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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As for claim 2, ‘is further to: …. or the speed of the inspection device’ appears to be an intended use recitation.
The examiner notes that ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 3, ‘is to: map, based …locations of the target’ appears to be an intended use recitation. As well ‘to generate the output data representative of the state of the target’ appears to refer back to an intended use recitation in claim 1 (‘to: cause the sensor … generate, based on the plurality of time-mapped signals, output data representative of a state of the target.’).
The examiner notes that ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 4, ‘wherein the plurality of time-mapped signals comprises: surface reflectivity for the plurality of locations of the target’ refers back to an intended use recitation in claim 1 (‘to: cause the sensor to generate a plurality of time-mapped signals …data representative of a state of the target.’).
As for claim 5, ‘wherein the plurality of time-mapped signals are representative of at least one of: a vertical profile of a region of the target, or a horizontal profile of a portion of the target’ refers back to an intended use recitation in claim 1 (‘to: cause the sensor to generate a plurality of time-mapped signals …data representative of a state of the target.’).
As for claim 6, ‘wherein the target comprises at least one of: a chuck, a substrate supported by the chuck, an edge ring, or a space between the chuck and the edge ring’ refers back to intended use recitations in claim 1 (‘to detect the sensing light from a target located within a processing chamber’ and ‘to: cause the sensor …locations of the target, and generate … a state of the target.’)
As for claim 10, ‘is to control at least one: a degree … on the robot blade’ appears to be an intended use recitation.
The examiner notes that ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richardson (2017/0053819)-cited by applicant.
As for claim 1, Richardson in a wear detection of consumable parts in semiconductor equipment discloses/suggests the following: an apparatus (Figs. 1, 3, 4A, 4B, 5B, and 8) comprising: an inspection device (Fig. 1: 112; Fig. 5B: 504 with 506: noting paragraphs 0079-0081) comprising: a sensor (paragraph 0011: lines 23-29; paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0069) comprising a light source (paragraphs 0054 0069) to generate sensing light (an intended use recitation), and a light detector (paragraph 0011: lines 23-29; paragraphs 0054-0069) to detect the sensing light reflected from a target located within a processing chamber (an intended use recitation); a robot comprising a robot blade (Fig. 1: 108 with Fig. 3: 322 and 332 and 324 and paragraph 0066; Figs. 4A: 404a and 404b: wherein, transfer arms, end effectors being interpreted as robot’s blades) to support transporting the inspection device into the processing chamber (an intended use recitation); and an electronics module (Fig. 1: 122 with paragraphs 0038 and 0041; FIG. 8: 800 with paragraph 0092) to:cause the sensor to generate a plurality of time-mapped signals, wherein each signal of the plurality of time-mapped signals is (i) associated with a respective time of a plurality of times and (ii) representative of the sensing light reflected from a respective location of a plurality of locations of the target, and generate, based on the plurality of time-mapped signals, output data representative of a state of the target (intended use recitation).
As for the intended use recitations mentioned above, the examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 2, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). And Richardson discloses/suggests the electronics module (Fig. 1: 122 with paragraphs 0038 and 0041; FIG. 8: 800 with paragraph 0092) is further to: set at least one of a speed of the inspection device or a sampling rate of the plurality of time-mapped signals based on (i) a spatial resolution of the plurality of time-mapped signals and (ii) another one of the sampling rate of the plurality of time-mapped signals or the speed of the inspection device (an intended use recitation).
As for the intended use recitation mentioned above, the examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 3, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). And Richardson discloses/suggests the electronics module (Fig. 1: 122 with paragraphs 0038 and 0041; FIG. 8: 800 with paragraph 0092) is to: map, based on a speed of the inspection device, individual signals of the plurality of time- mapped signals to corresponding locations of the plurality of locations of the target (intended use recitation). And ‘wherein to generate the output data representative of the state of the target’ refers back to an intended use recitation in claim 1.
As for the intended use recitation mentioned above, the examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 4, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). ‘Wherein the plurality of time-mapped signals comprises: surface reflectivity for the plurality of locations of the target’ refers back to intended use recitations in claim 1.
The examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 5, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). ‘Wherein the plurality of time-mapped signals are representative of at least one of: a vertical profile of a region of the target, or a horizontal profile of a portion of the target’ refers back to intended use recitations in claim 1.
The examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 6, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). ‘Wherein the target comprises at least one of: a chuck, a substrate supported by the chuck, an edge ring, or a space between the chuck and the edge ring’ refers back to intended use recitations in claim 1.
The examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 8, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (claim 1). In addition, Richardson discloses/suggests the inspection device comprises: a memory buffer (paragraph 0038, 0041, 0092, 0096, 0097) to store the plurality of time-mapped signals prior to communication of the plurality of time-mapped signals to the electronics module (intended use recitation).
The examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 9, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (claim 1). In addition, Richardson discloses/suggests a wireless communication circuit (paragraph 0011, 0077, 0094, claim 11 of Richardson) to communicate the plurality of time-mapped signals to the electronics module (intended use recitation).
The examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 10, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). And Richardson discloses/suggests the electronics module (Fig. 1: 122 with paragraphs 0038 and 0041; FIG. 8: 800 with paragraph 0092) is to control at least one of: a degree of an extension of the robot blade into the processing chamber, or a degree of rotation of the inspection device on the robot blade (intended use recitation).
As for the intended use recitation mentioned above, the examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
As for claim 11, Richardson in a wear detection of consumable parts in semiconductor equipment discloses/suggests the following: a manufacturing system (Figs. 1, 3, 4A, 4B, 5B, and 8) comprising: one or more processing chambers (Fig. 1: 114 with Fig. 3: 320a-320d); an inspection device (Fig. 1: 112; Fig. 5B: 504 with 506: noting paragraphs 0079-0081) comprising: a sensor (paragraph 0011: lines 23-29; paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0069) comprising a light source (paragraphs 0054 0069) to generate sensing light (an intended use recitation), and a light detector (paragraph 0011: lines 23-29; paragraphs 0054-0069) to detect the sensing light reflected from a target located within a processing chamber (an intended use recitation); a robot comprising a robot blade (Fig. 1: 108 with Fig. 3: 322 and 332 and 324 and paragraph 0066; Figs. 4A: 404a and 404b: wherein, transfer arms, end effectors being interpreted as robot’s blades) to support transporting the inspection device into the processing chamber (an intended use recitation); and an electronics module (Fig. 1: 122 with paragraphs 0038 and 0041; FIG. 8: 800 with paragraph 0092) to:cause the sensor to generate a plurality of time-mapped signals, wherein each signal of the plurality of time-mapped signals is (i) associated with a respective time of a plurality of times and (ii) representative of the sensing light reflected from a respective location of a plurality of locations of the target, and generate, based on the plurality of time-mapped signals, output data representative of a state of the target (intended use recitation).
As for the intended use recitations mentioned above, the examiner notes the following: ‘it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (2017/0053819)-cited by applicant in view of Marx et al. (2007/0148792).
As for claim 7, Richardson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for the light source and the light detector are arranged in a triangulation distance detection configuration, Richardson is silent. Richardson mentions that the sensor is one of a depth camera, or a confocal chromatic measurement device, or a low coherence interferometry measurement device, or a capacitance distance sensor, or a color change detector (paragraph) 0011) as well as notes that non-contact profilometry may be used such as with confocal chromatic measurements and low coherence interferometry (paragraph 0030). Nevertheless, Marx in a wafer measurement system and apparatus teaches a method and apparatus for the measurement of wafer thickness, flatness, and localized shape (abstract); wherein, non-contact optical instrumentation may be the use of chromatic confocal sensor, white light interferometry, and laser triangulation (paragraphs 0018 and 0026). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Richardson’s confocal chromatic measurement device or low coherence interferometry measurement device with a light source and a light detector arranged in a triangulation distance detection as is taught Marx to achieve the predictable result of non-contact profilometry when optically profiling wafers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 appear to be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights