller than the luminance value b0 are uniformly converted into a signal representing the luminance value b0. FIG. 9B shows the composite image signal obtained after the limiter processing…].
Regarding claim 9, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach or suggest further comprising a hydrophilic and transparent camera guard provided between said camera and said imaging region, wherein said controller determines whether said droplet adheres to said camera guard based on said captured image data, and monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by excluding a contour region of said droplet region indicating said droplet adhering to said camera guard from said captured image data when said droplet adheres to said camera guard[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, par. 43-52 regarding Around the casing 12, a splash guard 20 is provided so as to surround the periphery of the substrate W held in a horizontal posture on the spin chuck 11 while being movable up and down along the rotation axis of the spin chuck 11. The splash guard 20 has a substantially rotationally symmetrical shape with respect to the rotation axis, and includes a multistage guard 21 (two-stage in this example) disposed concentrically with the spin chuck 11 to receive the treatment liquid scattered from the substrate W, and a liquid receiving part 22 for receiving the treatment liquid dropping from the guard 21. When the guard 21 is moved up and down in a stepwise manner by a guard lifting mechanism (not illustrated) provided in the control unit 80, a treatment liquid, such as a chemical solution or a rinse liquid, scattered from the substrate W rotating can be separately collected…Each of the treatment liquids scattered from the substrate W is received by the guard 21 of the splash guard 20 and collected by the liquid receiving part 22. The camera 72 acquires image data that is given to an image processing unit 86 of the control unit 80. The image processing unit 86 performs image processing such as correction processing and pattern matching processing, described below, to the image data. As described below, the present embodiment allows positioning of each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, and detection of a drop of the treatment liquid from each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, to be performed on the basis of images taken by the camera 72… See Furukawa: at least Figs. 4-16, par. 11, 23, 49-50, 63, 72-79 regarding The output from the imaging part 52 is transmitted to the inspection calculation part 73 of the control unit 7 (see FIG. 4). The inspection calculation part 73 performs binary processing on the inspection image 8 so as to extract the bright dots 81 and remove background noise or the like…an imaging part for capturing an image of the plurality of flying droplets passing through the light existing plane to acquire an inspection image that includes a plurality of bright dots appearing on the plurality of flying droplets, a determination frame setting part for setting, in the inspection image, a plurality of normal ejection determination frames corresponding respectively to the plurality of outlets, and a determination part for acquiring existence information that indicates whether or not a bright dot exists in each of the plurality of normal ejection determination frames… When determining the existence or non-existence of a bright dot 81, the determination part 75 excludes the area of the inspection image 8 outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89 from target areas used for the detection of bright dots. Accordingly, the maximum ejection determination frame 89 functions as a bright dot detection mask for masking the area outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89… See Suzuki: at least Figs. 2-11 and par. 15-27, 93-120 regarding According to the present invention, the composite image obtained by optically synthesizing the transmission image and the reflection image of the photomask and the transmission image are picked up in parallel, and the signal processing for deleting the drop image generated at the edge portion of the pattern portion is performed on the composite image, thereby making it possible to carry out a defect inspection that is not affected by the drop image generated due to the diffraction effect… Limiter processing is performed on the original composite image signal to delete the drop image. In this case, the threshold level b0 of the limiter processing is set so as to satisfy b2<b0<b1, and image signals having a luminance value equal to or smaller than the luminance value b0 are uniformly converted into a signal representing the luminance value b0. FIG. 9B shows the composite image signal obtained after the limiter processing…].
Regarding claim 10, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach or suggest further comprising a hydrophilic and transparent camera guard provided between said camera and said imaging region, wherein said controller determines whether said droplet adheres to said camera guard based on said captured image data, and monitors said monitoring target using a region obtained by excluding the entire of said droplet region indicating said droplet adhering to said camera guard from said captured image data when said droplet adheres to said camera guard[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, par. 43-52 regarding Around the casing 12, a splash guard 20 is provided so as to surround the periphery of the substrate W held in a horizontal posture on the spin chuck 11 while being movable up and down along the rotation axis of the spin chuck 11. The splash guard 20 has a substantially rotationally symmetrical shape with respect to the rotation axis, and includes a multistage guard 21 (two-stage in this example) disposed concentrically with the spin chuck 11 to receive the treatment liquid scattered from the substrate W, and a liquid receiving part 22 for receiving the treatment liquid dropping from the guard 21. When the guard 21 is moved up and down in a stepwise manner by a guard lifting mechanism (not illustrated) provided in the control unit 80, a treatment liquid, such as a chemical solution or a rinse liquid, scattered from the substrate W rotating can be separately collected…Each of the treatment liquids scattered from the substrate W is received by the guard 21 of the splash guard 20 and collected by the liquid receiving part 22. The camera 72 acquires image data that is given to an image processing unit 86 of the control unit 80. The image processing unit 86 performs image processing such as correction processing and pattern matching processing, described below, to the image data. As described below, the present embodiment allows positioning of each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, and detection of a drop of the treatment liquid from each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, to be performed on the basis of images taken by the camera 72… See Furukawa: at least Figs. 4-16, par. 11, 23, 49-50, 63, 72-79 regarding The output from the imaging part 52 is transmitted to the inspection calculation part 73 of the control unit 7 (see FIG. 4). The inspection calculation part 73 performs binary processing on the inspection image 8 so as to extract the bright dots 81 and remove background noise or the like…an imaging part for capturing an image of the plurality of flying droplets passing through the light existing plane to acquire an inspection image that includes a plurality of bright dots appearing on the plurality of flying droplets, a determination frame setting part for setting, in the inspection image, a plurality of normal ejection determination frames corresponding respectively to the plurality of outlets, and a determination part for acquiring existence information that indicates whether or not a bright dot exists in each of the plurality of normal ejection determination frames… When determining the existence or non-existence of a bright dot 81, the determination part 75 excludes the area of the inspection image 8 outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89 from target areas used for the detection of bright dots. Accordingly, the maximum ejection determination frame 89 functions as a bright dot detection mask for masking the area outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89… See Suzuki: at least Figs. 2-11 and par. 15-27, 93-120 regarding According to the present invention, the composite image obtained by optically synthesizing the transmission image and the reflection image of the photomask and the transmission image are picked up in parallel, and the signal processing for deleting the drop image generated at the edge portion of the pattern portion is performed on the composite image, thereby making it possible to carry out a defect inspection that is not affected by the drop image generated due to the diffraction effect… Limiter processing is performed on the original composite image signal to delete the drop image. In this case, the threshold level b0 of the limiter processing is set so as to satisfy b2<b0<b1, and image signals having a luminance value equal to or smaller than the luminance value b0 are uniformly converted into a signal representing the luminance value b0. FIG. 9B shows the composite image signal obtained after the limiter processing…].
Regarding claim 11, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach or suggest further comprising: a transparent camera guard provided between said camera and said imaging region; and a droplet remover that performs a removing operation removing at least a part of said droplet attached to said camera guard, wherein when said captured image data includes said droplet, said droplet remover performs said removing operation and said controller monitors said monitoring target based on said captured image data captured by the camera after the removing operation[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, par. 43-52, 96-99 regarding Around the casing 12, a splash guard 20 is provided so as to surround the periphery of the substrate W held in a horizontal posture on the spin chuck 11 while being movable up and down along the rotation axis of the spin chuck 11. The splash guard 20 has a substantially rotationally symmetrical shape with respect to the rotation axis, and includes a multistage guard 21 (two-stage in this example) disposed concentrically with the spin chuck 11 to receive the treatment liquid scattered from the substrate W, and a liquid receiving part 22 for receiving the treatment liquid dropping from the guard 21. When the guard 21 is moved up and down in a stepwise manner by a guard lifting mechanism (not illustrated) provided in the control unit 80, a treatment liquid, such as a chemical solution or a rinse liquid, scattered from the substrate W rotating can be separately collected…Each of the treatment liquids scattered from the substrate W is received by the guard 21 of the splash guard 20 and collected by the liquid receiving part 22. The camera 72 acquires image data that is given to an image processing unit 86 of the control unit 80. The image processing unit 86 performs image processing such as correction processing and pattern matching processing, described below, to the image data. As described below, the present embodiment allows positioning of each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, and detection of a drop of the treatment liquid from each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, to be performed on the basis of images taken by the camera 72…As a result, it is determined whether or not there is a drop of the treatment liquid in the image of the frame. The above processing is repeated until a timing at which the determination is to be ended (step ST8), and determination is made for respective images of each frame… See Furukawa: at least Figs. 4-16, par. 11, 23, 49-50, 63, 72-79 regarding The output from the imaging part 52 is transmitted to the inspection calculation part 73 of the control unit 7 (see FIG. 4). The inspection calculation part 73 performs binary processing on the inspection image 8 so as to extract the bright dots 81 and remove background noise or the like…an imaging part for capturing an image of the plurality of flying droplets passing through the light existing plane to acquire an inspection image that includes a plurality of bright dots appearing on the plurality of flying droplets, a determination frame setting part for setting, in the inspection image, a plurality of normal ejection determination frames corresponding respectively to the plurality of outlets, and a determination part for acquiring existence information that indicates whether or not a bright dot exists in each of the plurality of normal ejection determination frames… When determining the existence or non-existence of a bright dot 81, the determination part 75 excludes the area of the inspection image 8 outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89 from target areas used for the detection of bright dots. Accordingly, the maximum ejection determination frame 89 functions as a bright dot detection mask for masking the area outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89… See Suzuki: at least Figs. 2-11 and par. 15-27, 93-120 regarding According to the present invention, the composite image obtained by optically synthesizing the transmission image and the reflection image of the photomask and the transmission image are picked up in parallel, and the signal processing for deleting the drop image generated at the edge portion of the pattern portion is performed on the composite image, thereby making it possible to carry out a defect inspection that is not affected by the drop image generated due to the diffraction effect… Limiter processing is performed on the original composite image signal to delete the drop image. In this case, the threshold level b0 of the limiter processing is set so as to satisfy b2<b0<b1, and image signals having a luminance value equal to or smaller than the luminance value b0 are uniformly converted into a signal representing the luminance value b0. FIG. 9B shows the composite image signal obtained after the limiter processing…].
Regarding claim 12, Kakuma discloses a monitoring method [See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 34-53 regarding method for a substrate treatment system including a substrate treatment apparatus] comprising:
generating captured image data by a camera capturing an image of an imaging region including a monitoring target in a chamber [See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 49-52, 60-65, 96-99 regarding The camera 72 acquires image data that is given to an image processing unit 86 of the control unit 80. The image processing unit 86 performs image processing such as correction processing and pattern matching processing, described below, to the image data. As described below, the present embodiment allows positioning of each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, and detection of a drop of the treatment liquid from each of the nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53, to be performed on the basis of images taken by the camera 72…Specifically, imaging is performed by the camera 72 while the nozzle 43a is being moved, and a region substantially matching a reference pattern RP is retrieved for each image by pattern matching processing to detect the position of the nozzle 43a. The reference pattern RP is prepared prior to substrate treatment, and is acquired by cutting out a partial region corresponding to the image of the nozzle 43a from the reference image Iref. The reference pattern RP is cut out by an operator who specifies a rectangular area including the image of the nozzle 43a in the reference image Iref with the UI unit 87, for example…First, the camera 72 takes an image for one frame (step ST1). The image processing unit 86 cuts out a partial region corresponding to the determination discharge region Rj from this image (step ST2).], the chamber accommodating a substrate holder that holds a substrate [See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 39-40 regarding chamber 90 is provided in its treatment space SP with a substrate holder 10.] and a nozzle that discharges a processing liquid toward said substrate held by said substrate holder[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 45-48, 50, 52 regarding While the substrate W is rotated at a predetermined rotational speed by rotation of the spin chuck 11, the treatment liquid discharge units 30, 40, and 50 position the corresponding nozzles 33a, 33b, 43a, 43b, and 53 above the substrate W in a predetermined sequential order to supply corresponding treatment liquids to the substrate W, thereby applying liquid treatment to the substrate W…];
determining whether a droplet is included in a determination region of said captured image data[See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 49-53, 60-65, 75, 96-107 regarding FIG. 16 is a flowchart of the determination process. First, the camera 72 takes an image for one frame (step ST1). The image processing unit 86 cuts out a partial region corresponding to the determination discharge region Rj from this image (step ST2). The calculation unit 811 integrates brightness values of respective pixels constituting the determination discharge region Rj for each pixel row (step ST3). The calculating unit 811 further calculates the standard deviation σ of the brightness integrated values as the evaluation value (step ST4). The determination unit 812 compares the value of the standard deviation σ, which is the evaluation value, with a preset determination threshold value (step ST5). When the value of the standard deviation σ is equal to or larger than the determination threshold value, it is determined that there is a drop of the treatment liquid from the nozzle 43a (step ST6). When the evaluation value is less than the determination threshold value, it is determined that there is no drop of the treatment liquid from the nozzle 43a (step ST7) As a result, it is determined whether or not there is a drop of the treatment liquid in the image of the frame.]; and
in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitoring said monitoring target using a region obtained by at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet [See Kakuma: at least Figs. 1-3, 5-7 and 16-17, par. 49-53, 60-65, 75, 96-107 regarding The control unit 80 of the substrate treatment system 1 includes a CPU 81 for executing a predetermined processing program to control operation of each unit, a memory 82 for storing the processing program to be executed by the CPU 81 and data and the like created during processing, and an user interface (UI) unit 87…For example, a calculation unit 811 calculates a difference between images in respective frames taken at times adjacent to each other. Then, a determination unit 812 determines whether or not the nozzle 43a is stopped, depending on whether the difference is equal to or less than a predetermined value… FIG. 16 is a flowchart of the determination process. First, the camera 72 takes an image for one frame (step ST1). The image processing unit 86 cuts out a partial region corresponding to the determination discharge region Rj from this image (step ST2). The calculation unit 811 integrates brightness values of respective pixels constituting the determination discharge region Rj for each pixel row (step ST3). The calculating unit 811 further calculates the standard deviation σ of the brightness integrated values as the evaluation value (step ST4). The determination unit 812 compares the value of the standard deviation σ, which is the evaluation value, with a preset determination threshold value (step ST5). When the value of the standard deviation σ is equal to or larger than the determination threshold value, it is determined that there is a drop of the treatment liquid from the nozzle 43a (step ST6). When the evaluation value is less than the determination threshold value, it is determined that there is no drop of the treatment liquid from the nozzle 43a (step ST7) As a result, it is determined whether or not there is a drop of the treatment liquid in the image of the frame.].
Kakuma does not explicitly disclose in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitoring said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet.
However, monitoring a target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region in a captured image was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Furukawa[See Furukawa: at least Figs. 4-16, par. 11, 23, 49-50, 63, 72-79 regarding The output from the imaging part 52 is transmitted to the inspection calculation part 73 of the control unit 7 (see FIG. 4). The inspection calculation part 73 performs binary processing on the inspection image 8 so as to extract the bright dots 81 and remove background noise or the like…an imaging part for capturing an image of the plurality of flying droplets passing through the light existing plane to acquire an inspection image that includes a plurality of bright dots appearing on the plurality of flying droplets, a determination frame setting part for setting, in the inspection image, a plurality of normal ejection determination frames corresponding respectively to the plurality of outlets, and a determination part for acquiring existence information that indicates whether or not a bright dot exists in each of the plurality of normal ejection determination frames… When determining the existence or non-existence of a bright dot 81, the determination part 75 excludes the area of the inspection image 8 outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89 from target areas used for the detection of bright dots. Accordingly, the maximum ejection determination frame 89 functions as a bright dot detection mask for masking the area outside the maximum ejection determination frame 89…].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakuma with Furukawa teachings by including “in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitoring said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet” because this combination has the benefit of improving the accuracy of the monitoring method and apparatus.
Kakuma and Furukawa do not explicitly disclose in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitoring said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet from said determination region.
However, removing at least a part of drop region when it is determined that the drop or droplet in within a determination region was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Suzuki[See Suzuki: at least Figs. 2-11 and par. 15-27, 93-120 regarding According to the present invention, the composite image obtained by optically synthesizing the transmission image and the reflection image of the photomask and the transmission image are picked up in parallel, and the signal processing for deleting the drop image generated at the edge portion of the pattern portion is performed on the composite image, thereby making it possible to carry out a defect inspection that is not affected by the drop image generated due to the diffraction effect… Limiter processing is performed on the original composite image signal to delete the drop image. In this case, the threshold level b0 of the limiter processing is set so as to satisfy b2<b0<b1, and image signals having a luminance value equal to or smaller than the luminance value b0 are uniformly converted into a signal representing the luminance value b0. FIG. 9B shows the composite image signal obtained after the limiter processing…].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakuma and Furukawa with Suzuki teachings by including “in response to a determination that said droplet is included in said determination region, monitoring said monitoring target using a region obtained by removing at least a part of a droplet region indicating said droplet from said determination region” because this combination has the benefit of providing an inspection method and inspection apparatus which are not affected by the drop image formed in the vicinity of the examined substrate[See Suzuki: at least par. 3-14].
9. Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKUMA et al.(US 2019/0259172 A1)(hereinafter Kakuma) in view of FURUKAWA et al.(US 2014/0261577 A1)(hereinafter Furukawa) in further view of SUZUKI et al.(US 2014/0333921 A1)(hereinafter Suzuki) and in further view of SAKAMOTO(Machine translation of KR 20110068835 A)(hereinafter Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 3, Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki do not explicitly disclose wherein said controller monitors said monitoring target using a region excluding a contour region of said droplet region in said captured image data for said droplet attached to a hydrophilic surface and excluding the entire of said droplet region in said captured image data for said droplet attached to a hydrophobic surface having lower wettability than said hydrophilic surface.
However, determining whether a droplet is attached to a hydrophilic surface or hydrophobic surface in the captured image was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Sakamoto[See Sakamoto: at least par. 62-74 regarding The image processing program (94) performs image processing on an image captured by a camera (7). The judgment program (95) obtains the area of the water droplet (m) based on the image-processed data and determines whether this area exceeds a preset threshold value. If the area of the water droplet (m) exceeds the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is not normally hydrophobic. On the other hand, if the area of the water droplet (m) does not exceed the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is normally hydrophobic. The processing recipe (96) performs the following processing based on the judgment result of the judgment program (95). Specifically, the processing recipe (96) is configured with steps such that if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, a series of resist film formation processes are continued, and if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has not been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, an abnormality is notified by an abnormality notification unit, for example, an alarm (97)…].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakuma, Furukawa and Suzuki with Sakamoto teachings by including “wherein said controller monitors said monitoring target using a region excluding a contour region of said droplet region in said captured image data for said droplet attached to a hydrophilic surface and excluding the entire of said droplet region in said captured image data for said droplet attached to a hydrophobic surface having lower wettability than said hydrophilic surface” because this combination has the benefit of providing a method of image processing to examine surface wettability with respect to droplet determination.
Regarding claim 4, Kakuma, Furukawa, Suzuki and Sakamoto teach all of the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Sakamoto teaches or suggests further comprising a storage that stores region data indicating a first region and a second region respectively corresponding to said hydrophilic surface and said hydrophobic surface in said captured image data, wherein said controller determines whether a surface to which said droplet adheres is said hydrophilic surface or said hydrophobic surface based on said region data[See Sakamoto: at least Fig. 6, par. 61-74 regarding In Fig. 6, symbol 90 is a bus, and a CPU (Central Processing Unit) (91), memory (92), and program storage unit (93) are connected to this bus. In the program storage unit (93), an image processing program (94), a judgment program (judgment unit) (95), and a processing recipe (96) are stored… The image processing program (94) performs image processing on an image captured by a camera (7). The judgment program (95) obtains the area of the water droplet (m) based on the image-processed data and determines whether this area exceeds a preset threshold value. If the area of the water droplet (m) exceeds the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is not normally hydrophobic. On the other hand, if the area of the water droplet (m) does not exceed the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is normally hydrophobic. The processing recipe (96) performs the following processing based on the judgment result of the judgment program (95). Specifically, the processing recipe (96) is configured with steps such that if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, a series of resist film formation processes are continued, and if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has not been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, an abnormality is notified by an abnormality notification unit, for example, an alarm (97)…].
Regarding claim 5, Kakuma, Furukawa, Suzuki and Sakamoto teach all of the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Sakamoto teaches or suggests wherein said controller updates said region data based on an operation time of said substrate processing apparatus, a number of processed substrates, or a time-related value indicating an elapsed time[See Sakamoto: at least Fig. 6, par. 61-74 regarding In addition, in the aforementioned resist application unit (110), it is possible to determine whether the wafer (W) is normally hydrophobicized based on the diameter or circumference of the water droplet (m), not limited to the area of the water droplet (m). That is, if it is a parameter corresponding to the contact angle (θ), hydrophobicity can be evaluated based on that parameter. Additionally, it is also possible to supply pure water to multiple points on the wafer (W), capture images of water droplets (m) at each point using multiple cameras, and make a judgment based on the images of each water droplet (m). In this case, a judgment method can be adopted in which, if the area of one or more water droplets (m) exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the decimalization process has not been performed normally, so that a more certain judgment can be made. In addition, the determination of the hydrophobic treatment may be made by inspecting all wafers (W), but may also be made by inspecting the hydrophobic treatment on, for example, one wafer selected from the lot. The test solution is not limited to pure water, and a solvent may also be used, for example. In addition, if it is determined that the wafer (W) is not normally processed, an abnormality may be notified by an alarm (97) and a processing recipe for stopping a series of resist film formation processes may be provided to the program storage unit (93).].
Regarding claim 6, Kakuma, Furukawa, Suzuki and Sakamoto teach all of the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Sakamoto teaches or suggests wherein said controller determines whether a surface to which the droplet adheres is said hydrophilic surface or said hydrophobic surface based on said captured image data[See Sakamoto: at least par. 62-74 regarding The image processing program (94) performs image processing on an image captured by a camera (7). The judgment program (95) obtains the area of the water droplet (m) based on the image-processed data and determines whether this area exceeds a preset threshold value. If the area of the water droplet (m) exceeds the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is not normally hydrophobic. On the other hand, if the area of the water droplet (m) does not exceed the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is normally hydrophobic. The processing recipe (96) performs the following processing based on the judgment result of the judgment program (95). Specifically, the processing recipe (96) is configured with steps such that if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, a series of resist film formation processes are continued, and if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has not been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, an abnormality is notified by an abnormality notification unit, for example, an alarm (97)…].
Regarding claim 7, Kakuma, Furukawa, Suzuki and Sakamoto teach all of the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further on, when combined, Sakamoto teaches or suggests wherein said controller calculates a size of said droplet region based on said captured image data, determines that said surface is the hydrophilic surface when the size of said droplet region is equal to or greater than a threshold, and determines that said surface is the hydrophobic surface when the size of said droplet is less than said threshold[See Sakamoto: at least par. 62-74 regarding The image processing program (94) performs image processing on an image captured by a camera (7). The judgment program (95) obtains the area of the water droplet (m) based on the image-processed data and determines whether this area exceeds a preset threshold value. If the area of the water droplet (m) exceeds the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is not normally hydrophobic. On the other hand, if the area of the water droplet (m) does not exceed the threshold value, it is determined that the wafer (W) is normally hydrophobic. The processing recipe (96) performs the following processing based on the judgment result of the judgment program (95). Specifically, the processing recipe (96) is configured with steps such that if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, a series of resist film formation processes are continued, and if the judgment program (95) determines that the wafer (W) has not been subjected to normal hydrophobic treatment, an abnormality is notified by an abnormality notification unit, for example, an alarm (97)…].
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAOHARA et al.(US 2020/0111715 A1)
KAWABE et al.(US 2022/0327669 A1)
Nguyen et al.(US 2023/0154035 A1)
Gopalkrishna et al.(US 2022/0379564 A1)
KIYOSAWA et al.(US 2019/0123147 A1)
Miyoshi (US 2015/0056365 A1)
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA J PICON-FELICIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-5252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571 272 7331. 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.
/Ana Picon-Feliciano/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights