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 Objections
1. Claim 5 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 and by overcoming the 112b rejection detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In particular, claims 1-7 recite “abnormality detection unit”, “abnormality detection step”, and “recognition unit” without any corresponding hardware in the disclosure.
“A rejection under § 112, ¶ 2 may be appropriate in the following situations when examining means-plus-function claim limitations under § 112, ¶ 6:
(1) when it is unclear whether a claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6;
(2) when § 112, ¶ 6 is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; and/or
(3) when § 112, ¶ 6 is invoked and the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.”
See Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 USC §112 and for Treatment of related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7168 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 1-7 contains at least one limitation that invokes §112 ¶6, while failing to provide sufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565, (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step, or non-structure terms) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Rationale for invoking §112 6¶
Examiners will apply § 112, ¶ 6 to a claim limitation that meets the following conditions:
(1) The claim limitation uses the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or a non-structural term that does not have a structural modifier;
(2) the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or the non-structural term recited in the claim is modified by functional language; and
(3) the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or the non-structural term recited in the claim is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.
This modifies the 3-prong analysis in MPEP § 2181, which will be revised in due course. See Supplemental Examination, 76 FR at 7167.
Regarding Claims 1-7, the claim recites, inter alia, “an abnormality detection unit” and “abnormality detection unit” and a “recognition unit”.
“When the claim limitation does not use the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for,’’ examiners should determine whether the claim limitation uses a nonstructural term (a term that is simply a substitute for the term ‘‘means for’’). Examiners will apply § 112, ¶6 to a claim limitation that uses a nonstructural term associated with functional language, unless the nonstructural term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘‘filters’’), or (2) modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function. The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: ‘‘mechanism for,’’ ‘‘module for,’’ ‘‘device for,’’ ‘‘unit for,’’ ‘‘component for,’’ ‘‘element for,’’ ‘‘member for,’’ ‘‘apparatus for,’’ ‘‘machine for,’’ or ‘‘system for.’’ This list is not exhaustive, and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6.” See id.
In Claims 1-7, the apparatus/system/processing step is directed towards “an abnormality detection step” and “abnormality detection unit” and a “recognition unit”.
The functional language following these terms to not provide any structure modification to the described “units” and “steps”. As a result, the “recognition unit” and the "abnormality unit/step” limitations invoke §112 ¶6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabtay et al., US 2019/0079022 in view of Liao, TW 201534118 (English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shabtay teaches of a substrate processing apparatus that performs predetermined processing on a substrate (See Fig.3; [0002]-[0009], [0027] wafer inspection), the substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a processing unit configured to process a substrate (See Fig.3; [0002]-[0009], [0027] wafer processing);
a photographing unit configured to image a target component that is an abnormality detection target among components constituting the processing unit, the photographing unit being capable of adjusting photographing conditions (See [0025], [0031], [0039], [0044]-[0046], [0056], and [0075] imaging tool for imaging regions for defects where the recipe which includes the photographic conditions can be adjusted);
a control unit configured to, when processing is performed by the processing unit according to a recipe defining processing contents of a substrate, cause the photographing unit to capture an image by adjusting the photographing condition for each target component according to a process of the recipe, and cause the photographing unit to acquire an adjusted photographed image (See [0025], [0031], [0039], [0044]-[0046], [0056]-[0057], and [0075]); and
an abnormality detection unit configured to detect an abnormality of the target component based on the adjusted photographed image (See [0025], [0031], [0039], [0044]-[0046], [0056]-[0057], and [0075]).
Shabtay is silent with respect to the conditions of the photographing unit having a photographing direction of panning for moving a photographing field of view in a horizontal direction and tilting for moving a photographing field of view in a vertical direction, and a photographing magnification of zooming for expanding and contracting the photographing field of view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao teaches of the photographing unit having a photographing direction of panning for moving a photographing field of view in a horizontal direction and tilting for moving a photographing field of view in a vertical direction, and a photographing magnification of zooming for expanding and contracting the photographing field of view (See Fig.2B; Pages 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shabtay to have incorporated the teachings of Liao for the mere benefit of being able to provide for better images to better detect and analyze defects and abnormalities.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a photographing condition storage unit configured to store the photographing condition in advance for each process of the recipe, wherein the control unit causes photographing to be performed based on the photographing condition (See Shabtay, [0025], [0039]-[0040], [0049], [0058], and [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a recognition unit configured to recognize a specific target component projected in a photographed image captured by the photographing unit, wherein the control unit adjusts the photographing direction in such a way to track the specific target component according to a recognition result of the recognition unit (See analysis of claims 1-2; Shabtay [0046] imaging repeated in a loop until the thresholds are met, the target being the wafer and the tracking being that of the identified amount of defects on the wafer identified).
Regarding claim 6, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabtay et al., US 2019/0079022 in view of Liao, TW 201534118 (English translation), and in further view of Anderson, US 2014/0176720.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shabtay and Liao teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the photographing condition, the photographing magnification is set (See analysis of claim 1).
The combination is silent with respect to the maximum magnification such as to minimize the field of view such that the plurality of target components fall in the field of view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Anderson teaches of the maximum magnification such as to minimize the field of view such that the plurality of target components fall in the field of view (See [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shabtay and Liao to have incorporated the teachings of Anderson for the mere benefit of being able to provide for better images which include all of the desired components/objects in the field of view.
Contact
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights