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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For improved clarity of antecedent basis, the examiner suggests an amendment to add “a” before each claimed unit. For example, “a feature point detection unit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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: feature point detection unit in claims 1 and 7; position calculation unit in claims 1 and 7; program generation unit in claims 1 and 7; mapping unit in claim 5; display unit in claim 5; target position receiving unit in claim 6.
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. The feature point detection unit, position calculation unit, and program generation unit can be implemented by a processor (See at least paragraph [0080], “a processor included in the robot control device 100,” and fig. 5). The display unit is described as a display screen (See at least paragraph [0073], “the mapping result may be displayed on a display screen of the teaching pendant TP (display unit) or the like.”). The target position receiving unit is described as a teaching pendant (See at least [0072], “For example, as the target position receiving unit, the operator may specifically set the target position by using the teaching pendant TP or the like”). However, the specification does not provide sufficient structure for the mapping unit.
Due to the 112(b) rejection, the “mapping unit” cannot be interpreted under 112(f) because there is no supporting structure present in the specification.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “mapping unit.” The specification lacks structure that is clearly linked to the “mapping unit” interpreted under 112(f). The specification recites “the positions may be mapped in the robot coordinate system (mapping unit)” in paragraph [0073]. However, the idea of a coordinate system is not a structure, and the specification does not clearly link any structure to the mapping unit. Because there is no disclosure of adequate structure to perform the claimed function, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 is 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 “mapping unit.” Claim limitation “mapping unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification recites “the positions may be mapped in the robot coordinate system (mapping unit)” in paragraph [0073]. However, the idea of a coordinate system is not a structure, and the specification does not clearly link any structure to the mapping unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because the structure of the mapping unit is unclear and claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikoto (Translated JP2024058215A).
Regarding Claim 1,
Ikoto teaches
A robot teaching system (“a position teaching device and a position teaching method that can perform accurate position teaching by using a camera.” See at least Abstract, pg. 1) including a plurality of chambers, (See the load ports 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 in at least fig. 18 (provided below)) a transfer robot that transfers a workpiece between the plurality of chambers, (“The semiconductor wafer W stored in the FOUP 3 is once transported to the aligner 52 by the transport robot 2, where the exact position of the wafer center point and the rotational positions of the notch and orientation flat are determined, and then the semiconductor wafer W is transported to the load lock chamber 4.” See at least pgs. 3-4) and a robot control device that controls an operation of the transfer robot, (“the robot controller 44 that controls the operation of the transport robot 2” See at least pg. 6) and used in a flat panel manufacturing system that manufactures a flat panel, the robot teaching system comprising: (“a transport robot 2 that transports a semiconductor wafer W, which is a disk-shaped substrate, to a predetermined location and a semiconductor manufacturing system 1 equipped with the transport robot 2 will be described as an example.” See at least pg. 2; “the substrate transported by the transport device may be a rectangular substrate used in a flat panel display or a substrate used for a PLP (Panel Level Package) or a WLP (Wafer Level Package) other than a semiconductor wafer W.” See at least pg. 17)
PNG
media_image1.png
748
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
feature point detection unit that detects a feature point in a chamber while sensing inside of the chamber by using a sensor installed in a holding portion that holds the workpiece in the transfer robot; (“a camera that is mounted on the wrist part supporting the holding part and photographs the position teaching jig” See at least Abstract, pg. 1; “The position teaching jig 55 of this embodiment is configured to be installed at a predetermined position at the destination to which the transport robot 2 transports the semiconductor wafer W. Note that, here, the form in which it is installed on the stage 12 of the load port 7-1 will be described.” See at least pg. 7; “Position detection markers 58-1 and 58-2 are attached to the surfaces of the first marker post 57-1 and the second marker post 57-2 facing the transport robot 2. In this embodiment, the position detection markers 58-1 and 58-2 are square plate-shaped members with a black cross on a white base. Furthermore, the positions where the straight lines of the cross intersect become the center points P4 and P5 of the position detection markers 58-1 and 58-2. These center points P4 and P5 are detection points set in the position teaching jig 55, and the camera 53 photographs these center points P4 and P5” See at least pg.7)
position calculation unit that calculates a position of the feature point; (“the control device 54 processes the image from the XZ coordinates on the image of each of the photographed center points (detection points) P4 and P5, thereby calculating the center points P4 and P5 of each marker 58-1 and 58-2 as position data, and accurately calculating the target positions of each finger 50-1 and 50-2.” See at least pg. 7)
and program generation unit that generates a work program for operating the transfer robot to be moved to a target position based on the position of the feature point. (“the teaching data regarding the Z direction, X direction, and rotational direction acquired by the position teaching is stored in the memory unit 46 of the robot controller 44.” See at least pg. 11; “the control device 54 stores the position data acquired by this position teaching in the memory unit 46.” See at least pg. 11)
Regarding Claim 7,
Ikoto teaches
A robot control device (“a position teaching device and a position teaching method that can perform accurate position teaching by using a camera.” See at least Abstract, pg. 1) that is used in a flat panel manufacturing system for manufacturing a flat panel and controls an operation of a transfer robot that transfers a workpiece between a plurality of chambers, the robot control device comprising: (“a transport robot 2 that transports a semiconductor wafer W, which is a disk-shaped substrate, to a predetermined location and a semiconductor manufacturing system 1 equipped with the transport robot 2 will be described as an example.” See at least pg. 2; “The semiconductor wafer W stored in the FOUP 3 is once transported to the aligner 52 by the transport robot 2, where the exact position of the wafer center point and the rotational positions of the notch and orientation flat are determined, and then the semiconductor wafer W is transported to the load lock chamber 4.” See at least pgs. 3-4; “the substrate transported by the transport device may be a rectangular substrate used in a flat panel display or a substrate used for a PLP (Panel Level Package) or a WLP (Wafer Level Package) other than a semiconductor wafer W.” See at least pg. 17; See at least fig. 18 (provided below))
PNG
media_image1.png
748
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
feature point detection unit that detects a feature point in a chamber while sensing inside of the chamber by using a sensor installed in a holding portion that holds the workpiece in the transfer robot; (“a camera that is mounted on the wrist part supporting the holding part and photographs the position teaching jig” See at least Abstract, pg. 1; “The position teaching jig 55 of this embodiment is configured to be installed at a predetermined position at the destination to which the transport robot 2 transports the semiconductor wafer W. Note that, here, the form in which it is installed on the stage 12 of the load port 7-1 will be described.” See at least pg. 7; “Position detection markers 58-1 and 58-2 are attached to the surfaces of the first marker post 57-1 and the second marker post 57-2 facing the transport robot 2. In this embodiment, the position detection markers 58-1 and 58-2 are square plate-shaped members with a black cross on a white base. Furthermore, the positions where the straight lines of the cross intersect become the center points P4 and P5 of the position detection markers 58-1 and 58-2. These center points P4 and P5 are detection points set in the position teaching jig 55, and the camera 53 photographs these center points P4 and P5” See at least pg.7)
position calculation unit that calculates a position of the feature point; (“the control device 54 processes the image from the XZ coordinates on the image of each of the photographed center points (detection points) P4 and P5, thereby calculating the center points P4 and P5 of each marker 58-1 and 58-2 as position data, and accurately calculating the target positions of each finger 50-1 and 50-2.” See at least pg. 7)
and program generation unit that generates a work program for operating the transfer robot to be moved to a target position based on the position of the feature point. (“the teaching data regarding the Z direction, X direction, and rotational direction acquired by the position teaching is stored in the memory unit 46 of the robot controller 44.” See at least pg. 11; “the control device 54 stores the position data acquired by this position teaching in the memory unit 46.” See at least pg. 11)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikoto (Translated JP2024058215A) in view of Kitagishi (US 20220310436 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Ikoto does not explicitly teach, but Kitagishi teaches
wherein the feature point includes at least a part of a support pin that supports the workpiece in the chamber. (“the substrate holder is a mechanical chuck that mechanically holds an outer peripheral portion of the substrate by a plurality of chuck pins that are arranged circularly. The mark corresponds to one or more of the plurality of chuck pins.” See at least [0009]; “the detection of the marks such as the chuck pins 323 may be implemented by, for example, pattern matching between the images acquired by these cameras and a reference image for the chuck pins 323.” See at least [0129])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ikoto to further include the teachings of Kitagishi with a reasonable expectation of success such that “the constituent elements of the substrate holder 32 that are necessary to hold a substrate 9 are also used as the marks. This enables obtaining highly accurate horizontal teaching information without complicating the structure of the substrate holder 32.” (See at least [0108]; Also see at least [0008])
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikoto (Translated JP2024058215A) in view of Jung (US 20230211495 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Ikoto does not explicitly teach, but Jung teaches
wherein the feature point includes at least a part of a wall surface configuring the chamber. (“the position control unit 410 may determine point position ranges of C1, C2, and C3 according to the predetermined numerical values, so that a first threshold value, a second threshold value, and a third threshold value can be determined, and may determine whether the test substrate 100 is in a region in the Z-axis, that the test substrate 100 may enter the vacuum chamber 200 by comparing the measurement result measured by the distance measuring sensors 110 and 120 with the first threshold value, the second threshold value, and the third threshold value.” See at least [0046], fig. 1, and fig. 4 (provided below), wherein the C2 is on a sidewall of the chamber.; “the position control unit 410 may calculate an entry position of the test substrate 100 in a width direction between a front portion and a rear portion of the vacuum chamber 200 by using the measured value of the distance measuring sensors 110 and 120” See at least [0083])
PNG
media_image2.png
606
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
312
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ikoto to further include the teachings of Jung with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate automatic and safe control to properly insert a wafer into a chamber without affecting an internal space of the chamber. (See at least [0002-0008])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikoto (Translated JP2024058215A) in view of Lee (US 20230067873 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Ikoto does not explicitly teach, but Lee teaches
wherein an operation path of the transfer robot is set to avoid a collision in the chamber in the work program. (“in the first teaching step, a position for entering the entrance 1126 without colliding with sidewall of the chamber 1100 is taught. Accordingly, when the substrate W enters the chamber 1100 through the entrance 1126, it is possible to prevent the substrate W from colliding with the inner wall of the entrance 1126 or the walls of the chamber 1100.” See at least [0109])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ikoto to further include the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by preventing collision. (See at least [0004])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikoto (Translated JP2024058215A) in view of Hosokawa (US 20060184275 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Ikoto further teaches
and display unit (“The control device 54 also includes a display unit 63 that displays the image photographed by the camera 53 and the teaching data, and an input unit 64 through which the operator inputs operation commands.” See at least pg. 6)
Ikoto does not explicitly teach, but Hosokawa teaches
further comprising: mapping unit that maps the position of the feature point in the chamber; (“steps how to simulate the robot's work is explained in what follows. Referring FIG. 5, steps of setting a working space of the robot in a simulation window 40 are explained. This process is also available in designing a wafer transferring room. ... setting an obstacle region process is shown in FIG. 6. This process is to define positions of wafer boxes (cassettes) 40-2 which are disposed around a pre-chamber (a working space) 40-1 and to define a position of a load lock room 40-4 where a wafer is processed.” See at least [0061-0065])
and display unit that displays a result of the mapping. (“Elements displayed on a display 4 are shown as a list in FIG. 2 and specific display screen is shown in FIG. 3. Major screen elements of the display are, a path of an moving transferred object, a layout of the device” See at least [0051] and fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ikoto to further include the teachings of Hosokawa with a reasonable expectation of success to improve teaching by facilitating visual user verification that the robot can carry out a specified work properly in given working space, without having any interference with surroundings. (See at least [0010])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikoto (Translated JP2024058215A) in view of Nakata (US 20110218662 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Ikoto does not explicitly teach, but Nakata teaches
further comprising target position receiving unit that receives a method of setting the target position through a user operation. (“One of the methods is for the user to manually operate the apparatus, and the other method is an automatic operation method. Mainly, the manual control operation is applied for the maintenance purpose or in urgency, while the automatic operation is applied in normal production. These methods are switched from one to another upon user selection through the console terminal 116. When the manual control method is selected through the console terminal 116, a manual process routine is performed. In the manual setting process 105, the user selects a target wafer to be transferred through the console terminal 116. When the user sets the destination, an operation instruction is generated in accordance with the set destination. An operation is performed in the operation execution process 107, based on the instruction. On the contrary, when the user selects the automatic control method, an automatic process routine is performed. In the destination determination process 106, the process chamber of the destination of each wafer is automatically calculated, and the operation execution process 107 is performed based on the calculation.” See at least [0080])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ikoto to further include the teachings of Nakata with a reasonable expectation of success to improve efficiency (See at least [0021]) and to facilitate improved teaching depending on the situation, for example, enabling manual control for maintenance purposes or in urgency (See at least [0080]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Graciano (US 20220059383 A1) is pertinent because it discusses teaching a wafer operation with cameras mounted on a holding portion of the robot to align the robot with features in a teach fixture. (See at least fig. 5A)
Kim (US 20250091203 A) is pertinent because it discusses a substrate processing process by carrying a substrate into a chamber, and disposing the substrate in a loading region of the chamber, capturing an image of a lower surface of the substrate to acquire a first image, identifying particle patterns formed on the lower surface of the substrate in the substrate processing process, and an edge of the substrate, from the first image, calculating a first alignment error value of a deviation between an approximate position value for the center of the loading region calculated from the particle patterns and an approximate position value for a center of the substrate calculated from the edge of the substrate, and determining a point in time for teaching a transfer robot that deposits the substrate into the chamber, based on the first alignment error value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571)270-3976. 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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights