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 of Invention 1 (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 30 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “212” has been used to designate both the mold chucks (see Figure 2 and [0046]) and the substrate chuck (see Figure 11B). The substrate chuck is designated “201” elsewhere in the disclosure.
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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the implied phrase “The present invention provides” and is written in claim format, reciting the transitional phrase “comprising:” followed by a listing of elements. The abstract should be a concise statement of the technical disclosure in narrative form. The abstract further refers to “a driving error in the driver”, for which there is no antecedent, because the abstract does not recite “a driver”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0025], “the uncured composition 3 suppled (applied) onto the substrate 2” should be replaced with “the uncured composition 3 supplied (applied) onto the substrate 2”.
In [0037], the sentence beginning “For example, the supply module 300 may be additionally or alternatively provided” states that the supply module 300 is provided with a heat treatment module, a film formation module, or an alignment module. It appears that the planarization apparatus 100 is provided with such a module additionally or alternatively with respect to the supply module 300. Clarification is required.
In [0042], “generate a negative pressure in the convex portion” should be replaced with “generate a negative pressure in the concave portion”. See the preceding sentence, which recites that a concave portion communicating with a negative pressure generator is formed in the holding surface of the substrate chuck 201.
In [0054], “a suction hole formed in the second hand 603” should be replaced with “a suction hole formed in the second hand 602”. Reference character “603” designates the third hand. See [0095] and Figure 12A.
In [0070], “determined from the movement of the mold chucks 212 in the substrate conveyance process” should be replaced with “determined from the movement of the mold chucks 212 in the mold conveyance process”. See [0058] and [0065].
In [0079], the final sentence states that the height Eb of the first hand 601 estimated from the detection result obtained by the downward sensor 215 is sometimes called the “estimated height Ea”. It appears that this should be the estimated height Eb. See Figure 9C.
In [0080], the expression defining the driving error uses the estimated height Ea. It appears that this should be the estimated height Eb. See Figure 9C and [0079].
In [0097], “the substrate having the composition molded in the molding step” should be replaced with “the substrate having the composition shaped in the shaping step”, for consistency with the shaping step recited earlier in the same sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “conveying the first member to the first holder” should be replaced with “conveying the first member to a first holder”. Claim 9 does not previously recite a first holder.
In claim 9, “the detector detects a height of the first member held by the first hand” should be replaced with “the detector detects the height of the first member held by the first hand”, for consistency with the earlier recitation of “a detector configured to detect a height of the first member held by the first hand”.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a controller configured to control a first process of conveying the first member to a first holder with the first hand and a second process of conveying the second member to a second holder with the second hand”, and further recites “wherein the first holder is configured to move in the height direction” and “wherein in the first process, after the first hand is driven in the height direction by the driver, the first holder is moved in the height direction so as to bring the first member held by the first hand into contact with the first holder”.
It cannot be determined whether the first holder and the second holder are elements of the claimed conveyance apparatus. Neither holder is recited among the elements introduced by the transitional phrase “comprising”, which recites a first hand, a second hand, a support member, a driver, and a controller. The holders are first recited only as destinations within the functional recitation of the controller. The claim nevertheless requires that the first holder be configured to move in the height direction and that the first holder be moved in the height direction, which are limitations on the first holder itself rather than on any element recited as part of the conveyance apparatus.
It further cannot be determined whether claim 1 requires that the recited movement of the first holder actually occur. The clause “the first holder is moved in the height direction so as to bring the first member held by the first hand into contact with the first holder” recites an affirmative act and does not identify what performs it. The same clause identifies the driver, a recited element, as performing the driving of the first hand, but identifies nothing as performing the moving of the first holder. The act is not recited as a capability or configuration of the controller or of any other recited element. A claim directed to an apparatus that also recites an act to be performed is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether infringement occurs upon manufacture of the apparatus or upon its use. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), and IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The specification does not indicate that the conveyance apparatus performs the recited movement. [0046] states that the mold chucks 212, identified as the first holders, “are configured to be movable in the height direction (Z direction) by the driving mechanisms 209”, and [0029] identifies the driving mechanisms 209 as part of the planarization module 200, which is a unit separate from the conveyance apparatus 600.
Claim 1 further recites that the controller is configured to control driving of the second hand by the driver in the second process “based on a driving error in the driver which is determined from movement of the first holder in the first process”. The claim does not identify what determines the driving error. It therefore cannot be determined whether the claimed apparatus is required to determine the driving error, or whether the claim is satisfied by a controller configured to control driving of the second hand using a driving error determined elsewhere.
The remaining claim language does not resolve the ambiguity. Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that “the controller is configured to obtain, as an estimated height, a height of the first hand based on movement of the first holder in the first process and determine a difference between the estimated height and the target height as the driving error”. The express recitation in claim 2 that the controller performs the determination indicates that claim 1 does not require the controller to perform it, leaving unclear what, if anything, in the claimed apparatus does.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as requiring that the driving error on which the controller bases its control of the second hand be one determined from movement of the first holder in the first process. Under that interpretation, claim 1 is not met by the prior art of record, for the reasons given in the statement of allowable subject matter below, and no rejection over the prior art is made at this time. Under the alternative interpretation, in which the recitation “which is determined from movement of the first holder in the first process” is given no patentable weight, a rejection over JP 2017-139261 A (“Maki”) would be appropriate. Because the claim as presently worded is amenable to both interpretations, applicant is invited to clarify whether the determination of the driving error is performed by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2173.06(II).
Claims 2-8 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiency. Claims 3 and 4 further recite a height of the first holder and a movement amount by which the first holder is moved, respectively. Claim 10 is rejected based on its incorporation of the conveyance apparatus of claim 1, notwithstanding that claim 10 positively recites a first holder and a second holder.
Claim 8 recites “a detector configured to detect a temporal change in an interval between the first hand and the second hand in the height direction”. The metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be ascertained.
It is unclear what quantity the recited “interval” is. The term “interval” ordinarily denotes a span of time, and it appears in the claim immediately after the recitation of “a temporal change”, which reinforces a temporal reading. The modifier “in the height direction”, however, indicates that the interval is a distance, namely the difference between the height of the first hand and the height of the second hand. The claim thus recites a change over time in a quantity that is itself ambiguous as between a duration and a distance, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine which is required.
The specification describes the intended quantity but does not clarify the claim language. [0087] states that the interval between the first hand 601 and the second hand 602 in the height direction sometimes changes over time, and [0091] describes the controller 700 obtaining the difference between the detected height of the first hand 601 and the detected height of the second hand 602 and determining, as a temporal change amount G, the amount by which that difference has changed from a specified design value. The term “interval” is not defined or otherwise explained anywhere in the disclosure, however, and it appears throughout the specification only within the same phrase used in the claim. [0091] further states that the upward sensors 214 and the downward sensor 215 “may be understood as detectors that detect a temporal change in the interval between the first hand 601 and the second hand 602 in the height direction”, which is permissive and restates the claim language rather than defining it. A reader who attempts to resolve the ambiguity by reference to what the recited detector does is likewise not assisted, because [0089] through [0091] describe the sensors as detecting the heights of the two hands and the controller 700 as determining the change in their difference.
For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as reciting one or more detectors that detect the height of the first hand and the height of the second hand, together with a change over time in the difference between those heights.
Claim Interpretation
The first member and the second member recited in claims 1 and 9 are articles worked upon by the claimed apparatus and are not positively recited elements of the claimed conveyance apparatus. The recitations of a first hand “configured to hold a first member” and a second hand “configured to hold a second member” require that the hands be capable of holding such members. See MPEP 2115.
The recitations in claims 1 and 9 that the controller is “configured to” control the recited processes require that the controller be actually programmed or otherwise made to perform the recited functions, and not merely that the controller be capable of being so programmed. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Claim 10 positively recites “a first holder configured to hold the mold” and “a second holder configured to hold the substrate”. Claim 10 incorporates the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1 by reference, and claim 1 recites a first holder and a second holder as destinations of a first process and a second process controlled by a controller. Claim 1 does not recite either holder as an element of the claimed conveyance apparatus. The first holder and the second holder of claim 10 are interpreted as the holders referred to in claim 1, as confirmed by the final clause of claim 10, which recites that the conveyance apparatus conveys the mold as the first member to the first holder and conveys the substrate as the second member to the second holder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017-139261 A (“Maki”) (cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Maki discloses a conveyance apparatus (a transport arm F3 of a coating and developing apparatus 1; Figure 1 and [0013] and [0014] of the provided translation), comprising:
a first hand configured to hold a first member (one of two forks 25 provided on a rotating table 24, each fork 25 having claw portions 26 with suction holes 27 that adsorb and hold the peripheral edge of the back surface of a wafer W; [0015], [0016]);
a second hand configured to hold a second member (the other of the two forks 25, which Maki states is configured similarly to the first and is likewise used to hold and transfer wafers; [0015], [0016]);
a support member configured to support the first hand and the second hand (the rotating table 24 provided on the lifting platform 23, on which the two forks 25 are provided one above the other and are configured to move independently between an advanced position and a retracted position; [0015]);
a driver configured to drive the first hand and the second hand in a height direction by driving the support member in the height direction (The lifting mechanism comprising a motor 42, a pulley, and a belt, the lifting platform 23 being attached to the belt and raised and lowered by rotation of the motor 42 ([0019]). Maki states that the encoder 43 of the motor 42 outputs pulses as signals corresponding to the height position of each fork 25, and that displacement of the encoder value corresponds to displacement of the height of the lifting platform 23, that is, of the height of the fork 25 ([0020]).);
a controller configured to control a first process of conveying the first member to a first holder with the first hand and a second process of conveying the second member to a second holder with the second hand (The control unit 4, which executes a processing program 4A for transporting wafers W between modules ([0030]) and which controls the fork 25 to receive a wafer W from the transfer module TRS3 and to convey and deliver it to the pins 13 of the transfer module TRS31 ([0021]-[0025]). The pins 13 of the transfer modules, which support the wafer W in the region outside that held by the fork 25, correspond to the recited first and second holders ([0009], [0023]).); and
a detector configured to detect a height of the first member held by the first hand (the exhaust pressure sensor 31 provided in the exhaust pipe 29 connected to the suction holes 27 of the fork 25, together with the control unit 4 executing the detection program 4B; [0017], [0030]).
Regarding the requirement that in the first process, after the first hand is driven in the height direction by the driver, the detector detects a height of the first member held by the first hand, Maki discloses that the fork 25 is positioned at a receiving preparation height and the lifting platform 23 is then raised, during which the claw portions 26 contact the back surface of the wafer W and the fork 25 receives the wafer W, the height of the fork 25 at that moment being the receiving height ([0022], [0023]). The control unit 4 acquires time-series data of the exhaust pressure while the fork 25 rises, processes the data to identify the elapsed time at which the pressure change is greatest, and identifies from the encoder transition data the encoder value at that elapsed time as the encoder value for the receiving height ([0035]-[0039]). Because the wafer W is adsorbed and held on the claw portions 26 at that moment, the encoder value so identified is a detected height of the wafer W held by the fork 25. Maki further discloses obtaining the corresponding height on the delivery side, by acquiring time-series data of the exhaust pressure as the fork 25 descends to deliver the wafer W to the transfer module TRS31 and identifying the encoder value at the transmission height position ([0058]).
Regarding the requirement that the controller be configured to control driving of the second hand by the driver in the second process based on a driving error in the driver which is determined from a detection result obtained by the detector in the first process, Maki discloses that the correspondence between the encoder value and the height of the fork 25 becomes inaccurate due to belt slippage and reduction in belt tension, so that a discrepancy arises between the actual height of the fork 25 and the set height of the fork 25 ([0026]), and that this discrepancy shifts the transfer height at each module uniformly from the preset height ([0027]). Maki discloses calculating the difference between the average of the detected receiving-height encoder values and the receiving height setting value stored in the memory 44, and, where that difference is outside an acceptable range, correcting the receiving setting value and the sending setting value stored for each module by the amount corresponding to that difference ([0029], [0040], [0041], steps S1 to S5). Subsequent transfers are then performed on the basis of the corrected setting values, and the deviations from the set heights are thereby eliminated ([0044], [0045]).
The difference so determined is a driving error in the driver, because Maki attributes it to belt slippage and reduced belt tension in the lifting mechanism rather than to any property of the wafer W or of the modules ([0026]). The corrected setting values control the driving of the second hand as well as the first. The two forks 25 are both carried on the rotating table 24 of the single lifting platform 23, which is raised and lowered by the single motor 42, and the encoder values corrected at step S5 correspond to the height position of each fork 25 ([0015], [0019], [0020]). Accordingly, driving of the second fork 25 in a subsequent conveyance process is controlled on the basis of a driving error in the driver determined from the detection result obtained in the first process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 is rejected, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki.
To whatever extent Maki is deemed not to disclose expressly that the corrected setting values control driving of the second fork 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the correction of step S5 to conveyance processes performed by either of the two forks 25. Maki teaches that both forks 25 are raised and lowered together by the single lifting platform 23 driven by the motor 42, that the encoder value corresponds to the height position of each fork 25, and that the discrepancy shifts the transfer heights uniformly ([0015], [0020], [0027]). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that a discrepancy arising in the shared lifting mechanism affects both forks identically, and would have applied the corrected setting values to transfers by either fork in order to obtain Maki’s stated benefit of eliminating deviations from the set heights ([0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious a conveyance apparatus in which, in a first process, the first holder is moved in the height direction so as to bring the first member held by the first hand into contact with the first holder, and in which the controller is configured to control driving of the second hand by the driver in a second process based on a driving error in the driver which is determined from movement of the first holder in the first process, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-8 and 10 depend from or incorporate claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reason.
Maki is the closest prior art. As set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above, Maki discloses a transport arm having two forks 25 carried on a rotating table 24 of a lifting platform 23 raised and lowered by a single motor 42, and discloses determining a discrepancy between the actual height of the fork 25 and the set height of the fork 25, which Maki attributes to belt slippage and reduced belt tension in the lifting mechanism, and correcting the stored setting values by that amount. Maki further contemplates providing a lifting mechanism to raise and lower the transfer module TRS3 and correcting the height of that module in accordance with the determined difference ([0062]). In Maki, however, the difference is in every case determined from the encoder value output by the motor 42 that drives the lifting platform 23, that is, from the movement of the fork 25 itself. Maki does not disclose determining a driving error in the driver from movement of the holder to which the member is transferred by the hand.
JP 2017-050534 A (“Sueki”) discloses a substrate processing apparatus in which lift pins are raised and lowered by a servo motor and a contact detection unit monitors the accumulated pulse, the difference between the command pulse and the feedback pulse, of the motor driver in order to detect the height position at which the tips of the lift pins contact the lower surface of an object placed on the substrate support surface, and in which the height position of the lift pins is adjusted on the basis of that detection. Sueki is directed to determining and adjusting the height position of the lift pins themselves. Sueki discloses no conveyance apparatus, no hand, and no determination of a driving error in a driver that drives a hand.
US 2009/0051370 A1 (“Doki”) discloses detecting a delivery position in the vertical direction between a position detecting substrate and rising and lowering pins by means of capacitance detection electrodes carried on the position detecting substrate, and adjusting the moving position of a transfer arm on the basis of the detected mounting position. In Doki, the detection is performed by electrodes provided on a dedicated position detecting substrate rather than being determined from movement of the holder, and the transfer arm is lowered to deliver the substrate onto the pins.
The remaining references of record likewise determine the position or the error of the same structure whose movement is measured. None determines a driving error in a driver that drives a hand from movement of a separate holder to which the member is transferred by that hand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0285492 A1 (“Matsuhira”) discloses a conveyance apparatus of an imprint apparatus in which a detection unit 24 detects the height of a substrate while the substrate is conveyed by the hand of a first conveyance unit 21a, and a control unit 25 determines from the resulting height distribution the conveyance path along which the hand of a second conveyance unit 21b subsequently conveys the substrate to the stage 12. The detected quantity is the shape of the substrate rather than a driving error in a driver, and the two conveyance units are separately driven.
US 5,640,440 (“Kuno”) discloses a substrate conveying system in which a hand and a wafer chuck each hold a wafer by vacuum attraction, a pressure sensor in the chuck’s vacuum line detects the pressure change occurring when the wafer contacts the chuck’s attraction surface, and the position of the hand at that moment is stored as the wafer transfer position. Overrun of the hand beyond that position, attributed to an error in the set pulse number or uncontrolled run of the hand, is discriminated as an abnormality and the drive motor is stopped.
US 2009/0142163 A1 (“Genetti”) discloses a wafer transfer robot having dual end effectors that are fixed relative to each other and move in unison, and further discloses measuring wafer position error during transfer to an intermediate station and supplying that error data to a second robot, which uses it to apply corrections when picking from that station.
US 2006/0138367 A1 (“Kondoh”) discloses teaching of transfer positions in the Z axis, including detection of the height difference between a mapping sensor on a transfer base and the end effectors of two substrate transfer arms.
US 2019/0018316 A1 (“Hosaka”) discloses an imprint apparatus in which a controller determines a driving correction amount and applies it to the driving amount used during handover of a mold between a mold conveyance mechanism and a mold driving mechanism, based on thickness information for the mold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J. DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights