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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon application JP 2022-134550 filed on 08/25/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The claim for priority cannot be based on said application because the national stage entry was not filed within 30 months from the earliest priority date. See 1893.01(a)(1) Submissions Required by 30 Months from the Priority Date; and MPEP 1828.01 Restoration of the Right of Priority.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Element number 62 in figure 9 of the drawings does not seem to be present in the specification. It is unclear what the element is referencing based on the specification. Correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the other outer peripheral edge" on line 15. It is common within the art for wafers to be circular which implies that only one edge exists. The understanding of “other” in the art typically means distinct from the first reference. Thus, the wording of “other outer edge” is unclear, and it is suggested to change the phrasing to “the other side of the outer peripheral edge” or similar.
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 5-8 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 5 recites the limitation "the other outer peripheral edge" on lines 6 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While it is implied that there is another side of the outer peripheral edge, the current phrasing does not reference another side but another edge entirely and thus the claim is rendered indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 5 recites the limitation “the other direction” on line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 6-7, which are dependent on claim 5, inherit these limitations and are thus likewise indefinite.
In addition, Claim 7 recites the limitation “in the first transport operation, the plurality of second abutment units abut against the wafer during a period from when the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit” on lines 2-4 and “in the second transport operation, the plurality of first abutment units abut against the wafer during a period from when the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit to when the movement in the other direction stops” on lines 5-7. Claim 6 recites the limitation “in the first transport operation, the plurality of second abutment units do not abut against the wafer at least while the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit” on lines 2-3 and “in the second transport operation, the plurality of first abutment units do not abut against the wafer at least while the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit” on lines 4-5.
The phrasing used in claim 7 of “when the wafer passes through” could be interpreted to cause a contradiction with claim 6, on which claim 7 is dependent. The phrasing could be interpreted to mean “while the wafer is passing through the inspection information acquisition unit”. Since claims 6 and 7 give opposing instructions for what must happen while the wafer is passing through said unit, the language should be modified. Based on the specifications, it seems that the time period described in claim 7 is meant to occur after the wafer has passed through the inspection unit. If this is the intended interpretation, the language must be modified to “during a period from after the wafer passes through” or similar.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other outer peripheral edge" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While it is implied that there is another side of the outer peripheral edge, the current phrasing does not reference another side but another edge entirely and thus the claim is rendered indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites the limitation “when the movement of the wafer in the one direction by the transport operation stops, the plurality of second abutment units abut against the wafer during a period from when the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit to when the movement in the one direction stops” on lines 13-16. The phrasing “when the movement of the wafer in the one direction by the transport operation stops” contradicts with the second section “the plurality of second abutment units abut against the wafer during a period from when the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit to when the movement in the one direction stops”. The first phrase implies the following section occurs when the movement stops, but the second phrase is describing an action that occurs before the movement stops. This contradiction causes the limitations to be unclear and are thus rendered indefinite.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshi (JP 2014093441). The references in this office action for Takeshi are taken from a machine translation from EPO which is provided along with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Takeshi teaches
A wafer inspection device for inspecting presence or absence of a defect in a wafer (Paragraph 0001, The present invention relates to a wafer transfer apparatus and a wafer inspection apparatus including the same, and more particularly to a technology for floating and transferring a wafer),
the wafer inspection device comprising:
a stage on which the wafer is to be disposed on an air hole block (Figure 2, floating unit 21; The wafer transfer apparatus 4 has a plurality of floating units 21 arranged in the transfer direction of the wafer 2)
and horizontally floated above the air hole block by exhausting air from the air hole block toward a surface of the wafer (Figure 2, porous plate 30; Paragraph 0039, The wafer 2 receives a force F1 for floating the wafer 2 flowing from the porous plate 30);
a transport unit configured to transport the wafer horizontally floated above the stage by the air in one direction with respect to the stage (Figure 1, transfer mechanism 23; Paragraph 0025, a transfer mechanism 23 that pushes the wafer 2 in the transfer direction);
an inspection information acquisition unit for acquiring inspection information on the wafer (Figure 1, first camera 5, second camera 7, and third camera 9; Paragraph 0025, In the wafer inspection apparatus 1, there are provided a wafer supply unit 3 for supplying a wafer 2, a wafer conveyance apparatus 4 for conveying the wafer 2, a first camera 5 for photographing the upper surface of the wafer 2, and a second camera 7 for photographing the lower surface, a third camera 9 for photographing an image of the wafer 2 for detecting a crack or the like);
and a detection unit for detecting a defect in the wafer based on the inspection information on the wafer acquired by the inspection information acquisition unit (Figure 1, host computer 15; Paragraph 0023, a host computer 15 performs processing of captured image data and determines whether or not the wafer 2 is non-defective),
wherein the transport unit includes:
an abutment unit that abuts against an outer peripheral edge of the wafer horizontally floated above the stage by the air (Figure 2, pushing portion 41; Paragraph 0029, The transport mechanism 23 has a pushing portion 41 which contacts the end face of the wafer 2),
and a drive unit that moves the abutment unit with respect to the stage (Figure 2, drive portion 45; Paragraph 0029, an arm 43 supporting the push portion 41, and a drive portion 45 driving the arm 43 in the transport direction),
and the transport unit moves the wafer in the one direction by moving the abutment unit with respect to the stage by the drive unit (Figures 1 and 2, see transport mechanism 23, drive portion 45, and pushing portion 41; Paragraph 0029, The transport mechanism 23 has a pushing portion 41 which contacts the end face of the wafer 2 and pushes the wafer 2 in the transport direction, an arm 43 supporting the push portion 41, and a drive portion 45 driving the arm 43 in the transport direction),
and allow the wafer to pass through the inspection information acquisition unit while horizontally floating the wafer (Paragraph 0051, Among the first to third inspection steps, it is preferable to push the wafer 2 by the pushing portion 41 in the first inspection step. Since the step of detecting the size of the wafer 2 has to convey the wafer 2 at a constant velocity, and in particular the accuracy is required, the wafer 2 is sandwiched between the air by the air sprayer 25 and the pushing portion 41),
and the inspection information acquisition unit acquires the inspection information on the wafer when the wafer passes through (Paragraph 0046, When the wafer 2 passes between the two floating units 21, images of the front and back surfaces of the wafer 2 are photographed by the first camera 5 and the second camera 7, and image data is sent to the image processing unit 11; Paragraph 0047, The image data captured by the third camera 9 is sent to the image processing unit 11).
Regarding claim 9, Takeshi teaches
A wafer transport device (Paragraph 0001, The present invention relates to a wafer transfer apparatus and a wafer inspection apparatus including the same, and more particularly to a technology for floating and transferring a wafer).
that allows a wafer to pass through an inspection information acquisition unit for acquiring inspection information acquired from the wafer to inspect presence or absence of a defect in the wafer based on the inspection information (Paragraph 0046, When the wafer 2 passes between the two floating units 21, images of the front and back surfaces of the wafer 2 are photographed by the first camera 5 and the second camera 7, and image data is sent to the image processing unit 11; Paragraph 0047, The image data captured by the third camera 9 is sent to the image processing unit 11; Paragraph 0025, a third camera 9 for photographing an image of the wafer 2 for detecting a crack or the like)
and the remaining limitations are the same as those seen in claim 1 and are likewise taught by Takeshi as detailed above.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (JP 2014093441) in view of Hironori (JP 2014069936). The references below for Hironori are taken from a machine translation from EPO which is provided along with this office action.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings above for claim 1, Takeshi further teaches
wherein the air hole block is formed of a porous member (Takeshi Figure 2, porous plate 30; Paragraph 0039, The wafer 2 receives a force F1 for floating the wafer 2 flowing from the porous plate 30)
and includes an exhaust hole for exhausting air toward the surface of the wafer (Paragraph 0026, Pressurized air flows from the chamber 31 into the porous plate 30, and the air flows upward from the large number of holes formed in the porous plate 30. Thus, the wafer 2 is uniformly floated)
and an intake hole (It’s implied that the holes in the porous material can likewise be used as an intake hole).
Takeshi fails to fully teach using a hole for suctioning air between the air hole block and the surface of the wafer, and by exhaust of the air from the exhaust hole and suction of the air from the intake hole, a pressure between the air hole block and the surface of the wafer is adjusted, and the wafer is horizontally floated above the air hole block.
However, Hironori teaches
a hole for suctioning air between the air hole block and the surface of the wafer (Paragraph 0040, The gas suction mechanism 22c is, for example, a hole formed in the substrate facing surface 22b; Paragraph 0053, a downward force is exerted on the glass substrate 10 passing above the float panel 22 by the gas sucked by the gas suction mechanism 22c),
and by exhaust of the air from the exhaust hole and suction of the air from the intake hole, a pressure between the air hole block and the surface of the wafer is adjusted, and the wafer is horizontally floated above the air hole block (Paragraph 0053, An upward force acts on the glass substrate 10 passing above the float panel 22 by the gas ejected from the gas ejection mechanism 22 a. In addition, a downward force is exerted on the glass substrate 10 passing above the float panel 22 by the gas sucked by the gas suction mechanism 22c. The upward force is a force for causing the glass substrate 10 to float, and the downward force is a force for forcing the shape of the glass substrate 10 to some extent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a suction mechanism that exerts a downward force to a substrate, as taught by Hironori, to the porous plate with holes of Takeshi. One would have been motivated to combine these components as a way to provide a more stables means of floating a substrate (Hironori paragraph 0008, An object of the present invention is to provide a glass substrate transport apparatus capable of suppressing the occurrence of defects in the glass substrate by stably floating and transporting the glass substrate). A person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adapting the already existing holes in the porous plate of Takeshi for a suction mechanism without significant modification of the system.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hironori to Takeshi because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate transfer systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (JP 2014093441) in view of Weiqiang et al. (CN 104020178), hereinafter Weiqiang. The references below for Weiqiang are taken from a machine translation from PE2E Search which is provided along with this office action.
Regarding claim 3, Takeshi teaches fully for claim 1 as detailed above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Takeshi fails to fully teach wherein the inspection information acquisition unit includes: a plurality of light sources disposed along a direction orthogonal to the one direction in which the wafer moves, and a plurality of light receiving units disposed to face the light sources along the direction orthogonal to the one direction in which the wafer moves, and when the wafer passes between the light sources and the light receiving units, the light receiving units receive transmitted light through the wafer by irradiating the wafer with irradiation light from the light sources, and output an obtained light reception result to the detection unit as the inspection information. While Takeshi teaches multiple types of inspections units (Figure 1, see first camera 5, second camera 7, third camera 9, and laser displacement meter 10), these units do not meet the specific limitations recited in the claim.
However, Weiqiang teaches
wherein the inspection information acquisition unit includes:
a plurality of light sources disposed along a direction orthogonal to the one direction in which the wafer moves (Figure 2, light source 6; Paragraph 0028, placing the silicon sheet to be detected constant velocity on a conveyor belt through the gap between photoelectric coupler and the light source),
and a plurality of light receiving units disposed to face the light sources along the direction orthogonal to the one direction in which the wafer moves (Figure 2, photoelectric coupler 5; Paragraph 0028, placing the silicon sheet to be detected constant velocity on a conveyor belt through the gap between photoelectric coupler and the light source),
and when the wafer passes between the light sources and the light receiving units, the light receiving units receive transmitted light through the wafer by irradiating the wafer with irradiation light from the light sources (Paragraph 0028, the central processing unit controls the light source and the photoelectric coupler is opened, both work synchronously, light irradiated toward the back side of the silicon sheet, photo-coupler scanning the silicon sheet edge and hole, receives the light signal and a hole from the edge of the silicon sheet of the punctual light signal, the edge of the silicon sheet of light signal for detecting the shape size of the silicon sheet),
and output an obtained light reception result to the detection unit as the inspection information (Paragraph 0028, photoelectric coupler transmits the signal to the central processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a light source and photoelectric coupler, as taught by Weiqiang, to the system of Takeshi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of replacing one or more of the inspection units of Takeshi with a unit similar to one taught by Weiqiang and one would be motivated to make this replacement to improve the inspection units (Weiqiang paragraph 0006, The purpose of the invention is to provide a hole defect is simple in structure, capable of effectively detecting silicon sheet and reduce the battery electrode short circuit and improve battery conversion efficiency and improve the crystal silicon sheet defect detection device for detecting efficiency of the transmission detection unit).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Weiqiang to Takeshi because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (defect detection systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Takeshi in view of Weiqiang fully teaches for claim 3 as detailed above. Takeshi further teaches
wherein the stage is provided with a plurality of the air hole blocks (Figure 1, see adjacent floating units 21; Paragraph 0025, The wafer transfer apparatus 4 has a plurality of floating units 21 arranged in the transfer direction of the wafer 2; It is implied that porous plates 30 are located on adjacent floating units of the plurality of floating units).
Takeshi fails to fully teach the inspection information acquisition unit includes an opening formation unit provided between the adjacent air hole blocks and having an opening to allow the wafer moving in the one direction to pass therethrough, and the plurality of light sources and the plurality of light receiving units are disposed to face each other across the opening in the opening formation unit. While Takeshi does teach of a space between adjacent porous plates (Figure 1, see space between adjacent floating units 21 and first camera 5 and first camera 7) and an inspection unit located in this space (Paragraph 0046, The first camera 5 and the second camera 7 are disposed above and below the gap between the two floating units 21), it does not fully teach the recited limitation of a specific opening formation unit nor of light sources and light receiving units in this opening formation unit.
However, regarding the opening formation unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a unit connecting the first camera and second camera which is located in the space between adjacent units. The cameras are already located within this space and thus it would be a simple addition to add a frame connecting these two cameras while allowing a space between them for the wafer to pass through. In addition, Weiqiang teaches of an inspection unit using light sources and light receiving units as detailed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second camera with a system similar to the one taught by Weiqiang and would be motivated to do as such to improve the defect detection device (Weiqiang paragraph 0006, The purpose of the invention is to provide a hole defect is simple in structure, capable of effectively detecting silicon sheet and reduce the battery electrode short circuit and improve battery conversion efficiency and improve the crystal silicon sheet defect detection device for detecting efficiency of the transmission detection unit). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of combing the teachings of Takeshi and Weiqiang with an additional structural element to meet the recited limitations in the claim.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Weiqiang to Takeshi because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (defect detection systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (JP 2014093441) in view of Makoto (US 6336775).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Takeshi teaches fully for claim 1 as detailed above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”. Takeshi further teaches
a plurality of first abutment units that abut against one outer peripheral edge of the wafer (Figure 2, see plurality of pushing portions 41; Paragraph 0029, The transport mechanism 23 has a pushing portion 41 which contacts the end face of the wafer 2)
the transport unit executes:
a transport operation of allowing the plurality of first abutment units to abut against the one outer peripheral edge of the wafer and moving the plurality of first abutment units with respect to the stage by the drive unit, thereby moving the wafer in the one direction while horizontally floating the wafer and allowing the wafer to pass through the inspection information acquisition unit (Figures 1 and 2, see transport mechanism 23, drive portion 45, and pushing portion 41; Paragraph 0029, The transport mechanism 23 has a pushing portion 41 which contacts the end face of the wafer 2 and pushes the wafer 2 in the transport direction, an arm 43 supporting the push portion 41, and a drive portion 45 driving the arm 43 in the transport direction; Paragraph 0046, the wafer 2 passes between the two floating units 21).
Takeshi fails to fully teach wherein the abutment unit includes: a plurality of second abutment units that are disposed to face the plurality of first abutment units across the wafer and abut against the other outer peripheral edge of the wafer, the transport unit executes: when the movement of the wafer in the one direction by the transport operation stops, the plurality of second abutment units abut against the wafer during a period from when the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit to when the movement in the one direction stops.
However, Morita teaches
a plurality of second abutment units that are disposed to face the plurality of first abutment units across the wafer and abut against the other outer peripheral edge of the wafer (Figure 13(b), additional abutting members 11'; Column 27, lines 1-3, also additional abutting members 11' are provided at the front ends of the material to be treated),
the transport unit executes:
when the movement of the wafer in the one direction by the transport operation stops, the plurality of second abutment units abut against the wafer during a period from when the wafer passes through the inspection information acquisition unit to when the movement in the one direction stops (Column 27, lines 1-6, additional abutting members 11' are provided at the front ends of the material to be treated. In this way, when the material to be treated 9 is stopped, movement of the material to be treated due to its inertia is minimized, which results in the material to be treated is surely stopped at the predetermined position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional abutment members, as taught by Morita, opposite the pushing portions of Takeshi which in turns allows the abutment members to stop a wafer after the transport operation by virtue of the abutment members position, as taught by Morita. One would have been motivated to combine these systems to provide the system with a stopping ability as needed (Morita column 27, lines 5-6, which results in the material to be treated is surely stopped at the predetermined position).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Morita to Takeshi because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (floating transfer systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (JP 2014093441) in view of Morita (US 6336775) and Hiroshi (JP 2012148858). The references below for Hiroshi are taken from a machine translation from EPO which is provided along with this office action.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Takeshi teaches fully for claim 1 as detailed above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”. Takeshi further teaches
wherein the abutment unit includes:
a plurality of first abutment units that abut against one outer peripheral edge of the wafer (Figure 2, see plurality of pushing portions 41; Paragraph 0029, The transport mechanism 23 has a pushing portion 41 which contacts the end face of the wafer 2),
and the transport unit executes:
a first transport operation of allowing the plurality of first abutment units to abut against the one outer peripheral edge of the wafer and moving the plurality of first abutment units with respect to the stage by the drive unit, thereby moving the wafer in the one direction while horizontally floating the wafer and allowing the wafer to pass through the inspection information acquisition unit (Figures 1 and 2, see transport mechanism 23, drive portion 45, and pushing portion 41; Paragraph 0029, The transport mechanism 23 has a pushing portion 41 which contacts the end face of the wafer 2 and pushes the wafer 2 in the transport direction, an arm 43 supporting the push portion 41, and a drive portion 45 driving the arm 43 in the transport direction; Paragraph 0046, the wafer 2 passes between the two floating units 21).
Takeshi fails to fully teach wherein the abutment unit includes: a plurality of second abutment units that are disposed to face the plurality of first abutment units across the wafer and abut against the other outer peripheral edge of the wafer.
However, Morita teaches
a plurality of second abutment units that are disposed to face the plurality of first abutment units across the wafer and abut against the other outer peripheral edge of the wafer (Figure 13(b), additional abutting members 11'; Column 27, lines 1-3, also additional abutting members 11' are provided at the front ends of the material to be treated).
This limitation is the same as the limitation recited in claim 8 above and thus the motivation for combing the teachings of Morita and Takeshi remains the same as indicated above.
Takeshi and Morita fail to fully teach that the transport unit executes: a second transport operation of, after passing the wafer through the inspection information acquisition unit by the first transport operation, allowing the plurality of second abutment units to abut against the other outer peripheral edge of the wafer and moving the plurality of second abutment units with respect to the stage by the drive unit, thereby moving the wafer in the other direction opposite to the one direction while horizontally floating the wafer and allowing the wafer to pass through the inspection information acquisition unit again.
However, Hiroshi teaches
that the transport unit executes: a second transport operation of, after passing the wafer through the inspection information acquisition unit by the first transport operation, allowing the plurality of second abutment units to abut against the other outer peripheral edge of the wafer and moving the plurality of second abutment units with respect to the stage by the drive unit, thereby moving the wafer in the other direction opposite to the one direction while horizontally floating the wafer and allowing the wafer to pass through the inspection information acquisition unit again (Paragraph 0029, The substrate transport unit 2b is provided so as to be able to reciprocate along a guide rail provided on one side surface of the levitation stage 2, and reciprocates the glass substrate S to the substrate inspection region R one or more times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a transport operation in which a second plurality of abutment member, as taught by Morita, moves the wafer in a direction opposite the transport direction, as taught by Hiroshi, using the same means as performed by a first plurality of abutment members, such as the pushing portions of Takeshi. This technique would increase the redundancy of the inspection units by allowing the wafers to pass through them multiple times. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the technique taught by Hiroshi to the combined system of Morita and Takeshi as a means for improving the system by increasing redundancy for improved accuracy. For more information, see MPEP 2143(I)(C).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Morita and Hiroshi to Takeshi because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (defect detection systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, prior art in the area of endeavor fails to fully teach, in combination with the other limitations, such that the abutment units can be separately operated in a way such that they are removed from the surface of the wafer during the transfer operation. While prior art teaches a plurality of abutment units on multiple sides of the system and likewise teaches methods of moving the wafer through an inspection unit multiple times, the prior art makes no indication that the abutment units are separated from the wafer during the inspection operation. The closest prior art teaches wherein the abutment units are static during operation, holding the unit on both sides of the wafer and not moving independently but all in tandem with a drive unit. While other art in the area of endeavor may teach such abutment units, it would not be obvious to combine such a system with the prior art of record to meet the recited limitations as the changes necessary to the system would be significant. Thus, the claim is considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, it is dependent on claim 6 and further limits the system and thus likewise is considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that related to one or more the of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights