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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-18
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The term “process medium” is understood to mean an ion beam.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a process medium source configured to generate a process medium along a process medium path” in claim 1. This limitation is interpreted to correspond to an ion implantation system
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 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, 5-6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0189927 A1 [Satoh] in view of US 2005/0251279 A1 [Ray].
Regarding Claim 1:
Satoh teaches a workpiece characterization system (abstract), comprising:
a process chamber (Fig. 4 (106));
a process medium source configured to generate a process medium along a process medium path (Fig. 4 (102 & 104) represents an ion implantation system);
a workpiece support having a support surface defining a support plane (Fig. 4 (126)), wherein the workpiece support is configured to selectively support a workpiece on the support surface and to selectively expose the workpiece to the process medium along the process medium path within the process chamber (para 31);
a sensor (Fig. 5 (200));
a coupling apparatus operably coupled to the sensor (Fig. 5 (182)).
However, Satoh fails to teach
an actuator arranged downstream of the support plane when viewed along the process medium path, wherein the actuator is operably coupled to the coupling apparatus and configured to selectively translate the sensor along a generally helical curvilinear sensor path between a first position and a second position via the coupling apparatus, wherein the sensor is positioned downstream of the support plane in the first position when viewed along the process medium path, and wherein the sensor is positioned at least partially upstream of the support plane in the second position when viewed along the process medium path, wherein the sensor is configured to detect a peripheral edge of the workpiece in the second position.
Ray teaches an ion beam implantation system (para 30) comprising
a sensor (Fig. 4 (400) sensor head in annotated image below);
a coupling apparatus operably coupled to the sensor (Fig. 4 (410, 404)); and
an actuator arranged downstream of the support plane when viewed along the process medium path (Fig. 4 (426), para 35 – a motor pivots the sensor), wherein the actuator is operably coupled to the coupling apparatus and configured to selectively translate the sensor along a curvilinear sensor path between a first position and a second position via the coupling apparatus (as shown in Fig. 4 and described in para 35, the sensor is actuated rotationally and vertically around pivot (426) between multiple measuring positions), wherein the sensor is positioned downstream of the support plane in the first position when viewed along the process medium path, and wherein the sensor is positioned at least partially upstream of the support plane in the second position when viewed along the process medium path (both of these positional requirements with respect to the support plane are demonstrated in the disposition shown in Fig. 4. Furthermore, since the both the workpiece and the sensor are moveable, these positions are clearly within the capabilities of the actuator), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a peripheral edge of the workpiece in the second position (para 35). Further, it is noted that actuating the sensor rotationally and vertically about pivot (426) results in a sensor path that is approximately a short helical curve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the sensor, coupling apparatus, and actuator of Ray to Satoh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to align the wafer prior to processing. Ray para 34-36.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 1, wherein the coupling apparatus comprises a guide member (Ray Fig. 4 (404)) and sensor arm (Ray Fig. 4 (410)), wherein the actuator is configured to selectively control a motion of the sensor arm with respect to the guide member, thereby controlling a motion of the sensor along the curvilinear sensor path (Ray paras 34-35).
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 2, wherein the sensor arm has a first end portion and a second end portion, wherein the first end portion is operably coupled to the actuator and the second end portion is operably coupled to the sensor. See Ray Fig. 4 (410) above.
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 1, wherein the actuator, the coupling apparatus, and the sensor are generally shielded by one or more of the workpiece and the workpiece support when the sensor is in the first position. As shown in Ray Fig. 4 above.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises one or more of a photoelectric sensor, a light curtain, and a laser. Ray Fig. 4 (420), para 35.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is further configured to selectively translate the sensor along the curvilinear sensor path to an intermediate position between the first position and the second position. While passing from one position to another the actuator of Ray moves the sensor through an intermediate path. Further, since the actuator rotates the sensor arm, any applicable path is curvilinear.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0189927 A1 [Satoh] in view of US 2005/0251279 A1 [Ray] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 5,134,301 [Kamata].
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 1, but fails to specify that the workpiece support comprises an electrostatic chuck.
Kamata teaches using an electrostatic chuck in an ion implantation system. 4:26-29. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art decades before the effective time of filing to use an electrostatic chuck, such as the one taught by Kamata, as the workpiece support of Satoh. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow the wafer to be fixed while mitigating contamination from ion impingement on an exposed holder. Kamata 4:23-29.
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0189927 A1 [Satoh] in view of US 2005/0251279 A1 [Ray] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 8,545,165 [Moura].
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 1, further comprising a controller configured to control the actuator and the sensor (Ray para 37),
wherein the actuator is configured to provide positional data associated with the translation of the sensor along the curvilinear sensor path to the controller (Ray para 38), and
wherein the controller is configured to determine a relative position of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece support based on the detection of the peripheral edge of the workpiece by the sensor and the positional data from the encoder (Ray para 35-37).
However, the above modified invention fails to specify:
That the actuator comprises an encoder;
Or that the controller is configured to determine a relative position of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece support based on the positional data from the encoder.
Moura teaches a substrate alignment device (abstract) including actuators with encoders (6:38-43) wherein a controller is configured to determine a relative position of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece support based on the positional data from the encoder (8:28-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the encoder of Moura to the motor of Ray and the controller functionality of Moura to the controller of Ray since this would help the controller determine the position of the workpiece based on the actuation of the pivot motor.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 7, wherein the workpiece support further comprises a robot configured to selectively rotate the workpiece support about a support axis (Ray Fig. 4 (438)), and wherein the controller is further configured to control the robot and to determine the relative position of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece support concurrent with the selective rotation of the workpiece support (Ray para 39).
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 8, wherein the peripheral edge of the workpiece comprises an alignment feature defined therein (Ray Fig. 4 (422)), and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the relative position of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece support further based on a detection of the alignment feature by the sensor (Ray paras 35-37).
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the workpiece characterization system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to determine the relative position of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece support at a plurality of rotational positions of the workpiece support about the support axis (Ray para 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the term robot is sufficiently supported by the specification. This is persuasive.
The 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejections of claims 8-10 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Ray fails to teach the claimed curvilinear path being generally helical. This is not persuasive. Ray demonstrates two sensor movement paths. First, tilting the sensor from pivot (426). This results in the sensor head moving up and down with respect to the workpiece. Second, twisting the sensor as it is connected to sleeve (404), which results in rotational movement with respect to the workpiece. The combination of rotation movement and vertical movement yields a generally helical path.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881