DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 04/10/2025, in which claims 1-20 are currently pending. The Application claims foreign priority to JP 2024-064851, filed 04/12/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The 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 application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 04/10/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
5- 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
6- Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathijssen et al. (PGPUB No. 20130201486), hereinafter ASML.
As to claims 1/12, 17, ASML teaches a substrate processing apparatus, its measure device and the method of use thereof (Abstract, Figs. 1-9), comprising: a holder (WT/PW/MT/IL and corresponding housing) configured to hold a substrate (W or 440) allowed to be separated (Figs. 1-5, 9, ¶ 46, 54 for ex.); an optical sensor (6 in Figs. 2-3 and 420/430 in Figs. 4-5 and/or IF in Fig. 1) provided in the holder, the optical sensor being configured to radiate measurement light to the substrate and receive reflection light from the substrate (Figs. 2-3; ¶ 54-55); a transparent member (4, or 7/8/9 or 400 or 410, or 650 or 660 or any layer or combination of layers therein) placed in a measurement light path between the substrate and the optical sensor, the transparent member being light-transmissive (Figs. 2-3, ¶ 54-55); and a controller having a processor and a memory with a computer readable program stored therein that upon execution of the computer readable program by the processor configures the controller (¶ 65, 77 for ex; necessary from the processed measurements and calculations) to: process measurement information from the optical sensor, and acquire a distance between the substrate and the transparent member based on the measurement information to recognize a position of the substrate (Figs. 1-9, ¶ 55-57, 62-66; positions and distances h, ASD for ex, are calculated for the substrate W and the transparent element 4 or part thereof from the reflections off of the interfaces).
(claims 2/13) wherein the optical sensor or the controller acquires the distance between the substrate and the transparent member based on a spectrum of the reflection light included in the measurement information (Figs. 6-7, ¶ 61-65 for ex.).
(claims 3/14/18) wherein the distance acquired by the controller includes a first distance between the substrate held by the holder and the transparent member, and a second distance between the substrate separated from the holder and the transparent member (last 16 lines of ¶ 62).
(claim 8) wherein the optical sensor or the controller is configured to calculate a distance between a surface of the substrate facing the transparent member and a surface of the transparent member facing the substrate (¶ 58-64, Figs. 6-7 for ex).
(claim 9) wherein the holder comprises a placement section in which the optical sensor is placed therein (the holder necessarily comprises a section to hold and direct light from the light source 6 or 420 or source of IF), and the placement section has an aperture (any aperture of the light source itself, or any optical component, such as 7, 410 or 400, between the light source and the substrate or transparent member) configured to reduce a range of the measurement light in the measurement light path (grating 7 for ex. reduces the range and the numerical aperture of the opening of the element), and the transparent member is fixed to the aperture (any of the components here above are affixed to a mounting aperture).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8- Claim 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASML
As to claim 10, ASML teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1.
ASML does not teach expressly wherein a ratio of the distance between the substrate and the transparent member to a total length of the measurement light path is 5% or less.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to adjust the distances between the transparent member and the substrate for any arbitrary percentage with respect to the measurement light path, as the latter is not defined concisely in the claim, for optimization purposes such as avoiding power losses between the member and the substrate, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of ASML in view of general optics considerations so that ratio of the distance between the substrate and the transparent member to a total length of the measurement light path is 5% or less, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the light power uniformity between the transparent member and the substrate.
9- Claims 4-7, 11, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASML in view of Okamoto et al. (PGPUB N. 20150083786)
As to claim 11, ASML teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1.
ASML does not teach expressly wherein the optical sensor is a confocal type displacement sensor.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Okamoto teaches a substrate bonding apparatus/method (Abstract and Figs. 1-19) wherein the optical sensor is a confocal type displacement sensor (¶ 102, 155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of ASML in view of general optics considerations so that the optical sensor is a confocal type displacement sensor, with the advantage of effectively measuring semiconductor distances and positions.
As to claims 4/15/16, 5/19, 6/20, 7, ASML teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, device of claim 14 and method 18.
ASML does not teach expressly wherein the substrate includes a first substrate and a second substrate, the holder includes: a first holder configured to hold the first substrate; and a second holder configured to hold the second substrate at a position facing the first substrate, the substrate processing apparatus is a bonding apparatus that pushes out the first substrate from the first holder and bonds the first substrate and the second substrate with each other, and the controller is configured to recognize progress of bonding of the first substrate and the second substrate based on the measurement information of the optical sensor provided in the first holder; (Claims 5/16) further comprising: a gas supply mechanism configured to supply a void reducing gas to between outer peripheries of the first substrate and the second substrate before being bonded to each other, wherein the optical sensor acquires the distance between the substrate and the transparent member in each of a state that the void reducing gas is not present in the measurement light path and a state that the void reducing gas is present in the measurement light path. .
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Okamoto teaches a substrate bonding apparatus/method (Abstract and Figs. 1-19) wherein the substrate includes a first substrate and a second substrate (substates 121 on top and bottom holders), the holder includes: a first holder (150/252) configured to hold the first substrate (top 121); and a second holder (154/150/220) configured to hold the second substrate (bottom 121) at a position facing the first substrate (Figs. 4-10 for ex.), the substrate processing apparatus is a bonding apparatus that pushes out the first substrate from the first holder and bonds the first substrate and the second substrate with each other (Figs. 4-10 Abstract and ¶ 51-60, 66 for ex.), and the controller is configured to recognize progress of bonding of the first substrate and the second substrate based on the measurement information of the optical sensor provided in the first holder (¶ 102); (Claims 5/16) further comprising: a gas supply mechanism configured to supply a void reducing gas to between outer peripheries of the first substrate and the second substrate before being bonded to each other (¶ 125), wherein the optical sensor acquires the distance between the substrate and the transparent member in each of a state that the void reducing gas is not present in the measurement light path and a state that the void reducing gas is present in the measurement light path (one PHOSITA would find it obvious to perform ASML’s measurement without and with air/gas injected between the substrates for calibration purposes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of ASML in view of Okamoto’s suggestions so that the substrate includes a first substrate and a second substrate, the holder includes: a first holder configured to hold the first substrate; and a second holder configured to hold the second substrate at a position facing the first substrate, the substrate processing apparatus is a bonding apparatus that pushes out the first substrate from the first holder and bonds the first substrate and the second substrate with each other, and the controller is configured to recognize progress of bonding of the first substrate and the second substrate based on the measurement information of the optical sensor provided in the first holder; further comprising: a gas supply mechanism configured to supply a void reducing gas to between outer peripheries of the first substrate and the second substrate before being bonded to each other, wherein the optical sensor acquires the distance between the substrate and the transparent member in each of a state that the void reducing gas is not present in the measurement light path and a state that the void reducing gas is present in the measurement light path, with the advantage of effectively measuring/controlling semiconductor distances and positions during the bonding process.
As to claims 6/20 and 7, ASML teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 and method of claim 19.
Moreover, ASML teaches wherein the optical sensor includes multiple optical sensors, the first holder comprises the multiple optical sensors along a radial direction of the substrate held by the first holder (Fig. 5; the different fibers 500 constitute multiple optical sensors along the radial direction of a circular substrate).
ASML does not teach expressly wherein the gas supply mechanism is provided radially outside of the first holder; the transparent member is provided in one of the multiple optical sensors located at an outermost position in the radial direction; (Claim 7) wherein the controller is configured to acquire the distance between the substrate and the transparent member based on the measurement information of the one optical sensor located at the outermost position, while obtaining the distance between the substrate and the optical sensor based on the measurement information of another one of the multiple optical sensors located at an innermost position in the radial direction.
However, one PHOSITA would consider Okamoto’s inert gas supply according to the state of art and would select arbitrarily a radial or rectangular disposition of the gas supply mechanism for optimization purposes, and would select the transparent member at one or more positions, including the outermost position, in the radial direction of the substrate for an optical calibration to be close to the gas supply outlets on the outside position, and another in any other position including the innermost position, and optimize their measurements (See MPEP 2143, Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of ASML in view of general Okamoto’s suggestions so that the gas supply mechanism is provided radially outside of the first holder; the transparent member is provided in one of the multiple optical sensors located at an outermost position in the radial direction; wherein the controller is configured to acquire the distance between the substrate and the transparent member based on the measurement information of the one optical sensor located at the outermost position, while obtaining the distance between the substrate and the optical sensor based on the measurement information of another one of the multiple optical sensors located at an innermost position in the radial direction, with the advantage of effectively measuring semiconductor distances and positions after proper calibration.
Relevant Prior art
US 20260040872, 20220208587 appear relevant to the use of optical devices to measure distances and positions of substrates, wafers and holders.
US 20230129020, US 20220165550 appear to teach most the elements of the claimed apparatus and its method of use but fail to teach the claimed invention as a whole
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. 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 K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights