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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi et al. (TW202142967A, hereinafter referred to as Carcasi) in view of Sorabji et al. (US20150050118A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sorabji”).
Regarding claim 1, Carcasi teaches a system comprising: a substrate support configured to support and rotate a substrate; a sensor positioned above the substrate support; and control logic configured to: cause the sensor to generate a plurality of images of an area of the substrate support and a portion of the substrate in a field of view of the sensor during rotation of the substrate support (met by providing a substrate in a fluid distribution system and spin-coating a material on the substrate; further met by using a camera to obtain image data of the substrate over time while the material is being spin-coated onto the substrate). This is read in (Page 3, Paragraph 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
111
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carcasi fails to teach performing edge detection using the plurality of images to identify a first edge of the substrate and a second edge of the substrate support, wherein performing the edge detection using an image comprises, for each of a plurality of scan lines within a region of interest in the image, determining a first point representing the first edge of the substrate and a second point representing the second edge of the substrate support based on applying one or more intensity thresholds; generate data representing a gap distance between the first edge and the second edge over time. However, Sorabji amends these deficiencies.
Sorabji teaches position sensors (1014) and (1016) to ensure that a substrate (1002) is properly centered relative to an edge ring (1003) of the substrate support (1004), further teaching position sensors capable of detecting a distance between an edge (1006) of the substrate (1002) and a side wall (1005) of the edge ring (1003)). This is read in (Paragraph [0094]). These meet detecting edge points implicitly by being able to identify a distance between the edge of the substrate and the edge ring of the support. The intentional goal of the claimed limitation is therefore met by the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
308
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carcasi to incorporated the teachings of Sorabji in order to provide methods and apparatus for rapid thermal processing of a planar substrate including axially aligning the substrate with a substrate support or with an empirically determined position (Abstract).
Sorabji further teaches determining, from the data, a magnitude and a direction of an offset between a first center of the substrate and a second center of the substrate support (met by find the center position of the edge ring (1003) for the substrate (1002) to be positioned; further met by the distance (1008) measured at each spot may be compared to find a theta adjustment value); convert the offset to a set of coordinates within a coordinate system of a robot that places the substrate (met by the theta adjustment value contains an adjustable distance for the X axis and an adjustable distance for the Y axis. The adjustable distances are adjustments required for the edge ring (1003) to be moved into the center position in the X and Y axis); and provide the set of coordinates to the robot for use in centering a next substrate on the substrate support (met by Signal then may be sent to the robotic arm to pick up the substrate (1002) from the support pins (1007) and transfer the substrate (1002) to a proper position on the substrate support (1004). This is read in (Paragraph [0095]).
PNG
media_image3.png
435
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
472
415
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Carcasi teaches wherein the control logic is further to identify the region of interest as a sub-area located at edges of the substrate support and the substrate (met by analyzing a subset of the collected pixels of the data). This is read in (Page 3, Paragraph 4). The edge detection capabilities as previously taught in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, enable this subset to be read as a sub area located at the edges of the substrate support and the substrate.
PNG
media_image5.png
139
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sorabji teaches, having a uniform lamp reflection from heat lamps of a process chamber (met by apparatus or process capable of uniformly heating a wafer; further met by RTP chamber might include a lamp or other suitable heating system and heating system control). This is read in (Paragraph [0053]).
PNG
media_image6.png
414
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sorabji teaches wherein the offset comprises an X offset value and a Y offset value, and wherein, to convert the offset, the logic is further to: determine a reference angle set within a factory interface aligner, the reference angle corresponding to a location of a flat or notch of the substrate (met by inner surface (914) may also include an alignment mark (919) that may be used as reference for facilitating the alignment of a corresponding alignment mark (904) provided on the substrate; further met by the alignment mark (904) on the rim of the substrate (902) may be a notch). This is read in (Paragraph [0093]).
PNG
media_image7.png
209
415
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Carcasi teaches to rotate each of the X offset value and the Y offset value by the reference angle to generate a rotated X offset value and a rotated Y offset value (met by maintain a similar angle to the reference plane of the light source and the optical sensor). This is (Page 6, Paragraph 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
299
1076
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding 11, the claim is substantially identical to claim 3, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is substantially identical to claim 4, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is substantially identical to claim 3, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi in view of Sorabji and in further view of McCrackin et al. (US20250095136A1, hereinafter referred to as McCrackin).
Regarding claim 2, Carcasi in view of Sorabji fails to teach the sensor coupled to a light source; a borescope comprising a lengthened lens oriented towards the substrate support; and an infrared filter attached to a bottom of the borescope. However, McCrackin amends this deficiency.
McCrackin teaches a head assembly (632) including one or more emitters (634) as well as a camera (636) of the borescope (600)).
PNG
media_image9.png
218
392
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carcasi in view of Sorabji to incorporated the teachings of McCrackin in order to provide a location of a work area and a size of the work area before and after a repair has been performed (Abstract).
Carcasi meets the light source and infrared light filter aspect (met by exemplary light sources; further met by cameras may include integrated filters that block the IR spectrum). This is read in (Page 7, Paragraph 1).
PNG
media_image10.png
122
1066
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 13-17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 recites wherein the control logic is further to: calculate a distance from a center of the robot to a center of an end effector of the robot when placing the substrate; and calculate a robot rotation value by translating the rotated X offset value into the robot rotation value by dividing the rotated X offset value by 360 times the distance. The prior art fails to teach these limitations in the context of the preceding claims upon which claim 5 depends.
Claim 6 recites to determine the magnitude of the offset, the control logic is to: calculate a plurality of offset values between first points of the first edge and corresponding second points of the second edge; average the plurality of offset values; and multiply the averaged value by a scaling factor to convert from pixels to a distance value. The prior art fails to teach these limitations in the context of the preceding claims upon which claim 6 depends.
Claim 7 recites to rotate the image by the rotation angle to create a rectangular image array; identify the plurality of scan lines across the rectangular image array; and filter each scan line using an averaging filter followed by a linear interpolation of each scan line to increase an effective resolution of each scan line. The prior art fails to teach these limitations in the context of the preceding claims upon which claim 7 depends.
Claim 8 recites to scan pixels of the scan line from a substrate side to a substrate support side of the region of interest; identify the first point on the first edge upon detecting a threshold drop in intensity of the pixels, wherein a combination of first points forms the first edge; and identify a second point on the second edge upon detecting a minimum intensity of the pixels, wherein a combination of second points forms the second edge. The prior art fails to teach these limitations in the context of the preceding claims upon which claim 8 depends.
Claim 9 recites to remove one or more of the first points that deviate from a straight line by a threshold percentage; or remove one or more of the second points that deviate from a straight line by the threshold percentage. The prior art fails to teach these limitations in the context of the preceding claims upon which claim 9 depends.
Claim 13 is substantially identical to claim 5, the objection of which is incorporated herein.
Claim 14 is substantially identical to claim 6, the objection of which is incorporated herein.
Claim 15 is substantially identical to claim 7, the objection of which is incorporated herein.
Claim 16 is substantially identical to claim 8, the objection of which is incorporated herein.
Claim 17 is substantially identical to claim 9, the objection of which is incorporated herein.
Claim 20 contains subject matter from claim 5, the objection of which is incorporated herein.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK whose telephone number is (703)756-5378. The examiner can normally be reached 8a-5p.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights