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(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 4, 5, and 8 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 4 recites “the computer calculates, using the angle or the position, a position deviation of the sample generated when the transport mechanism receives the sample as a reception-time deviation, and the computer calculates the position deviation amount by adding the eccentricity measured by the prealigner and the reception-time deviation.” In lines 5-7. It is unclear how the “reception-time deviation” is used to calculate the position deviation as in page 6 of the applicant’s specification the derivation amounts from formulas 3 and 4 do not have a time component and the specification does not include how “reception-time deviation” is used to calculate position deviation. The claim also recites “the computer calculates the position deviation amount by adding the eccentricity measured by the prealigner and the reception-time deviation” in lines 8-9. It is unclear how “reception-time derivation” value is added to the eccentricity to find the position derivation as the “reception-time derivation” has not been converted to a position derivation of the sample. Additionally, after the calculations are completed, no further actions are performed using these calculations.
Claim 5 recites “the computer calculates, using the angle or the position, a position deviation of the sample generated when the transport mechanism places the sample onto the sample stage as a delivery-time deviation.” In lines 5-7. It is unclear how the “delivery-time deviation” is used to calculate the position deviation as in page 6 of the applicant’s specification the derivation amounts from formulas 3 and 4 do not have a time component and the specification does not include how “delivery-time deviation” is used to calculate position deviation. The claim also recites “the computer calculates the position deviation amount by adding the eccentricity measured by the prealigner and the delivery-time deviation.” in lines 8-9. It is unclear how “delivery-time deviation” value is added to the eccentricity to find the position derivation as the “delivery-time deviation” has not been converted to a position derivation of the sample Additionally, after the calculations are completed, no further actions are performed using these calculations.
Claim 8 recites “the angle measured by the sensor vibrates at an amplitude” in line 2. It is unclear how the angular value calculated by the sensors would physically vibrate at an amplitude. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “the angle sensor vibrates at an amplitude”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mase et al. (JP 2005093901 A, hereafter Mase).
Regarding Claim 1, Mase discloses a semiconductor treating device for treating a sample of a semiconductor, the semiconductor treating device comprising:
a sample stage on which the sample is placed (Figure 2: 20, Paragraph 26);
a transport mechanism configured to transport the sample to and from the sample stage (Figure 2: the transfer arm 10 and its associated components are the transport mechanism, Paragraph 28);
a sensor configured to detect an angle of the transport mechanism or a position of the transport mechanism (Figure 2: the scale 15 and TV cameras 41, 45, 46 are both the sensor, Paragraph 28: a scale for detecting the rotational position of the transfer arm, Paragraph 38: TV camera detects the scale and detects the angle of the transfer arm); and
a computer configured to control the transport mechanism (Paragraph 30: there is a control unit configured by a computer that performs control of each unit), wherein
the computer calculates a position deviation amount from an ideal position of the sample using the angle or the position measured by the sensor before the transport mechanism places the sample onto the sample stage (Paragraph 30: the control unit performs detection processing and correction calculation of a position mark and a scale is provided, Paragraph 39: based on the detection values deviations are calculated), and
the computer operates the sample stage by the position deviation amount to reduce a positioning error when the transport mechanism places the sample onto the sample stage (Paragraph 40: the stage 20 and the transfer arm 10 are moved from the standard delivery position to the delivery position corrected by the above correction value).
Regarding Claim 2, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses the transport mechanism includes an arm that rotates about a rotation shaft (Figure 2: arm 10, rotation shaft 11),
the sensor measures, as the angle, a rotation angle of the arm about the rotation shaft (Figure 2: the angle is based on the rotation angle of the arm 10), and
the computer calculates the position deviation amount according to a relational formula among the angle, a length of the arm, and a position of the sample (Paragraph 39: the method described in Figure 1 is used to calculate deviations, Figure 1: the rotations to move the wafer would take into account the angle, length of the arm, and position of the sample).
Regarding Claim 3, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses the transport mechanism includes an arm movable in a plane and a hand that holds the sample (Figure 2: the arm 10 is movable in a plane and the hand 12 holds a sample, Paragraph 28),
the sensor measures a planar position of the arm or a planar position of the hand as the position (Figure 2: the scale 15 and TV camera are both the sensor, Paragraph 28: a scale for detecting the rotational position of the transfer arm, Paragraph 38: TV cameras 41, 45, 46 detects the scale and detects the angle of the transfer arm), and
the computer calculates the position deviation amount according to a relational formula between the position and a position of the sample (Paragraph 39: the derivations are between a position and position of the sample).
Regarding Claim 9, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses when the angle measured by the sensor is gradually deviated at a change rate equal to or higher than a threshold before the transport mechanism places the sample onto the sample stage (Figure 6a-6d: the angle of the arm 10 is gradually deviated and the sensor would measure this deviation, Paragraph 34), the computer moves the sample stage to follow the change rate (Paragraph 26 the sample stage can be translated in three axes and rotated around the three axes, Paragraph 20: the stage moves in response to deviation and the arm placing the object so it moves the stage to follow the change rate).
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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase et al. (JP 2005093901 A, hereafter Mase) in view of Kanzaki et al. (JP 2012/114117 A, hereafter Kanzaki).
Regarding Claim 4 as best interpreted, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses a computer calculates, using the angle or the position, a position deviation of the sample generated when the transport mechanism receives the sample as a reception-time deviation (Paragraph 39: deviations are calculated based on detection values, Figure 3: sensor 41, receiving unit 30, Paragraph 36: the computer is capable of using the sensor 41 which is were the sample is received to find the position of the sample and the sample deviation, the computer would be able to calculate the position derivation based on the reception time of the sensors)
Mase does not disclose a prealigner configured to measure eccentricity of the sample when the sample is stationary before the sample is transported to a sample chamber accommodating the sample stage, wherein
Kanzaki discloses a semiconductor manufacturing device that uses a computer, transport robot, prealigner, and sample stage (Paragraph 12: there is a control device which controls the system and computes, Figure 1: transport robot 104, prealigner 108, sample stage 106). The prealigner is used for the purpose of measuring the eccentricity of the wafer (Paragraph 15) and the system considers the total derivation by adding the eccentricity measure by the prealigner and the derivation of the transport mechanism (Paragraphs 33 and 37). The prealigner and total derivation calculation are used for the purpose of correcting a positional deviation when a sample is conveyed by a vacuum robot (Paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the invention of Mase by including the prealigner and total derivation calculation for the purpose of correcting a positional deviation when a sample is conveyed by a vacuum robot.
Regarding Claim 5 as best interpreted, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses a computer calculates, using the angle or the position, a position deviation of the sample generated when the transport mechanism receives the sample as a as a delivery-time deviation (Paragraph 39: deviations are calculated based on detection values, Figure 3: sensor 46, delivery unit 20, Paragraph 36: the computer is capable of using the sensor 46 which is were the sample is delivered to find the position of the sample and the sample deviation, the computer is capable of controlling the arm and would be able to calculate the position derivation based on the delivery time of the sensors)
Mase does not disclose a prealigner configured to measure eccentricity of the sample when the sample is stationary before the sample is transported to a sample chamber accommodating the sample stage, wherein
Kanzaki discloses a semiconductor manufacturing device that uses a computer, transport robot, prealigner, and sample stage (Paragraph 12: there is a control device which controls the system and computes, Figure 1: transport robot 104, prealigner 108, sample stage 106). The prealigner is used for the purpose of measuring the eccentricity of the wafer (Paragraph 15) and the system considers the total derivation by adding the eccentricity measure by the prealigner and the derivation of the transport mechanism (Paragraphs 33 and 37). The prealigner and total derivation calculation are used for the purpose of correcting a positional deviation when a sample is conveyed by a vacuum robot (Paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the invention of Mase by including the prealigner and total derivation calculation for the purpose of correcting a positional deviation when a sample is conveyed by a vacuum robot.
Regarding Claim 6, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses the computer acquires, as an actual deviation amount, a result obtained by actually measuring a deviation from the ideal position of the sample (Figures 3: the sensors 41, 45, 46 are TV cameras and measure the actual deviation amount, Paragraph 29, Paragraph 36: the rotation shaft has its own positional accuracy which would correspond to the position deviation amount), and
when a difference between the actual deviation amount and the position deviation amount calculated using the angle or the position is equal to or larger than a threshold, the computer the computer issues a correction (Paragraph 36: if the rotational position accuracy of the rotary shaft is sufficient the correction is not necessary).
Mase does not disclose when a difference between the actual deviation amount and the position deviation amount calculated using the angle or the position is equal to or larger than a threshold, the computer issues an alert.
Kanzaki discloses a semiconductor manufacturing device that uses a computer that generates an alert when a deviation to too large for the purpose of warning that positional deviation has occurred (Paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the invention of Mase by having the computer generate an alert when a difference between the actual deviation amount and the position deviation amount is too large as disclosed by Kanzaki for the purpose of warning that positional deviation has occurred.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase et al. (JP 2005093901 A, hereafter Mase) in view of Ngo et al. (US 2023/0271321 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase discloses the computer acquires, as an actual deviation amount, a result obtained by actually measuring a deviation from the ideal position of the sample (Figures 3: the sensors 41, 45, 46 are TV cameras and measure the actual deviation amount, Paragraph 29, Paragraph 36: the rotation shaft has its own positional accuracy which would correspond to the position deviation amount), and
when a difference between the actual deviation amount and the position deviation amount calculated using the angle or the position is equal to or larger than a threshold, the computer the computer issues a correction (Paragraph 36: if the rotational position accuracy of the rotary shaft is sufficient the correction is not necessary).
Mase does not disclose when the actual deviation amount is equal to or larger than a threshold, the computer makes a speed at which the transport mechanism transports the sample slower than when the actual deviation amount is less than the threshold.
Ngo discloses a wafer manufacturing system that uses a transport mechanism that transports slower based on a threshold (Figure 1: transport mechanism 112, Paragraph 17: when the object is not fully secured the transport speed is slower) for the purpose of preventing the object from moving or rotating on the end effector and/or falling from the end effector (Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the invention of Mase by having the transport mechanism transport the sample at a slower speed when the deviation amount is equal to or larger than a threshold as disclosed by Ngo for the purpose of preventing the object from moving or rotating on the end effector and/or falling from the end effector.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase et al. (JP 2005093901 A, hereafter Mase) in view of Kanzaki et al. (JP 2012/114117 A, hereafter Kanzaki) and Lin et al. (US 2022/0356049 A1, hereafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 8 as best interpreted, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase does not disclose when the angle measured by the sensor vibrates at an amplitude equal to or larger than a threshold before the sample is placed onto the sample stage, the transport mechanism does not perform an operation of placing the sample onto the sample stage until the amplitude is attenuated to be smaller than the threshold.
Kanzaki discloses a semiconductor manufacturing device that uses a computer that generates an alert when a deviation to too large that stops options for the purpose of warning that positional deviation has occurred (Paragraph 34 and 35).
Lin discloses an anti-swaying transfer device that uses an inertial sensor that would vibrate during the picking process (Figure 8: inertial sensor a6, Paragraph 24) for the purpose of detecting the swing angle and acceleration of the end effector (Paragraph 53). Lin additionally discloses that too much swinging during operation increases operation difficulty and reduces transfer efficiency (Paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the invention of Mase by including an inertial detecting as disclosed by Lin component to the scale for the purpose of detecting the swing angle and acceleration of the end effector and preventing operations when the signal is tool large as disclosed by Kanzaki for the purpose of warning that positional deviation has occurred and preventing increases operation difficulty and reduces transfer efficiency as disclosed by Lin.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase et al. (JP 2005093901 A, hereafter Mase) in view of Kimura et al. (US 20220399181 A1, hereafter Kimura).
Regarding Claim 10, Mase discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mase does not disclose the semiconductor treating device is configured as a charged particle beam device that irradiates the sample with a charged particle beam.
Kimura discloses a semiconductor treating device configured as a charged particle beam device that irradiates the sample with a charged particle beam (Paragraph 20) for the purpose of manufacturing semiconductors and improving semiconductor writing accuracy (Paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the invention of Mase by including the semiconductor treating device disclosed by Kimura for the purpose of manufacturing semiconductors and improving semiconductor writing accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imanishi et al. (US 2024/0058952 A1) discloses a substrate transfer robot controller and a prealigner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN TRAC whose telephone number is (571)272-8528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/J.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
