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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are examined herein.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final Rejection dated 23 April 2026.
All objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of Claim 1 (and Claim 11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The combination of WO 2023/069463 (Thaulad et al., hereinafter, Thaulad), WO 2025/002723 (Leterme et al., hereinafter, Leterme), and U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0391196 (Kim et al., hereinafter, Kim) teaches every limitation of Claim 1 (and Claim 11).
Regarding Feature 1: Kim teaches determining vertical displacement with a laser sensor (first displacement sensor 111 in FIG. 6). First displacement sensor 111 of Kim is oriented the same direction as the first sensors in Leterme and Thaulad (points upwards). Use of second displacement sensor 112 of Kim is not required or considered for the combination. The combination is using a specific sensor like first displacement sensor 111 of Kim to both find the mark (analogous to openings 13, 14 of Leterme) and make vertical measurements. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Feature 2: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant appears to argue that the claims require movement back and forth to be related to the position determination of the dummy wafer, this is not required, the claims merely require, “determine a position of the dummy wafer…after the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth” (emphasis added). Furthermore, “appreciate the orthogonality of the X and Y axes” is not recited in the claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to Applicant’s argument that Leterme does not disclose using “two opposite edge-points”, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider scanning the edges of the openings 13, 14 of Leterme (see at least Leterme [0058]) to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
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, 4, 7-8, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaulad in view of Leterme in further view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Thaulad discloses An automatic teaching system, configured for teaching a position of a semiconductor wafer relative to a semiconductor system (see at least [0109]), wherein the semiconductor system comprises a first device and a second device, the first device comprises a holder, the second device comprises an end effector configured to transport the semiconductor wafer between the first device and the second device (see at least Figure 8A: wafer station 844a / processing chamber 850 with wafer support area 802, wafer-handling robot 856 with end effector 858), and the automatic teaching system comprises:
a dummy wafer, comprising a mark, wherein the dummy wafer is or is to be either removed from the holder by the end effector or placed on the holder by the end effector (see at least [0191], [0257]-[0261], Figure 8A, Figure 15, and Figure 16: “As also shown in Figure 8A, the wafer-handling robot 856 is supporting the calibration wafer 814 described herein on the end effector 858 in preparation for placing the calibration wafer 814 on the wafer support area 802 of the wafer support 852”; “Figure 15 depicts a calibration wafer having a center through-hole positioned on a wafer support having a fiducial. The calibration wafer 1514 here has a through-hole 1516 at the calibration wafer's 1514 center”; “In some implementations, the calibration wafer may have a plurality of through-holes. Figure 16 depicts a calibration wafer having a plurality of through-holes”); and
a first sensor, fixed to the first device, configured to determine a position of the dummy wafer … after the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth according to a first axis within the first device (see at least [0109], [0153], [0190], Figure 8G, and Figure 12: “AWC system 866 is associated with the wafer station 844a and includes two vertically oriented optical beam sensors (represented by the dots within the AWC system 866) that may detect when an edge of a wafer crosses through either optical beam”; “The present disclosure contemplates an autocalibration system, e.g., an adaptive positioning system, that may be used in conjunction with an AWC system (or similar apparatus) and/or wafer-handling robot in order to, among other things, provide for automated teaching of the AWC system and/or the wafer-handling robot for a semiconductor processing tool; such a system may be used for automated teaching of a wafer-handling robot either under vacuum or atmospheric pressure, as the chambers within which the teaching occurs may be sealed as they would be during normal semiconductor processing operations. Such an autocalibration system may also allow for various aspects of component or wafer placement to be evaluated and/or corrected, as needed, in order to comply with process requirements”; “Once the calibration wafer is acceptably centered, the calibration wafer may then be used to train the AWC of the semiconductor processing tool”; “AWC system 866 may be used to determine the center location of a wafer supported by an end effector 858 of the wafer-handling robot 856 of the tool relative to a particular, known frame of reference, thereby allowing a determination to be made as to any positioning corrections that may need to be made before placing the wafer at a desired location”; in Thaulad, the AWC sensors are optical beam sensors).
Thaulad does not explicitly disclose configured to determine a position … by locating, via the first sensor, two opposite first edge-points of the mark.
Leterme, in the same field of semiconductor manufacturing systems, and therefore analogous art, teaches configured to determine a position … by locating, via the first sensor, two opposite first edge-points of the mark (see at least [0057]-[0058], [0063], Fig. 3, and Fig. 7: “The calibration sensor 9 may be arranged adjacent to the second substrate support 3. An optional second calibration sensor 10 may be provided adjacent to the substrate carrier CH. In a practical embodiment, the first calibration sensor 9 is an optical sensor. The sensor may comprise a light source, such as a laser or lamp, and a corresponding detector. The sensor 9 is preferably located adjacent to the store unit (SU)”; “In an embodiment, the end-effectors 6, 7 each comprise a small opening 13, 14. The location of the openings 13, 14 in the respective end-effector is known. Herein, the location of said openings 13, 14 could be pre-calibrated with respect to the coordinate system of the respective robot arm. The light of the light source can propagate through the opening 13, 14 when the hole is positioned above the light source. When this happens, the light of the light source can be detected by the detector and the end-effector position can be calibrated relative to the position of the light source of the calibration sensor 9. In a practical embodiment, the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”; “In a first step, see Figure 7, the second robot arm 5 may be calibrated with respect to the storage location using the second calibration sensor 10. As the position of the second calibration sensor 10 is known with respect to the substrate carrier CH, the position of the end effector 7 of the second robot arm 5 is also known, for instance when the opening 14 aligns with the sensor 10. This optional step may be included to allow accurate takeover of a substrate W from the storage location”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use of the known technique of detecting the position of an object by detecting openings (marks) with a sensor of Leterme with the similar device of a calibration wafer with through-holes in an environment with an optical sensor of Thaulad to improve the similar device in Thaulad in the same way as Leterme. The motivation for the combination would be to add another method of calibration to Thaulad that requires only software and no additional hardware, this would be a relatively low-cost change since it would not require hardware and would provide a calibration option when there is not time to use the autocalibration wafer or the autocalibration wafer is being serviced. In this combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the movement described for the end effector of Leterme (i.e., moving the end effector so light shines around edges of the opening) would now happen to the openings in the dummy wafer mounted to the end effector.
Leterme teaches “Calibration of a respective robot arm herein may include one or more of calibration of translation, rotation, and height (referred to as R, phi and Z calibration)” (see at least [0061]); however, the Thaulad and Leterme combination does not explicitly disclose a first sensor…configured to determine whether a height between the first sensor and the dummy wafer meets a predetermined value.
Kim, in the same field of semiconductor manufacturing systems, and therefore analogous art, teaches a first sensor…configured to determine whether a height between the first sensor and the dummy wafer meets a predetermined value (see at least [0021]-[0022], [0068], and [0105]: “at least one displacement sensor configured to measure a first displacement in a vertical direction”; “In one embodiment, the displacement sensors 111 and 112 may include a first displacement sensor 111 configured to measure a first displacement of the end effector 22 and a second displacement sensor 112 configured to measure a second displacement of the end effector 22. Herein, the first displacement may be a vertical displacement of the end effector 22 and the second displacement may be a horizontal displacement of the end effector 22. The displacement sensors 111 and 112 may be, for example, laser displacement sensors including a laser light source and a light receiving element, but it is not limited thereto, and various displacement sensors may be applied according to embodiments”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Thaulad and Leterme combination with the teachings of Kim. Specifically, to make the simple substitution of the more generally disclosed sensors of Thaulad and Leterme for one with the ability to measure depth of Kim. The motivation to combine is to calibrate in the z-direction in addition to the calibration of Thaulad and Leterme with one single sensor.
Regarding Claim 4, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the first sensor is configured to locate two opposite second edge-points of the mark after the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth along a second axis within the first device, wherein a second coordinate of the dummy wafer in the second axis relative to the second device is a function of a coordinate of one of the two opposite second edge-points or a coordinate of another of the two opposite second edge-points (see at least Leterme [0058] and [0061]: “rotation and orientation (R, phi) are calibrated”; “the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”).
Regarding Claim 7, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Thaulad further discloses wherein the mark is in a shape of a pill, a rectangle, or a circle; wherein the mark is located either at a center of the dummy wafer, close to an edge of the dummy wafer, along a diameter of the dummy wafer, or perpendicular to the diameter of the dummy wafer; wherein the mark is a through-hole or a non-penetrating indentation (see at least Figure 15 and Figure 16: through-hole 1516, through-holes 1616A-C).
Furthermore, Leterme teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the mark is in a shape of a pill, a rectangle, or a circle; wherein the mark is a through-hole or a non-penetrating indentation (see at least Fig. 7: opening 14); wherein the two opposite first edge-points are aligned to the first axis when the dummy wafer is moved according to the first axis (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scanning an edge would result in points oriented to an axis of movement).
Regarding Claim 8, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, wherein the end effector is configured to transport the semiconductor wafer from a first position to a second position; wherein the first position has a first coordinate, a second coordinate, and a first height equal to the predetermined value plus a first offset value; wherein the second position has the first coordinate, the second coordinate, and a second height equal to the predetermined value minus the first offset value would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as this generally discusses the ability to move an end effector in the vertical direction, which is taught by at least Leterme ([0045]-[0048]). The motivation for vertical movement of the end effector is to enable more options for positioning of a wafer.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein a first coordinate of the dummy wafer in the first axis relative to the second device is determined according to a coordinate of one of the two opposite first edge-points or a coordinate of another of the two opposite first edge points (see at least Leterme [0058], [0063], and Fig. 7: “the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”; “As the position of the second calibration sensor 10 is known with respect to the substrate carrier CH, the position of the end effector 7 of the second robot arm 5 is also known, for instance when the opening 14 aligns with the sensor 10”).
Regarding Claim 13, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein light from the first sensor is aligned or passed through the mark or a geometric feature of the end effector before the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth, and the geometric feature of the end effector is positioned corresponding to the mark; or the dummy wafer has a polar coordinate before the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth (see at least Leterme [0061] and [0089]: “Calibration of a respective robot arm herein may include one or more of calibration of translation, rotation, and height (referred to as R, phi and Z calibration)”; one of ordinary skill understands that calibration starts with an initial position and the position is updated, therefore, there is a polar coordinate that is further corrected by the motion).
Regarding Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Thaulad further discloses wherein the first device is a load lock (see at least [0047] and [0188]: “In some embodiments, the semiconductor processing tool may include a load lock for transferring wafers between different pressure environments, the first wafer station may be in the load lock, and the first wafer support may be a structure in the load lock”; “Wafer stations may, for example and without limitation, exist within a process chamber or process chambers of the tool, in buffers used to store wafers before or after processing, in airlocks or loadlocks that allow wafers to be transferred between environments at different pressures, load ports, front-opening unified pods (FOUPs) that may be docked to a load port, etc.”), the second device is an equipment front end module (EFEM) (see at least [0189]), and the holder is at least one load lock pin (see at least [0104]-[0108]: “in many semiconductor processing machines, vertically-translating lift pins positioned in the wafer support may be used to lift wafers off of a wafer-handling robot end effector, allowing the end effector to then be moved out from underneath the wafer without moving the wafer. The lift pins may then be controlled to lower the wafer onto the wafer support”).
Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the first axis is a rotation axis, wherein a polar coordinate of the dummy wafer relative to the second device is determined according to a polar coordinate of one of the two opposite first edge points and a polar coordinate of another of the two opposite first edge-points (see at least Leterme [0058], [0061], and [0063]: “rotation and orientation (R, phi) are calibrated”; “the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”; “the second robot arm 5 may be calibrated with respect to the storage location using the second calibration sensor 10. As the position of the second calibration sensor 10 is known with respect to the substrate carrier CH, the position of the end effector 7 of the second robot arm 5 is also known, for instance when the opening 14 aligns with the sensor 10”).
Regarding Claim 16, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the dummy wafer has a first coordinate and a second coordinate before the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth (both Thaulad and Leterme are directed to calibration, calibration is updating coordinates, so there are coordinates before movement), wherein a second sensor fixed to the first device (see at least Thaulad Figure [0190]: “AWC system 866 is associated with the wafer station 844a and includes two vertically oriented optical beam sensors (represented by the dots within the AWC system 866)”) is configured to determine the first coordinate and the second coordinate of the dummy wafer by detecting the mark or another mark on the dummy wafer, configured to determine the first coordinate and the second coordinate of the dummy wafer by detecting the mark or another mark on the dummy wafer (in the combination presented, either / both of the sensors of Thaulad can be used to detect the mark for calibration, Leterme discusses having multiple sensors that can be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider calibration could use either and both sensors interchangeably).
Regarding Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 8, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaulad in view of Leterme in further view of Kim in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0173870 (hereinafter, Otts).
Regarding Claim 2, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination suggests (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein a first coordinate of the dummy wafer in the first axis relative to the second device is determined according to an average of coordinates of the two opposite first edge-points (see at least Leterme [0058], [0063], and Fig. 7: “the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”; “As the position of the second calibration sensor 10 is known with respect to the substrate carrier CH, the position of the end effector 7 of the second robot arm 5 is also known, for instance when the opening 14 aligns with the sensor 10”).
Otts, in the same field of robotic calibration, and therefore analogous art, explicitly teaches calibration according to an average of coordinates of the two opposite first edge-points (see at least [0028]-[0029] and FIG. 3: determining a coordinate based on the average of edge points).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination with the teachings of Otts. Specifically, to make the simple substitution of the specific method of scanning an edge of Otts into the generically disclosed scanning of Leterme with the motivation of using a known method of scanning for calibration.
Regarding Claim 3, the Thaulad, Leterme, Kim, and Otts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, Kim, and Otts combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein light from the first sensor is aligned or passed through the mark or a geometric feature of the end effector before the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth, and the geometric feature of the end effector is positioned corresponding to the mark; or the dummy wafer has a polar coordinate before the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth (see at least Leterme [0061] and [0089]: “Calibration of a respective robot arm herein may include one or more of calibration of translation, rotation, and height (referred to as R, phi and Z calibration)”; one of ordinary skill understands that calibration starts with an initial position and the position is updated, therefore, there is a polar coordinate that is further corrected by the motion).
Regarding Claim 5, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Thaulad further discloses wherein the first device is a load lock (see at least [0047] and [0188]: “In some embodiments, the semiconductor processing tool may include a load lock for transferring wafers between different pressure environments, the first wafer station may be in the load lock, and the first wafer support may be a structure in the load lock”; “Wafer stations may, for example and without limitation, exist within a process chamber or process chambers of the tool, in buffers used to store wafers before or after processing, in airlocks or loadlocks that allow wafers to be transferred between environments at different pressures, load ports, front-opening unified pods (FOUPs) that may be docked to a load port, etc.”), the second device is an equipment front end module (EFEM) (see at least [0189]), and the holder is at least one load lock pin (see at least [0104]-[0108]: “in many semiconductor processing machines, vertically-translating lift pins positioned in the wafer support may be used to lift wafers off of a wafer-handling robot end effector, allowing the end effector to then be moved out from underneath the wafer without moving the wafer. The lift pins may then be controlled to lower the wafer onto the wafer support”).
Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination suggests (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the first axis is a rotation axis, wherein a polar coordinate of the dummy wafer relative to the second device is determined according to an average of polar coordinates of the two opposite first edge-points (see at least Leterme [0058], [0061], and [0063]: “rotation and orientation (R, phi) are calibrated”; “the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”; “the second robot arm 5 may be calibrated with respect to the storage location using the second calibration sensor 10. As the position of the second calibration sensor 10 is known with respect to the substrate carrier CH, the position of the end effector 7 of the second robot arm 5 is also known, for instance when the opening 14 aligns with the sensor 10”).
Otts, in the same field of robotic calibration, and therefore analogous art, explicitly teaches calibration according to an average of… coordinates of the two opposite first edge-points (see at least [0028]-[0029] and FIG. 3: determining a coordinate based on the average of edge points).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination with the teachings of Otts. Specifically, to make the simple substitution of the specific method of scanning an edge of Otts into the generically disclosed scanning of Leterme with the motivation of using a known method of scanning for calibration. While, Otts has different primary axes, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the rotational axes of Leterme for the combination.
Regarding Claim 6, the Thaulad, Leterme, Kim, and Otts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Furthermore, the Thaulad, Leterme, Kim, and Otts combination teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the dummy wafer has a first coordinate and a second coordinate before the end effector moves the dummy wafer back and forth (both Thaulad and Leterme are directed to calibration, calibration is updating coordinates, so there are coordinates before movement), and the automatic teaching system further comprises: a second sensor, fixed to the first device (see at least Thaulad Figure [0190]: “AWC system 866 is associated with the wafer station 844a and includes two vertically oriented optical beam sensors (represented by the dots within the AWC system 866)”), configured to determine the first coordinate and the second coordinate of the dummy wafer by detecting the mark or another mark on the dummy wafer (in the combination presented, either / both of the sensors of Thaulad can be used to detect the mark for calibration, Leterme discusses having multiple sensors that can be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider calibration could use either and both sensors interchangeably).
Regarding Claim 17, the Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Thaulad further discloses wherein the mark is in a shape of a pill, a rectangle, or a circle; wherein the mark is located either at a center of the dummy wafer, close to an edge of the dummy wafer, along a diameter of the dummy wafer, or perpendicular to the diameter of the dummy wafer; wherein the mark is a through-hole or a non-penetrating indentation (see at least Figure 15 and Figure 16: through-hole 1516, through-holes 1616A-C).
Furthermore, Leterme teaches (as part of the same combination / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the mark is in a shape of a pill, a rectangle, or a circle; wherein the mark is a through-hole or a non-penetrating indentation (see at least Fig. 7: opening 14).
While Leterme teaches scanning the edges to determine coordinates (see at least Leterme [0058], [0063], and Fig. 7: “the light source and detector of the calibration sensor scan edges of the openings 13, 14 and as such find the respective position”; “As the position of the second calibration sensor 10 is known with respect to the substrate carrier CH, the position of the end effector 7 of the second robot arm 5 is also known, for instance when the opening 14 aligns with the sensor 10”), The Thaulad, Leterme, and Kim combination does not explicitly teach the specific method of scanning the edges, therefore does not explicitly teach wherein a first coordinate of the dummy wafer in the first axis is determined according to the two opposite first edge-points, a second coordinate of the dummy wafer in a second axis is determined according to two opposite second-edge points of the mark, and the two opposite second edge-points are spatially distinct from the two opposite first edge-points.
Otts, in the same field of robotic calibration, and therefore analogous art explicitly teaches a first coordinate … in the first axis determined according to the two opposite first edge-points, a second coordinate of …in a second axis is determined according to two opposite second-edge points of the mark, and the two opposite second edge-points are spatially distinct from the two opposite first edge-points (see at least [0021], [0028]-[0029], and FIG. 3: “In accordance with an embodiment, the position of a landmark can be identified by scanning the landmark in a first direction to determine a first edge of the landmark and a second edge of the landmark based on reflections received by the laser sensor. A first center point of the landmark on a first axis can then be determined based on the first edge and the second edge. The landmark can then be scanned in a second direction, orthogonal to the first direction, from the first center point of the landmark to determine a third edge and a fourth edge. A second center point of the landmark on a second axis can then be determined based on the third edge and fourth edge. Scanning of the landmark can continue in this manner until a plurality of center points are identified within a preset distance of each other. In some embodiments, an average of the center points can be calculated and stored as the landmark center point. In some embodiments, the robotic arm can be aligned with a plurality of landmarks on the work surface by repeating the above-described process”).
Therefore, a first coordinate of the dummy wafer in the first axis is determined according to the two opposite first edge-points, a second coordinate of the dummy wafer in a second axis is determined according to two opposite second-edge points of the mark, and the two opposite second edge-points are spatially distinct from the two opposite first edge-points would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, after substituting the specific method of scanning an edge of Otts into the generically disclosed scanning of Leterme with the motivation of using a known technique to accurately determine calibration.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights