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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1
“map generator” element 211 of image processing apparatus 200 of Fig 4 and described in at least ¶ [0074]-[0083] and evaluation of the image data to generate the map described in Fig 6A, 6B and ¶ [0084]-[0086], Fig 12, 13 and ¶ [0109]-[0116] and further described in with flow chart of Fig 15, 16 and ¶ [0123]-[0130].
Claim 11
“temperature controller” is identified as element 85 of Fig 4, 10 and described to heat and cool the fluid upstream of the fluid flow occurring in the storage space, described in at least ¶ [0087]-[0091], [0105]-[0106].
Claim 13
“additive supply” is identified as the additive unit 86 of Fig 4, 10 and described as an additive that changes the refractive index made of organic solvent (acetone vaporized) and can also be considered the gas supply 78, described in at least ¶ [0091]-[0092], [0110].
Claim 16
“coefficient modifier” is identified as the coefficient modification unit 222 of Fig 12 and described to reduce the coefficient of the map data, such as reducing image data components through filtering to better identify a patter, such as the vertical and horizontal stripe pattern identified in the image data by means of a two-dimensional polynomial, described in at least ¶ [0111]-[0116].
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, each are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amano et al (US 2017/0287703).
Regarding Claim 22, Amano et al teach a substrate processing apparatus (substrate processing system 1; Fig 1 and ¶ [0045]); comprising:
a storage space where a substrate is accommodated (the wafer holding unit 210 contains a storage to accommodate a plurality of substrates; Fig 2, 4 and ¶ [0046], [0057], [0068]);
a camera directed toward the storage space (an imaging device 270 (camera imaging functional unit 501) is used to image the wafers directed toward the storage unit 604; Fig 6 and ¶ [0070]); and
a pattern provided to extend within a field of view of the camera, captured by the camera via the storage space, and configured to change the image to be captured by the camera, according to a change in refractive index of the fluid in the storage space (the measurement processing device 601 measures a cut width (pattern) of the wafer from the image using operation process and wafer pattern measurements can be based on refractive indexes and measured by luminance (¶ [0187]); Fig 6, 10, 11 and ¶ [0080]-[0084], [0105]-[0109], [0122]-[0126]).
Regarding Claim 23, Amano et al teach a method of visualizing a fluid flow distribution in a storage space of a substrate processing apparatus where a substrate is accommodated (method of visualizing and measuring a processing fluid on a wafer in a substrate processing system 1; Fig 1-6 and ¶ [0045], [0056], [0083]-[0085]), the method comprising:
acquiring an image of a pattern provided to extend within a field of view of the camera and configure to be captured by a camera through the storage space, the camera being directed toward the storage space (the measurement processing device 601 measures a cut width (pattern) of the wafer from the image using operation process (¶ [0105]-[0109], [0122]-[0126]) and wafer pattern measurements can be based on refractive indexes and measured by luminance (¶ [0187]); Fig 6, 11 and ¶ [0080]-[0084]); and
generating map data indicating the fluid flow distribution in the storage space based on a change of the image acquired in the acquiring (the wafer is chemically and thermally processed to create the substrate pattern (¶ [0087]-[0095]) and image data is then taken and analyzed to quantify the wafer film pattern processing, including the chemical fluid flow during manufacturing; Fig 10, 11 and ¶ [0105]-[0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, prior art was not found to teach all of the limitations as claimed by the applicant when interpreting the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) including the map generation unit 211 that analyzes the fluid flow distribution which is based on flow velocity, flow rate and flow direction with image fluctuations analyzed using a Schlieren effect analysis and determining differences in the pixel values between a reference and evaluation image based on evaluation of functional blocks of data and identification of partial fluctuations in pattern data determined based on the refractive index of the fluid based on an optical angle axis of the light emitted from the projection device and associated camera vibration which image data may then be used to generate matrix data while accounting for the Schlieren effect, as claimed by the applicant as described in prose in the specification and shown with at least flow charts 15, 16, as cited above under the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation. Claims 2-21 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore allowable for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye et al (A flow feature detection method for modeling pressure distribution around a cylinder in nonuniform flows by using a convolutional neural network) teach a method and system for analyzing fluid flow based on computational fluid dynamics with consideration of inlet flow profiles to model the pressure distribution in a cylinder.
Low et al (Computational Fluid dynamics Modelling of Microfluidic Channel for Dielectrophoretic BioMEMS Application) teach a method and system for analyzing a microfluidic channel to determine flow distribution including analysis of the flow velocity over the multiple fluidic channels
Kitamura et al (US 2017/0116721) teach a substrate displacement system and method based on identification of wafer not correctly located in a predetermined reference position based on correlative data between a first image and a reference image to determine object positioning accuracy.
Amano et al (US 2026/0215211, application 19/181,762) is from the same applicant and teaches a measurement processing process to measure a width of a film based on imaging unit data to determine a substrate film width determined by a measurement system but does not teach the entirety of the applicant’s claimed invention as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) including determining the Schieren effect associated with the refractive index of the fluid and the optical angle of the light emitted to determine the image fluctuations as associated with the fluidic flow, velocity and rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights