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Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7-30-26.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 7-30-26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims recite structural relationship, indicating that they are intrinsically linked by their specific features and purpose, rather than being distinct invention and despite the different classifications, the core technical subject matter of both inventions revolves around the precise adjustment of brush tilt for wafer cleaning. The underlying technical principles, problem solved, and inventive contribution are common to both groups of claims. This is not found persuasive because similar claim limitations can have different interpretations based on the claim being directed to a method vs an apparatus resulting in the inventions having acquired different classifications and a separate status requiring a different field of search (e.g., searching different class/subclasses or resources, or employing different search strategies or search quarries). As a result, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Inventions I and Il are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as a process that does not including cleaning the wafer such as a polishing process. Additionally, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such as an apparatus that does not include a sensor unit comprising acceleration sensors and a motor torque sensor mounted around the brush and a brush position adjuster comprising position adjustment motors configured to adjust a position of the brush in a vertical direction on both sides of the brush and wherein the brush position adjuster is configured to adjust the position of the brush based on at least one of the estimated tilt of the brush and the position value. The method recites measuring at least one of a rotation torque value and an amplitude of a movement value of the brush by using acceleration sensors but both sensors are not requires as recited in the apparatus. Further the method can include manual adjustments and not adjustments that require adjustment motors.
Applicant further argues that Claim 1 (apparatus) recites a sensor unit comprising acceleration sensors and a motor torque sensor, a brush position adjuster comprising position adjustment motors, and a processing unit configured to detect a position value and estimate the tilt. These structural features directly correspond to the method steps in Claim 10 (method), which include measuring at least one of a rotation torque value and an amplitude of a movement value. by using a motor torque sensor and acceleration sensors, detecting a position value. and estimating the tilt, and adjusting a position of the brush. This demonstrates a strong functional and structural relationship, indicating that they are intrinsically linked by their specific features and purpose, rather than being distinct inventions. However, claim 1 does not require any of the sensor data to be used for estimating the tilt of the brush, whereas claim 10 directing links the measurements to the position values in that claim 10 recites “detecting a position value of each side of the brush and estimating the tilt of the brush based on at least one of the rotation torque value and the amplitude of the movement value”. Therefore claim 1 does not requires the same functional and structural relationship between the sensors and the detected positions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites a sensor unit followed by a processing unit configured for adjusting the position of the brush, however it is unclear if the sensor unit information is used by the processing unit since claim 1 does not link any sensor data resulting from the sensor unit to the final adjustment and recites only “a position value”, which has no relation to the acceleration or torque measurements, as being used in the adjustment.
Claim 1 recites “a motor torque sensor mounted around the brush” however, claim 1 does not require a motor or the brush to have a motor. Therefore, it is unclear how an undefined motor relates to the brush.
Claim 1 recites “the position value” in line 11 of claim 1, however multiple position values were previously defined as “a position value of each side of the brush”, requiring two position value one for each side of the brush. Therefore, it is unclear what “the position value” is referring to.
Claims 1-4 use a variety of phrases to refer to either side of the brush including “both sides”, “each side” and “a first side” and “a second side”. Base in the specification the brush is a cylindrical brush and the sides are the ends of the cylinders. However, it is unclear if this is intended by the claim and if “both sides”, “each side” and “a first side” and “a second side” are synonymous, or referring to different features of the brush.
Claims 2 and 9 recites “a rotation torque value satisfies a preset condition and ...an amplitude of a movement value satisfies the preset condition”. However, a rotation torque value is a different measurement than an amplitude of a movement value and therefore, it is unclear how different measurements can have the same value/preset condition.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) “estimate the tilt of the brush” and “based on at least one of the estimated tilt of the brush and the position value”, these could be a mental steps. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “estimate” and “based on” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing unit” language, “estimate” and “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally judging or estimating positions and tilt of the brush based on visual observation of the brush.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the estimation and position observation is performed the brushes are “adjusted” in an undefiled manner based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. Generically adjusting is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a wafer processing apparatus using a brush and a sensor unit, which are well understood, routine and conventional in the art of semiconductor processing. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
The remaining claims 2-9 further modify the abstract ideas discussed above and/or recite well understood, routine and conventional features in art of semiconductor processing and therefore are not patent eligible for the same reasons above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugarman et al. US2003/0111095 (US’095) in view of Nishijima et al. US2022/0258217 (US’217).
Regarding claim 1, US’095 teaches an apparatus for adjusting a tilt of a brush for cleaning a wafer (a scrubber adapted to clean a semiconductor wafer, the position of the brush relative to the wafer may be adjusted based on the monitored torque to regulate the pressure applied to the wafer by the brush, abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a wafer cleaner configured to clean the wafer using the brush (a scrubber adapted to clean a semiconductor wafer, abstract, para, 19-21 see fig. 1);
a sensor unit comprising a motor torque sensor mounted around the brush (the brush pressure control system 41a includes a torque monitor 43 coupled to the brush rotation motor M, para. 31-32, see fig. 6);
a brush position adjuster comprising position adjustment motors configured to adjust a position of the brush in a vertical direction on both sides of the brush (a motor/actuating mechanism may pivot each pivotable plate 19a and 19b of each brush mounting mechanism 17a-b by a predetermined amount in response to one or more commands from the motion controller 45 so as to accurately position the brushes 15a-b relative to the wafer W, see fig. 1-3, para. 35-38); and
a processing unit configured to detect a position value of each side of the brush and configured to estimate the tilt of the brush wherein the brush position adjuster is configured to adjust the position of the brush based on at least one of the estimated tilt of the brush and the position value (the scrubber 11 may, in one or more embodiments, be configured and/or operated such that the scrubber brushes 15a-b are not parallel to each other. That is, the respective longitudinal axes of the scrubber brushes 15a-b may form an angle (tilt), such that a distance between the first end E1 (FIG. 2A) of the first scrubber brush 15a and the corresponding end of the second scrubber brush 15b is less than the distance between the second end E2 of the first scrubber brush 15a and the corresponding end of the second scrubber brush 15b (or vice versa). To facilitate this angled configuration of the scrubber brushes 15a-b and/or to facilitate adjustment of the operative position of one or both of the brushes 15a-b while preserving a desired angled configuration, the memory 49 (FIGS. 4A and 4B) may store data indicative of home, baseline and/or other desired positions of the two ends of the scrubber brushes 15a-b, para. 54-55, therefore US’095 teaches that the position and angle of the brush relative to the wafer is determined and adjusted).
US’095 does not teach the sensor unit comprising acceleration sensors.
US’217 teaches roll cleaning members can develop eccentricity or other abnormalities due to molding defects or improper installation, which can reduce cleaning performance. The roll cleaner is detachable, therefore there is a need to confirm whether the installed member is acceptable after mounting (para. 3-15, see fig. 2). In an abnormality determination method of a substrate cleaning device according to one aspect of the disclosure, the substrate cleaning device includes: a holder to which a roll cleaning member for cleaning a substrate is attached in a detachable manner; a rotation device which makes the roll cleaning member attached to the holder rotate; and a sensor which measures information concerning a vibration of the roll cleaning member during rotation. The abnormality determination method of the substrate cleaning device according to one aspect of the disclosure determines, based on a measurement result of the sensor, whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member attached to the holder (para. 21). the sensor 72 is not limited to the load cell as long as the sensor 72 measures information concerning a vibration of the roll cleaning member 81 during rotation, and may be an acceleration sensor, an optical sensor that optically detects a rotation shake of the roll cleaning member 81, a camera, or the like (para. 61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’095 to include the sensor unit comprising acceleration sensors because US’217 teaches it can prevent eccentricities or other abnormalities due to molding defects or improper installation, which can reduce cleaning performance and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’095 further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to recognize a point in time when a rotation torque value of a rotation motor rotating the brush, which is measured by the motor torque sensor, satisfies a preset condition, detect the position value of each side of the brush at the point in time when the rotation torque value satisfies the preset condition, and estimate the tilt of the brush based on a point in time when an amplitude of a movement value, measured by the acceleration sensors, satisfies the preset condition (the inventive scrubber 11 may monitor the torque experienced by the scrubber brush rotation motor M (US’095 teaches FIGS. 2A and 3A) during cleaning, and in one or more embodiments, may adjust the position of the scrubber brushes 15a-b based on the monitored torque. Because the torque experienced by the rotation motor M varies in direct relationship with the pressure applied between the scrubber brushes 15a-b and the wafer W, a desired brush pressure can be maintained (e.g., by maintaining the torque experienced by the scrubber brush rotation motor M at a predetermined level and/or within a predetermined range. The motion controller 45 may contain, for example, a look-up table that correlates torque values (e.g., output by the torque monitor 43) to brush position or position adjustments, that contains adjusted brush positions that are correlated to the number of wafers processed or to the total processing time, etc., as further described below with reference to the various brush positioning control operating modes for the scrubber 11. the motion controller 45 and may be used to store data indicative of desired, baseline and/or other predetermined positions of one or both ends of the scrubber brushes 15a-b (e.g., data that correlates torque to brush position, motor position, motor speed, etc.). Such data may be based on, for example, numerous samples (e.g., RMS data or other statistical data). para. 29-33 and US’217 teaches the sensor 72 measures an amplitude of a load applied to the holder 60. For example, as shown in a measurement result 200A of FIG. 7, when the amplitude of the load is equal to or less than a certain prescribed value, it can be determined that the roll cleaning member 81 attached to the holder 60 is normal. In addition, as shown in a measurement result 200B of FIG. 7, when the amplitude of the load exceeds a certain prescribed value, it can be determined that the roll cleaning member 81 attached to the holder 60 is abnormal. Alternatively, the control device 50 may determine whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member 81 based on a change in a phase of the load, a change in a vertical peak width of the load, or the like, para. 66).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. US’095 further teaches wherein the position adjustment motors comprise: a first position adjustment motor provided on a first side of the brush; and a second position adjustment motor provided on a second side of the brush (a motor/actuating mechanism may pivot each pivotable plate 19a and 19b of each brush mounting mechanism 17a-b by a predetermined amount in response to one or more commands from the motion controller 45 so as to accurately position the brushes 15a-b relative to the wafer W, see fig. 1-3, para. 35-38).
Regarding claims 4-5, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, he modified apparatus of US’095 further teaches estimate the tilt of the brush based on a point in time when an amplitude of a movement value, measured by a first acceleration sensor, satisfies a preset condition (US’217 teaches the sensor 72 measures an amplitude of a load applied to the holder 60. For example, as shown in a measurement result 200A of FIG. 7, when the amplitude of the load is equal to or less than a certain prescribed value, it can be determined that the roll cleaning member 81 attached to the holder 60 is normal. In addition, as shown in a measurement result 200B of FIG. 7, when the amplitude of the load exceeds a certain prescribed value, it can be determined that the roll cleaning member 81 attached to the holder 60 is abnormal. Alternatively, the control device 50 may determine whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member 81 based on a change in a phase of the load, a change in a vertical peak width of the load, or the like, para. 66). And US’095 teaches estimate the tilt of the brush based on a difference between a point in time when measurement, satisfies a preset condition and a point in time when a second measurement, satisfies the preset condition (the inventive scrubber 11 may monitor the torque experienced by the scrubber brush rotation motor M (US’095 teaches FIGS. 2A and 3A) during cleaning, and in one or more embodiments, may adjust the position of the scrubber brushes 15a-b based on the monitored torque. The motion controller 45 may contain, for example, a look-up table that correlates torque values (e.g., output by the torque monitor 43) to brush position or position adjustments, that contains adjusted brush positions that are correlated to the number of wafers processed or to the total processing time, etc., as further described below with reference to the various brush positioning control operating modes for the scrubber 11. the motion controller 45 and may be used to store data indicative of desired, baseline and/or other predetermined positions of one or both ends of the scrubber brushes 15a-b (e.g., data that correlates torque to brush position, motor position, motor speed, etc.). Such data may be based on, for example, numerous samples (e.g., RMS data or other statistical data). para. 29-33)
The modified apparatus of US’095 does not teach wherein the acceleration sensors comprise: a first acceleration sensor provided on a first side of the brush; and a second acceleration sensor provided on a second side of the brush, with regard to claim 4 and wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate the tilt of the brush based on a difference between a point in time when an amplitude of a movement value, measured by a first acceleration sensor, satisfies a preset condition and a point in time when an amplitude of a movement value, measured by a second acceleration sensor, satisfies the preset condition, with regard to claim 5.
However, US’095 teaches brush positional controls located on each end of the brush (para. 28-35, see fig. 1-4). Therefore, providing positional control sensors as taught by US’217 on each side of brush would be an obvious duplication of parts for the purpose of monitoring the position of each end of the brush. providing two acceleration sensors
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’095 to include wherein the acceleration sensors comprise: a first acceleration sensor provided on a first side of the brush; and a second acceleration sensor provided on a second side of the brush because US’095 teaches that brush positional controls located on each end of the brush which US’217 teaches positional data is obtain with an acceleration sensor and the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 .VI. (B).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. US’095 further teaches wherein the brush position adjuster is configured to adjust the position of the brush so that the brush contacts the wafer at a preset target tilt ( the first brush mounting mechanism 17a allows a first end E1 (FIG. 2A) of the brushes 15a-b to be positioned relative to the wafer W independently of a second end E2 of the brushes 15a-b (e.g., the respective longitudinal axes of the scrubber brushes 15a-b may form an angle, para. 20 and 54-55).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. US’095 further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to recognize a point in time when a rotation torque value becomes greater than or equal to a preset threshold value as a point in time when the rotation torque value satisfies a preset condition (the inventive scrubber 11 may monitor the torque experienced by the scrubber brush rotation motor M (FIGS. 2A and 3A) during cleaning, and in one or more embodiments, may adjust the position of the scrubber brushes 15a-b based on the monitored torque. Because the torque experienced by the rotation motor M varies in direct relationship with the pressure applied between the scrubber brushes 15a-b and the wafer W, a desired brush pressure can be maintained (e.g., by maintaining the torque experienced by the scrubber brush rotation motor M at a predetermined level and/or within a predetermined range, para. 29).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’095 further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to recognize a point in time when an amplitude of a movement value, measured by the acceleration sensors, becomes greater than or equal to a preset threshold value as a point intime when the amplitude of the movement value, measured by the acceleration sensors, satisfies a preset condition (US’217 teaches the sensor 72 measures an amplitude of a load applied to the holder 60. For example, as shown in a measurement result 200A of FIG. 7, when the amplitude of the load is equal to or less than a certain prescribed value, it can be determined that the roll cleaning member 81 attached to the holder 60 is normal. In addition, as shown in a measurement result 200B of FIG. 7, when the amplitude of the load exceeds a certain prescribed value, it can be determined that the roll cleaning member 81 attached to the holder 60 is abnormal. Alternatively, the control device 50 may determine whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member 81 based on a change in a phase of the load, a change in a vertical peak width of the load, or the like, para. 66).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of US’095 teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’095 further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to recognize, as a point in time when the brush contacts the wafer, at least one of a point in time when a rotation torque value satisfies a preset condition (he torque experienced by the scrubber brush rotation motor M is a combination of the torque resulting from the brush mounting mechanisms 17a-b and the torque resulting from contact between the wafer W and the scrubber brushes 15a-b, para. 48-50, see fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights