DETAILED ACTION
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited independent claim limitation regarding, “characteristics of a semiconductor processing tool”, “a base structure” , “an object transfer apparatus” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a total area that is at least 15% of a equation” where the recited equation does not provide clear visual. Applicant is advised to provide further clarification version.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “characteristics of a semiconductor processing tool” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which the characteristics is referring to as ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to set forth the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “structure sized so as to be insertable…through an opening…sized to receive” does not exactly and distinctly claimed what exactly the structured sizing is sized to as to base on another sizing to receive as in relation with variation uncertain degree.
Please also see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. a claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.
A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite.
Appropriate clarification is required.
`Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “the base structure….a first side…,and to be supported” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which is exactly supported as whether the structure to be supported or a first side to be supported or both that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “there are…” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what exactly the term “there” is referring to as ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “maximum dimension that is 50%....of a nominal wafter diameter” does not exactly and distinctly claiming what exactly the dimension is referring to as the 50% of the dimension with respect to nominal diameter is undefined in diameter that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly for what exactly in degree is the nominal diameter referring to as to ascertain the mete and bounds regards applicant’s invention.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “ at least some…” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what degree the term “some” referring to that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossein et al (WO 2021/022291) in view of Huang et al (US Pat Pub No. 2008/0118338).
Regarding claim 1, Hossein et al shows a device for evaluating characteristics of a semiconductor processing tool or component (See at least Para 0038 - 0042, 0067 – 0070; also figure 8) comprising:
a base structure sized to be insertable through an opening of the semiconductor processing tool sized to receive wafers for processing and transportable by an object transfer apparatus of the semiconductor processing tool between two locations in the semiconductor processing tool ( See at least Para 0004, 0036 – 0042 and 0067 – 0070; also figure 8),
the base structure having a first side configured to contact (See at least Para 0004 – 0010, also figure 8), and be supported by a portion of the object transfer apparatus and a second side facing in a direction opposite the first side (See at least Para 0042, 0044,0046, also figure 8);
an optical sensor oriented so as to have a field of view when the base structure is oriented with the first side facing downward (See at least Para 0004, 0019 and 0080);
a controller communicatively connected with the optical sensor (See at least Para 0025); a power source configured to provide power to at least the controller (See at least Para 0011); however, Hossein et al does not further shows the sensor is upward facing.
Huang et al shows the sensor is upward facing (See at least figure 4 for sensor 1331 and 1332 is upward facing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide upward facing sensor as taught by Huang et al, for the tool characteristic evaluation of Hossein, since providing known upward facing sensor of Huang et al, would provide improvement for similar semiconductor wafer processing in further measurement as desired by Hossein yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Hossein et al shows the optical sensor is an imaging sensor (See at least Para 0080).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossein et al (WO 2021/022291) in view of Huang et al (US Pat Pub No. 2008/0118338) and further in view of Chen et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/00198091).
Regarding claim 3, Hossein et al show the optical sensors is coupled with a lenses with a field of view (See at least Para 0080 for wide enough to capture portion of edge ring); howver, Hossein modified does not further states the field of view is at least 30 degree.
Chen et al shows the lense with a field of view at least 30 degree (See at least Para 0050 for image sensor with wide angle fisheye lense with at least 30 degree).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide specific wide angle lense apparatus of Chen, at the time of filing, for the wide field of view desired by Hossein, in order to provide known fisheye lense, for the optical sensor of Hossein, in order to yield predictable result desired by Hossein capturing the edge of the ring.
Regarding claim 20, Hossein shows inductive charging coil coupled to the power source (See at least Para 0107).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights