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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on February 26, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 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.
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 holder configured to...", "a nozzle configured to...", "a camera configured to..." and "a monitor configured to..." in claim 11.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,972. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are anticipated by the claims recited in the U.S. Patent.
Said claims in both applications are directed to a substrate processing apparatus that includes a holding unit configured to hold a substrate and a processing liquid supply unit configured to supply a processing liquid to a surface of the substrate held by the holding unit by discharging the processing liquid from a nozzle and monitoring changes in image conditions.
Taking claims 1 and 11 in the instant application, as an exemplary to show the similarity in features being claimed in both applications, to compare to claims 1 and 13 in the U.S. Patent (see comparison table below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the same claim elements of the parent application, to construct a system as claimed in the instant application capable of performing identical functions as the parent application. The rest of the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in the U.S. Patent.
An exemplary table to show similarity among the conflicting claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,244,972
1. A substrate processing method comprising:
holding a substrate carried into a processing unit;
supplying a processing liquid to the substrate in the processing unit;
capturing an image in the processing unit by a camera to acquire image data;
specifying a monitoring target from a plurality of monitoring target candidates in the processing unit,
changing an image condition based on the monitoring target specified in the specifying; and monitoring the monitoring target based on the image data having the image condition corresponding to the monitoring target.
13. A method of monitoring a substrate processing apparatus, the method comprising:
capturing an image of a nozzle of the substrate processing apparatus and a surface of a substrate held by a substrate holder by a camera;
generating monitoring video data based on imaging video data captured by the camera during an execution of a substrate process by the substrate processing apparatus including a first process and a second process; and
changing a generation condition of the monitoring video data during the execution of the substrate process so that at least a resolution or a number of frames of the monitoring video data during an execution of the second process is different from the monitoring video data during an execution of the first process.
11. A substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a holder configured to hold a substrate in a processing unit;
a nozzle configured to supply a processing liquid to the substrate in the processing unit;
a camera configured to capture an image in the processing unit, thereby acquiring image data; and
a monitor configured to specify a monitoring target from a plurality of monitoring target candidates in the processing unit,
change an image condition based on the monitoring target, and monitor the monitoring target based on the image data having the image condition corresponding to the monitoring target.
1.A monitoring apparatus for a substrate processing apparatus, the monitoring apparatus comprising:
a camera configured to capture an image of a nozzle of the substrate processing apparatus and a surface of a substrate held by a substrate holder of the substrate processing apparatus;
a monitoring data generation circuitry configured to generate monitoring video data based on imaging video data captured by the camera during an execution of a substrate process performed by the substrate processing apparatus including a first process and a second process; and
a monitoring condition changing circuitry configured to change a generation condition of the monitoring video data during the execution of the substrate process so that at least a resolution or a number of frames of the monitoring video data during an execution of the second process is different from the monitoring video data during an execution of the first process.
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 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 pre-AIA 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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi, US-PGPub. No. 20190148192.
As per claims 1 and 11, Yamaguchi teaches a method and a substrate processing apparatus (Paragraph(s) [00]) comprising:
a holder configured to hold a substrate in a processing unit (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0055]; the spin chuck 2 includes a disk-shaped spin base 21, chuck pins 22 that stand at a peripheral edge portion of the spin base 21 to clamp the substrate W, a rotating shaft 23 arranged along the vertical direction to support the spin base 21 from the lower side, and a spin motor 24 that rotates the rotating shaft 23);
a nozzle configured to supply a processing liquid to the substrate in the processing unit (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0052-0053], [0072]; a processing liquid supplying unit 4 having a processing liquid nozzle 3 that supplies a processing liquid to the substrate W held by the spin chuck 2);
a camera configured to capture an image in the processing unit, thereby acquiring image data (Fig. 2 – camera 10, Paragraph(s) [0063], [0074]; camera 10 takes an image of an imaging region including the upper surface of the substrate W); and
a monitor configured to specify a monitoring target from a plurality of monitoring target candidates in the processing unit (Fig. 3A, Paragraph(s) [0010], [0074], [0082]; analyzing the image data output by the camera 10 (an image analyzing step), the controller 30 monitors the state of the liquid film (Step S4: a liquid film state monitoring step)), change an image condition based on the monitoring target, and monitor the monitoring target based on the image data having the image condition corresponding to the monitoring target (Paragraph(s) [0012]; the substrate processing method further includes an entirely-covered state determining step of determining whether or not it is an entirely-covered state where the liquid film monitored in the liquid film state monitoring step covers the entire upper surface of the substrate after the processing liquid supplying step is started. The substrate rotational speed changing step includes a rotation decelerating step of reducing the rotational speed of the substrate when it is determined that it is the entirely-covered state in the entirely-covered state determining step. In addition, Yamaguchi teaches the substrate processing method further includes a processing liquid flow rate changing step of changing a flow rate of the processing liquid supplied to the substrate in accordance with the state of the liquid film monitored in the liquid film state monitoring step during execution of the processing liquid supplying step (Paragraph(s) [0017])).
As per claims 2 and 12, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the image condition includes at least one of a resolution of the image data, the number of frames, and a size of a target region of the image data, and any combination thereof (Paragraph(s) [0018], [0036], [0077]).
As per claims 3 and 13, Yamaguchi teaches wherein in the changing the image condition, as the image condition for a first time period in which the monitoring target is an object that is moving in the processing unit, the number of frames is set to a first number of frames, and as the image condition for a second time period in which the monitoring target is the processing liquid ejected from a nozzle in the processing unit, the number of frames is set to a second number of frames greater than the first number of frames (Paragraph(s) [0066], [0130]).
As per claims 4 and 14, Yamaguchi teaches wherein in the changing the image condition, as the image condition for a first time period in which the monitoring target is the processing liquid on the substrate in the processing unit, the number of frames is set to a first number of frames, and as the image condition for a second time period in which the monitoring target is the processing liquid ejected from a nozzle in the processing unit, the number of frames is set to a second number of frames greater than the first number of frames (Paragraph(s) [0010-0011], [0052], [0087]).
As per claims 5 and 15, Yamaguchi teaches wherein in the changing the image condition, as the image condition for a first time period in which the monitoring target is an object that is moving in the processing unit, the resolution is set to a first resolution, and as the image condition for a second time period in which the monitoring target is the processing liquid ejected from a nozzle in the processing unit, the resolution is set to a second resolution higher than the first resolution (Paragraph(s) [0010], [0058], [0074], [0082]).
As per claims 6 and 16, Yamaguchi teaches wherein in the changing the image condition, as the image condition for a first time period in which the monitoring target is the processing liquid on the substrate in the processing unit, the resolution is set to a first resolution, and as the image condition for a second time period in which the monitoring target is the processing liquid ejected from a nozzle in the processing unit, the resolution is set to a second resolution higher than the first resolution (Paragraph(s) [0010-0011], [0052], [0087]).
As per claims 7 and 17, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the monitoring target includes a position of the nozzle (Paragraph(s) [0053-0054]).
As per claims 8 and 18, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the monitoring target in the second time period includes liquid splash of the processing liquid on the substrate and liquid dripping of the processing liquid from the nozzle (Paragraph(s) [0056]).
As per claims 9 and 19, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the changing the image condition includes setting the image condition as an imaging condition, and in the capturing, the camera acquires the image data while setting the image condition corresponding to the monitoring target as the imaging condition (Paragraph(s) [0063], [0074]).
As per claims 10 and 20, Yamaguchi teaches wherein in the capturing, the camera acquires the image data under a predetermined imaging condition, and an image processing is performed on the image data acquired by the camera to acquire the image data having the image condition corresponding to the monitoring target (Paragraph(s) [0063], [0074], [0142]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights