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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 09 June 2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
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: “a processing element” as in claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, 16 & 18, and “a coupling element” as in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims "a processing element", however, Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed function pertaining to said “processing element”, and therefore claim 1 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims "a processing element", however, Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed function pertaining to said “processing element”, and therefore claim 7 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 8-17, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 7 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims “a coupling element”, however, Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed function pertaining to said “coupling element”, and therefore claim 9 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant claims "a processing element", however, Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed function pertaining to said “processing element”, and therefore claim 18 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 18 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims “a processing element”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “processing element” encompass, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed functionality associated with the claimed “processing element”. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims “a processing element”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “processing element” encompass, and therefore claim 7 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed functionality associated with the claimed “processing element”. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 8-17, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 7 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims “a coupling element”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “coupling element” encompass, and therefore claim 9 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed functionality associated with the claimed “coupling element”. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant claims “a processing element”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “processing element” encompass, and therefore claim 18 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the corresponding structure is for performing the claimed functionality associated with the claimed “processing element”. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 18 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC § 112 rejections provided herein.
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, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Handa et al (US 2018/0012789 A1, hereinafter Handa).
Regarding claim 1, Handa teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a position measurement unit (Figure 2, external sensor 120, drive units) comprising one or more sensors configured to take measurements describing a change in location of an equipment front end module (EFEM) within a chamber between different times (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, wherein “each drive unit provides feedback that indicates at least a position of the drive unit” and further wherein the “external sensor 120 is used to provide position feedback”); and
a processing element (Figure 2, control unit 22) configured to utilize the measurements to determine a set of commands configured to operate the EFEM in a manner that accounts for the change in location of the EFEM between the different times (Figures 1, 2 & 16; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, 0036, 0048 and 0076-0082, wherein the “control unit 22 controls the operation of drive units in accordance with the feedback information to control the position of each of the torso 14, the first arm 16, the second arm 18, and the third arm 20” and further wherein the control unit generates a path (i.e. point-to-point motion profile) along a series of points from an initial location to a destination location, including acceleration and timing information associated with said point-to-point motion profile).
Regarding claim 7, Handa teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a position measurement unit (Figure 2, external sensor 120, drive units) configured to generate positional parameters describing a change in position of an equipment front end module (EFEM) between a first time and a second time (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, wherein “each drive unit provides feedback that indicates at least a position of the drive unit” and further wherein the “external sensor 120 is used to provide position feedback”);
a processing element (Figure 2, control unit 22) configured to utilize the positional parameters to determine a set of commands configured to operate the EFEM to move a substrate between a carrier and a semiconductor tool after the second time (Figures 1, 2 & 16; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, 0036, 0048 and 0076-0082, wherein the “control unit 22 controls the operation of drive units in accordance with the feedback information to control the position of each of the torso 14, the first arm 16, the second arm 18, and the third arm 20” and further wherein the control unit generates a path (i.e. point-to-point motion profile) along a series of points from an initial location to a destination location, including acceleration and timing information associated with said point-to-point motion profile); and
a communication interface (Figure 1, communication interface 116) configured to transmit the set of commands to a controller or teaching pendant configured to control operation of the EFEM according to the set of commands (Figures 2 & 16; at least as in paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0076-0082).
Regarding claim 8, Handa teaches the apparatus further comprising: a housing surrounding the position measurement unit, the processing element, and the communication interface (Figures 1-2; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0033, at least as shown in Figure 2 and further discussed in paragraphs 0029 & 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Handa teaches the apparatus further comprising: a coupling element configured to couple the housing to a surface of an EFEM chamber or to the EFEM (Figures 1-2; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0033, at least as shown in Figure 2 and further discussed in paragraphs 0029 & 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Handa teaches the apparatus further comprising: a housing surrounding the position measurement unit, wherein the processing element is outside of the housing (Figures 1-2; at least as in paragraphs 0028-0033, at least as shown in Figure 2 and further discussed in paragraphs 0029 & 0031).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa et al (US 2018/0012789 A1, hereinafter Handa) in view of Liao et al (US 2013/0325179 A1, hereinafter Liao).
The teachings of Handa have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the change in location is a change between a first position of a base of the EFEM and a second position of the base of the EFEM (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the chamber is arranged between a semiconductor processing tool and a load port configured to receive a carrier holding one or more substrates (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the position measurement unit comprises an imaging device and a distance measurement device (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the position measurement unit is configured to determine positional parameters that describe the change in location of the EFEM along a first direction and along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the positional parameters further describe the change in location of the EFEM along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and a change in an orientation of the EFEM (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the EFEM comprises a robotic arm including a plurality of arm segments coupled between a base and a wafer blade, the positional parameters describing a change in position of the base (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the position measurement unit comprises a charge coupled device (CCD) camera, a plurality of lasers, and a plurality of sensors (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the position measurement unit comprises a first laser and a second laser, the first laser and the second laser being oriented to generate a laser beam along a first direction and being separated from one another along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the position measurement unit is configured to measure a plurality of distances between different parts of the position measurement unit and a target (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the processing element is configured to utilize the plurality of distances to determine a change in orientation of the EFEM between the first time and the second time (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Handa is silent regarding, however Liao teaches, wherein the position measurement unit comprises a vision system and laser distance measurement sensor (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Handa teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a position measurement device (Figure 2, external sensor 120, drive units) configured to measure a change in position of an equipment front end module (EFEM) at different times (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, wherein “each drive unit provides feedback that indicates at least a position of the drive unit” and further wherein the “external sensor 120 is used to provide position feedback”),
wherein a processing element (Figure 2, control unit 22) is configured to utilize the change in position to determine a set of commands that operate the EFEM in a manner that accounts for the change in position of the EFEM between the different times (Figures 1, 2 & 16; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, 0036, 0048 and 0076-0082, wherein the “control unit 22 controls the operation of drive units in accordance with the feedback information to control the position of each of the torso 14, the first arm 16, the second arm 18, and the third arm 20” and further wherein the control unit generates a path (i.e. point-to-point motion profile) along a series of points from an initial location to a destination location, including acceleration and timing information associated with said point-to-point motion profile). Handa is silent specifically regarding wherein the position measurement device comprises, “one or more lasers configured to generate one or more laser beams; and one or more sensors positioned to receive reflections of the one or more laser beams”.
Liao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a robotic system/method for positioning and/or handling one or more wafer(s) (i.e. substrates, semiconductors, etc.) and/or wafer carriers. Liao goes on to teach wherein one or more laser rangefinder(s) and/or sensors (i.e. non-contact sensors, image sensors, CCD cameras, etc.) may be used to determine relative distance(s) and/or collect images between different elements (i.e. object(s), wafer(s), FOUPs, etc.) of the system (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082, wherein the distance detection device(s) is/are a laser range finder, and further wherein the distance detection devices may be used with advantage in conjunction with initially adjusting the position and alignment of a robotic feed arm in a semiconductor tool processing chamber). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Handa to include Liao’s teaching(s) wherein the distance measurement device comprises one or more lasers, imaging device(s) and/or other non-contact sensors for measuring distances/offsets between various elements within said wafer system, since Liao teaches wherein employing measurement techniques with said measurement device(s) provides for accurate detection of distances for position and alignment of a robotic device within a semiconductor environment, thereby combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, in view of the above combination of Handa and Liao, Liao further teaches wherein the one or more lasers comprise a plurality of lasers and the one or more sensors comprise a plurality of sensors are alternatively positioned between the plurality of lasers (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082).
Regarding claim 20, in view of the above combination of Handa and Liao, Liao further teaches wherein the position measurement device further comprises an imaging device (Figures 1-5; at least as in paragraphs 0039-0045, 0054-0057 and 0082).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa et al (US 2018/0012789 A1, hereinafter Handa) in view of Kakuma et al (US 2018/0053319 A1, hereinafter Kakuma).
Regarding claim 10, Handa teaches the EFEM teaching element of claim 7, as indicated above. Handa further teaches a distance measurement device configured to measure a first distance and a second distance corresponding to the new position of the EFEM robot (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0030-0033, wherein “each drive unit provides feedback that indicates at least a position of the drive unit” and further wherein the “external sensor 120 is used to provide position feedback”) Examiner notes wherein utilizing at least one of the “drive unit(s)” and “external sensor 120” correspond to providing at least a first and second measurement corresponding to the position of the EFEM robot. That said, Handa is silent regarding wherein the position measurement unit is configured to measure an alignment mark offset and a distance offset; and wherein the processing element is configured to generate the set of commands using original positional data of the EFEM, the alignment mark offset, and the distance offset.
Kakuma, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an imaging device (Figures 2 & 3, camera 72) configured to capture an image of an alignment mark (Figures 1-3 & 5-6, alignment mark(s) 61-64) disposed in the EFEM chamber (Figure 3, chamber 90) (at least as in paragraphs 0046, 0050-0053 and 0056-0058, specifically wherein the “alignment marks 61 through 64 which serve as position references are fixed at a plurality of positions which are within the field of view of the camera 72 and which are on an inner wall surface 901 of the chamber 90. The positions of the alignment marks 61 through 64 inside the chamber 90 have been determined in advance. The alignment marks 61 through 64 are so arranged that as illumination light irradiated from the illuminator 71 is reflected at the surfaces of the alignment marks 61 through 64, the reflected light impinges upon the camera 72. The alignment marks 61 through 64 contained within an image shot by the camera 72 are used as position references which are for assessment of the positions and the postures of the camera 72, the respective nozzles 33, 43 and 53 and the substrate W.”) Examiner notes wherein based on the teachings of Kakuma, the camera is used to determine the positions of various elements (i.e. camera, nozzle(s) and substrate) within the chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the teachings of Handa to include Kakuma’s teaching(s) of providing an imaging device configured to capture an image of an alignment mark disposed in an EFEM chamber and further determine positions of moving elements within said chamber, since Kakuma teaches wherein such a system including an imaging device for detecting alignment mark(s) and/or elements within the chamber, provides increased accuracy in the detection of positioning of said elements within the chamber, as indicated by the above referenced sections of Kakuma. Examiner further notes wherein one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Handa and Kakuma, as they are both directed towards accurately detecting displacement of one or more elements within an EFEM chamber, thereby combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes the following references, which are in the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, and additionally read(s) on several of the currently provided claim limitations;
US 2004/0031779 A1, issued to Cahill et al, which is directed towards a method and system for calibrating a laser processing system and laser marking system for a wafer.
US 2004/0207836 A1, issued to Chhibber et al, which is directed toward a high precision optical inspection system and corresponding method for detection of semiconductors (i.e. wafers, substrates, etc.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights