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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/22/2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending. Claim 9 has been canceled.
The amendments to claim 15 were not found sufficient to overcome the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The previous rejection was for the recitation of “an outside face” in line 5 as well as line 6. However, the amendment to the claim did not clarify or address this. As a result, claim 15 remains rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 16-20 are rejected by dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 under 35 USC 102 (pages 7-9 of Remarks filed 06/22/2026) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 103 as Boenick in view of Electronic Design does not teach using or suggest using the light in a semiconductor manufacturing system, which is the missing element (page 9, paragraphs 5 and 6 of Remarks filed 06/22/2026), the examiner agrees and upon further consideration, the claim is rejected in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) and Wiltsche (US20170148658A1). However, the examiner disagrees the claim requires a use in a semiconductor manufacturing system. Claim 10 (which claim 12 depends upon) requires a deposition sensor, and in this case the preamble “for a semiconductor manufacturing system” does not limit the structure of the claim. The body of the claim fully sets forth all limitations of the claim invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention. Therefore, claim 10 only requires a sensor and any prior art used to reject claim 12 also only requires a sensor with LED that transmit red, green and blue light.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments against the use of Berry in view of Boenick in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 (page 10, paragraphs 2-5 of Remarks filed 06/22/2026), the examiner agrees Boenick no longer teaches the amended limitations. However, upon further consideration, claim 1 is rejected in view of Lin (US20210140824A1). Further, regarding the applicant’s argument that there is no need for an additional contamination detection solution in Berry (page 10, paragraph 5 of Remarks filed 06/22/2026), the combination of Berry in view of Lin does not provide an additional contamination detection, but rather places the existing photodetector which monitors the system taught by Berry outside of the chamber and behind a clear panel as taught by Lin. Berry discloses the photodetector may be inside the chamber, or it may be an external detector attached to an optical fiber (paragraph [0029]). The environment of an ion implantation chamber is high destructive and abrasive to the internal parts due to the nature of the high-energy ion beam used. Therefore, placing the photodetector outside of the chamber and behind a clear panel enables the photodetector to continue monitoring the system without being exposed to the destructive environment of the chamber.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the use of Berry in the rejection of claim 15 (page 10-11 of Remarks filed 06/22/2026) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 6 and 16 under 35 USC 103 (page 11, paragraph 5 through page 12, paragraph 1 of Remarks filed 06/22/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wiltsche (US20170148658A1).
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.
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.
Claim 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "an outside face of the clear panel" in line 6. However, the clear panel is claimed as having “an outside face” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear whether this is the same outside face or a secondary outside face. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting the outside face of line 6 to be the same outside face of line 5.
Claims 16-20 are rejected by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html)
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches a deposition sensor device (120, Fig. 1) for a semiconductor manufacturing system (paragraph [0001] discloses the embodiments are related to the field of semiconductor manufacturing), the sensor device comprising:
a photodetector (138, Fig. 1; paragraph [0032]), a light source (137, Fig. 1), and a clear panel (clear body - 126, Fig. 1);
the clear panel comprising an outside face (side of 126 which is facing towards the chamber) and an inside face (side of 126 which is facing away from the chamber),
wherein the light source is configured to emit light toward the inside face of the clear panel, and the photodetector is configured to receive reflected light from the light source that is reflected from deposits on the outside face of the clear panel (paragraphs [0036]-[0037] discloses the light source sends a light ray through a fiber to the clear body, which is then reflected back towards the photodetector);
wherein the light source and clear panel are configured such that 80% or more light is transmitted through and outside the clear panel when there are no deposits present (paragraph [0028] discloses the clear body may be sapphire, which has a transmission percentages of over 80% for a wide range of wavelengths from approximately 250 nm-1000nm (see table on page 4 of supplemental material titled "The Optical Transmission and Properties of Sapphire Windows" from Shalom EO)).
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches the invention as described above in claim 10 and further the photodetector and light source are coupled to a backing plate (see Fig. 4a, which shows the source 437 and the detector 438 couples to some sort of backing 422) and the inside face of the clear panel is sealed against an outside face of an inner wall of a chamber of the semiconducting manufacturing system (plasma processing environments such as 105 must be sealed in some sort of way. It is the position of the examiner the clear panel is also sealed to the chamber as Fig. 1 shows the clear body 126 protruding along the inner wall of the chamber 105) .
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10 and further teaches a processor that receives input signals from the photodetector (paragraph [0059] discloses a system processor as part of a computer system; paragraph [0057] discloses the computer is coupled to and controls the system ), which would include the photodetector), processes the input signals to a simplified signal (done by processing logic, 626, Fig. 6; paragraph [0060] discloses the processor executes the processing logic to perform the described operations, and transmits the simplified signal to a main processor for the semiconductor manufacturing system (main memory - 604, Fig. 6; paragraph [0059]).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wiltsche (US20170148658A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, but fails to teach the light source comprises LEDs configured to transmit at wavelengths corresponding to red, green, and blue light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Wiltsche teaches an optical sensor (350, Fig. 3) with a red, green and blue LED (paragraph [0043]).
Lin discloses the deposition interacts with the light emitted by the light source and can give insight into the material of the deposits (paragraph [0020]), and it is well-known different light sources react differently with different materials. Red, blue and green are basic and well-known wavelengths that cover a large range of wavelengths. Therefore, using red, blue and green LEDs improves the applicability of the sensor in determining the material and state of the deposits. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Lin with the light source with the red, blue and green LEDs taught in Wiltsche in order to improve the applicability of the sensor.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, and further teaches the light source comprises an LED (paragraph [0031]).
Lin fails to teach the LED is configured to transmit at an infrared wavelength.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Boenick discloses a sensor which uses an infrared LED (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Boenick discloses the use of infrared light has the advantage of minimizing unwanted reflection (paragraph [0022]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Lin with the infrared LED taught by Lin as a way to minimize unwanted reflections.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html).
Regarding claim 1, Berry teaches an ion implantation system (Fig. 1), comprising:
an ion source that generates ions and produces an ion beam (120, Fig. 1) along a beamline (110, Fig. 1);
a mass analyzer positioned downstream of the ion source (134, Fig. 1) that generates a magnetic field according to a selected charge-to-mass ratio and an angle adjustment (paragraph [0026]);
a workpiece target associated with the beamline (105, Fig. 1; paragraph [0027] discloses this may be any type of workpiece);
a controller configured to move the ion beam in relation to a workpiece target; and
a sensor device coupled to a chamber of the ion implantation system, the sensor device comprising a photodetector.
Berry also discloses a second embodiment which teaches a controller configured to move the ion beam in relation to a workpiece target (paragraph [0028] discloses the beam is scanned across the workpiece; paragraph [0029] discloses the scanning is controlled by control electronics depicted by 218 in Fig. 2); and a sensor device coupled to a chamber (212, Fig. 2) of the ion implantation system (204, Fig. 2), the sensor device comprising a photodetector (210, Fig. 2).
Berry discloses the controller allows the speed of the ion beam scanning to be controlled (paragraph [0028]), thus allowing for a wide range of applications. Berry also discloses the addition of a photodetector receiving information from the workpiece allows for the ion implantation device to be varied and adjusted in real time (paragraph [0029]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Barry with the second embodiment of Barry as it allows for the ion implantation device to have a wide range of applications and to be varied and adjusted in real time.
Berry fails to teach the sensor device comprising a light source, and a clear panel;
the clear panel comprising an outside face and an inside face, the outside face facing the chamber, the inside face facing opposite the chamber;
wherein the photodetector is configured to receive reflected light from the light source that is reflected from deposits on the outside face of the clear panel;
wherein the light source and clear panel are configured such that 80% or more light is transmitted through and outside the clear panel when there are no deposits present.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors for monitoring chamber surface conditions, Lin teaches a sensor device to monitor the process inside of a chamber (120, Fig. 1) coupled to a chamber (105, Fig. 1), comprising a clear panel (clear body - 126, Fig. 1), a light source (137, Fig. 1; paragraph [0031]), and a photodetector (138, Fig. 1; paragraph [0032]) configured to receive light from the light source that has been reflected from deposits on the outside of the clear panel (paragraphs [0036]-[0037] discloses the light source sends a light ray through a fiber to the clear body, which is then reflected back towards the photodetector) which may have deposits from the process (paragraph [0020]). The clear panel has an outside face (side of 126 which is facing towards the chamber 105 of Fig. 1) and an inside face (side of 126 facing outside the chamber of Fig. 1). Lin further discloses the clear body may be sapphire (paragraph [0028]), which has a transmission percentage of over 80% for a wide range of wavelengths from approximately 250 nm-1000nm (see table on page 4 of supplemental material titled "The Optical Transmission and Properties of Sapphire Windows" from Shalom EO).
Lin discloses that placing the monitoring elements outside the chamber and behind the clear panel protects them from the processing environment (paragraph [0055]). Therefore, it would be advantageous to place the photodetector taught in Berry outside the chamber and behind a clear panel in order to protect it from the processing environment. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photodetector sensor taught in Berry with the sensor device with a photodetector, light source and clear panel taught in Lin in order to ensure the photodetector was protected from the processing environment.
Regarding claim 2, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the light source emits multiple wavelengths of light (Lin: paragraph [0031] discloses the light source may be a broadband light source).
Lin discloses the deposition interacts with the light emitted by the light source and can give insight into the material of the deposits (paragraph [0020]), and it is well-known different light sources react differently with different materials. Therefore, using a light source the emits multiple wavelengths of light improves the applicability of the sensor in determining the material and state of the deposits. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Lin with the light source with multiple wavelengths of light taught by Lin in order to improve the applicability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a processor that receives input signals from the photodetector (Lin: paragraph [0059] discloses a system processor as part of a computer system; paragraph [0057] discloses the computer is coupled to and controls the system, which would include the photodetector), processes the input signals to a simplified signal (Lin: done by processing logic, 626, Fig. 6; paragraph [0060] discloses the processor executes the processing logic to perform the described operations), and transmits the simplified signal to a main processor (Lin: main memory - 604, Fig. 6; paragraph [0059]) for the ion implantation system.
Processors are well-known and widely used in the art to process and analyze measured data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the processors taught in Lin as they provide an easily accessible and well-known method of processing and analyzing the data measured by the photodetector in the sensor. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Berry as modified by Lin with the processors taught in Lin in order to easily process and analyze the measured data.
Regarding claim 21, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the light source and photodetector are situated immediately adjacent each other and oriented in the same direction (Lin: see 137 and 138 in Fig. 1); and
the photodetector is a wide response detector (Lin: paragraph [0032] discloses the optical detector may be any suitable sensor, including a CCD which is a wide response detector) that detects light in 50 to 100% of a half sphere (Lin: due to the orientation of the housing 122 in Fig. 1, the light would only be able to be detected in a half sphere as the side of the housing block a full 360 degree view).
Placing the light source and photodetector adjacent and oriented in the same direction ensures there is no contamination of the signal being reflected by the deposits as well as cutting down the need for further elements, such as the prism taught in Lin (439, Fig. 4A) needed when the detector and light source are not oriented in the same direction. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Berry as modified by Lin with the light source and detector taught in Lin in order to ensure the proper signals are being measured without the need for extra elements.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bomback (US4755049A).
Regarding claim 3, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a processor that causes the light source to pulse light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ion implantation systems, Bomback teaches a system with a pulsed light source (10, Fig. 1) used in the optical sensing of a workpiece (column 1, lines 51-58 explain this method; column 2, line 49-column 2, line 2 disclose the use of this method in the system).
Bomback discloses using a pulsed light source allows for a nondestructive (reduced risk of thermal damage) method of measuring the ion dose on the workpiece (column 1, lines 61-64), therefore monitoring quality and providing instantaneous feedback (column 2, lines 3-7). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Lin with the pulsed light source taught in Bomback as a way to monitor for quality while remaining nondestructive.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imatake (US5759424A).
Regarding claim 5, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a display screen that is configured to transmit an alert relating to a maintenance event based on signals from the photodetector associated with the reflected light from deposits on the outside face of the clear panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Imatake discloses monitoring a plasma processing apparatus using a monitor device to monitor the state of contamination (column 2, lines 43-48) based on deposits on a window (column 3, lines 63-67 and column 4, lines 1-4) and a display unit (605. Imatake further teaches an alarm to indicate maintenance is needed based on the measurements taken by the monitor device (column 7, lines 32-36).
Imatake discloses the alarm aids in preventing the occurrence of failure and ensuring the system is properly maintained (column 7, lines 34-36). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of detecting depositions taught in Berry as modified by Lin with the alarm indicating needed maintenance taught by Imatake in order to prevent system failure and upkeep the maintenance of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiltsche (US20170148658A1).
Regarding claim 6, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the light source comprises LEDs configured to transmit at wavelengths corresponding to red, green, and blue light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Wiltsche teaches an optical sensor (350, Fig. 3) with a red, green and blue LED (paragraph [0043]).
Lin discloses the deposition interacts with the light emitted by the light source and can give insight into the material of the deposits (paragraph [0020]), and it is well-known different light sources react differently with different materials. Red, blue and green are basic and well-known wavelengths that cover a large range of wavelengths. Therefore, using red, blue and green LEDs improves the applicability of the sensor in determining the material and state of the deposits. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Lin with the light source with the red, blue and green LEDs taught in Wiltsche in order to improve the applicability of the sensor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1).
Regarding claim 7, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the light source comprises an LED (Lin: paragraph [0031] discloses the light source may be an LED) .
Berry as modified by Lin fails to teach the LED is configured to transmit at an infrared wavelength.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Boenick discloses a sensor which uses an infrared LED (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Boenick discloses the use of infrared light has the advantage of minimizing unwanted reflection (paragraph [0022]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Lin with the infrared LED taught by Lin as a way to minimize unwanted reflections.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zani (US20120112323A1).
Regarding claim 8, Berry as modified by Lin teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the chamber is selected from a load lock chamber, a dosimetry system chamber, ion source chamber, and a mass analyzer chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor as ion implantation devices, Zani teaches the use of a load lock chamber (paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Load lock chambers are well-known and widely used in the art of ion implantation systems and have the advantage of reduced contamination and improve process consistency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to do a simple substitution of the known load lock chambers for the general chamber taught in Lin to obtain predictable results of containing the workpiece. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Berry as modified by Lin with the load lock chamber taught in Zani to reduce risk of contamination and improves the process consistency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) in view of Imatake (US5759424A).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses a method for detecting depositions in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (paragraph [0025] discloses the method may extend to detecting deposits) comprising:
conducting ion implantation, etching (paragraph [0019] discloses one of the processes conducted is etching), or deposition operations;
emitting light towards an inside face of a clear panel (paragraph [0036] discloses emitting light towards side of a clear body facing the chamber), the clear panel having the inside face (side of 126 which is facing towards the chamber 105 in Fig. 1) and an outside face (side of 126 which is facing away from the chamber);
detecting light reflected from a deposit on an outside face of the clear panel (paragraph [0037]), the deposit resulting from ion implantation operations (paragraph [0020]);
processing the detected light reflected from the deposit (paragraph [0059] discloses processing all the measurements from the processing system); and
transmitting 80% or more of the emitted light through and outside the clear panel when there are no deposits present (paragraph [0028] discloses the clear body may be sapphire, which has a transmission percentage of over 80% for a wide range of wavelengths from approximately 250 nm-1000nm (see table on page 4 of supplemental material titled "The Optical Transmission and Properties of Sapphire Windows" from Shalom EO)).
Lin fails to teach based on the processing of the detected light reflected from the deposit, transmitting an alert signal for maintenance to be performed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Imatake discloses monitoring a plasma processing apparatus using a monitor device to monitor the state of contamination (column 2, lines 43-48) based on deposits on a window (column 3, lines 63-67 and column 4, lines 1-4). Imatake further teaches an alarm to indicate maintenance is needed based on the measurements taken by the monitor device (column 7, lines 32-36).
Imatake discloses the alarm aids in preventing the occurrence of failure and ensuring the system is properly maintained (column 7, lines 34-36). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of detecting depositions taught in Lin with the alarm indicating needed maintenance taught by Imatake in order to prevent system failure and upkeep the maintenance of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) in view of Imatake (US5759424A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lin as modified by Imatake teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the light source comprises an LED (Lin: paragraph [0031]).
Lin as modified by Imatake fails to teach the LED is configured to transmit at an infrared wavelength.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Boenick discloses a sensor which uses an infrared LED (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Boenick discloses the use of infrared light has the advantage of minimizing unwanted reflection (paragraph [0022]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Lin as modified by Imatake with the infrared LED taught by Lin as modified by Imatake as a way to minimize unwanted reflections.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) in view of Imatake (US5759424A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wiltsche (US20170148658A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lin as modified by Imatake teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, but fails to teach the light comprises wavelengths corresponding to red, green, and blue light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Wiltsche teaches an optical sensor (350, Fig. 3) with a red, green and blue LED (paragraph [0043]).
Lin discloses the deposition interacts with the light emitted by the light source and can give insight into the material of the deposits (paragraph [0020]), and it is well-known different light sources react differently with different materials. Red, blue and green are basic and well-known wavelengths that cover a large range of wavelengths. Therefore, using red, blue and green LEDs improves the applicability of the sensor in determining the material and state of the deposits. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Lin as modified by Imatake with the light source with the red, blue and green LEDs taught in Wiltsche in order to improve the applicability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 20, Lin as modified by Imatake modified by teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the emitted light is from an LED (Lin: paragraph [0031]) and detected light is detected by a photodiode (Lin: 138, Fig. 1; paragraph [0032]), and the LED and the photodiode are situated immediately adjacent each other and oriented in the same direction (Lin: see 137 and 138 in Fig. 1).
Lin as modified by Imatake fails to teach the emitted light is from a multi-colored LED array.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Wiltsche teaches an optical sensor (350, Fig. 3) with a red, green and blue LED (paragraph [0043]).
Lin discloses the deposition interacts with the light emitted by the light source and can give insight into the material of the deposits (paragraph [0020]), and it is well-known different light sources react differently with different materials. Red, blue and green are basic and well-known wavelengths that cover a large range of wavelengths. Therefore, using red, blue and green LEDs improves the applicability of the sensor in determining the material and state of the deposits. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Lin as modified by Imatake with the light source with the red, blue and green LEDs taught in Wiltsche in order to improve the applicability of the sensor.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) in view of Imatake (US5759424A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20200303266A1).
Regarding claim 18, Lin as modified by Imatake teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches comparing the detected light to light detection data previously gathered (Lin: paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) to determine that maintenance of the semiconductor apparatus is due (Imatake: column 7, lines 32-36).
As discussed above in claim 15, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of detecting depositions taught in Lin with the alarm indicating needed maintenance taught by Imatake in order to prevent system failure and upkeep the maintenance of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus.
Lin as modified by Imatake fails to teach the data is compiled through machine learning.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ion implantation processes, Jeong teaches monitoring a condition of the ion implantation process using reinforcement learning (paragraph [0029] discloses the reinforcement learning is a type of machine learning; S130, Fig. 1; paragraph [0005]).
Machine learning is well-known in the art to optimize iterative tasks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the known technique of machine learning as taught in Jeong to improve the data gathering and detection taught in Lin as modified by Imatake to yield predictable results of determining when maintenance of the system is needed. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Lin as modified by Imatake with the machine learning taught in Jeong and be able to achieve the predictable result of optimizing the maintenance operation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lin (US20210140824A1) as evidenced by Shalom EO (https://www.shalomeo.com/optical-transmission-properties-sapphire-windows-shalomeo.html) in view of Imatake (US5759424A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zani (US20120112323A1).
Regarding claim 19, Lin as modified by Imatake teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, but fails to teach in operation a vacuum is applied to a chamber immediately adjacent the outside face of the clear panel.
However, Zani discloses a vacuum chamber which houses the object being worked on (paragraph [0051]).
Zani discloses an advantage of having the object being worked on in a vacuum chamber is that workpiece may be inserted and removed without having to pump up or down the entire system (paragraph [0051]), therefore making the operation easier and more streamlined. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Lin as modified by Imatake with the vacuum chamber taught in Zani in order to achieve an easy and streamlined operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights