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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the double patenting rejection. Therefore, the double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejections: Based on Applicant’s amendments, the examiner withdraws the previous 103 rejections. However, after further search and consideration, new rejections have been made based on newly cited sections of the previously cited prior art (see below for details).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 29, 31, 34-36, 38, 44, 48-49, and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager (US 20150079683) in view of Hamasaki (US 20130338041 A1), Plain (US 20120252056 A1), Pettibone (US 9970873 B1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Yager teaches an inspection system (figures 1 and 3), the inspection system comprising:
an illumination source configured to generate one or more illumination beams (paragraphs 14 and 25);
a substrate, the substrate including at least a first material and at least a second material (graphene, 12, and exposed area SiO2, 15), wherein the first material is different from the second material, the substrate including a photoluminescent material (18; paragraph 18) configured to selectively bind to a surface of at least one of the first material or the second material to enhance signal contrast of a feature of interest (14) on the substrate (paragraph 18);
one or more detectors configured to detect photoluminescent emission emitted by the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate (paragraphs 5 and 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
750
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1004
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding, “a set of optical elements configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from the illumination source to a surface of the substrate; the set of optical elements configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate to the one or more detectors,” Yager teaches direct the one or more illumination beams from the illumination source to a surface of the substrate (paragraphs 14 and 25); direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate to the one or more detectors (paragraphs 5 and 31). Additionally, Yager suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach using optical elements to do the above directing (Note that the examples given in paragraph 31 include fluorescence microscopes and automated optical inspection machines, which would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art the use of optical elements). Additionally, using optical elements to direct a beam to and from a measurement site is well known in the field. For example, like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of using a set of optical elements (512, 513, 517) configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from the illumination source (507) to a surface of the substrate; the set of optical elements (512, 513, 517) configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate to the one or more detectors (518). Benefits include being able to direct the beams of light along the desired axes and to the desired positions (“so as to be on the same axis” in paragraph 67 of Hamasaki) and see below.
PNG
media_image4.png
389
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similarly, as another example, like Yager (and like Applicant), Plain is directed to an optical fluorescence measurement system and teaches that a set of optical elements configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from an illumination source to a surface of the substrate, the set of optical elements configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material to one or more detectors (paragraph 78). Additionally, Plain teaches this provides the benefits of directing the beam to the desired region of the sample and collecting an optimum light intensity from the sample region (paragraph 78).
PNG
media_image5.png
680
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
356
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it comprises a set of optical elements configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from the illumination source to a surface of the substrate; the set of optical elements configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate to the one or more detectors – in order to guide the light beam to the target area along one’s desired beam path, guide the emission to the desired area of the detector along one’s desired beam path, provide for a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and optimize collected and detected light intensity.
Regarding, “the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule…,” Yager teaches the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule and a marker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between the substrate and the marker molecule and the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest (figure 1 and paragraph 18; for more details, see the examiner’s response to arguments, which are reproduced below for Applicant’s convenience).
Regarding the claim limitation containing the linker molecule, upon further search and consideration, the examiner has concluded that the primary reference, Yager, teaches the limitation of the linker molecule. First, the examiner searched general dictionaries and chemical dictionaries and did not find a specialized definition for the term “linker molecule.” Further, Applicant’s specification did not provide a definition of the term. Therefore, the term is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as a molecule that provides for linking (i.e. connecting or joining), which is consistent with Applicant’s use in the specification. As can be seen in figure 1, the luminescent material includes a molecule that enables a preferential material connection. In other words, it is a linker. (This can also be seen by contrasting it with the alternative embodiment of figure 2, which includes a linker as a part of the substrate). Also, with respect to the cited embodiment of figure 1, and as described in paragraph 18, “the silane fluorophore 18 can bind preferentially with the exposed area 15 of the surface and not to the graphene layer 12 due to an amino silane moiety present in the silane fluorophore 18… has ethoxy groups in the amino silane moiety. The ethoxy groups can react with the hydroxyl groups adsorbed at the surface of the substrate 10 to bind the silane fluorophore 18 to the exposed area 15 of the surface via an oxygen atom, while forming ethanol (not shown) as a by-product. Accordingly, the fluorophore 18 can adhere to the exposed area 15, and not to the graphene layer 12, to label the defect 14 in the graphene layer 12, with a reduced likelihood of leaching from the substrate 10.” The examiner additionally provides the reference Wassel (Scratch resistant non-fouling surfaces) (also included in the additional prior art section) which describes amino silane as a linker molecule in the abstract.
PNG
media_image3.png
1004
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers Yager as teaching this limitation. Alternatively, like Yager (and like Applicant), Pettibone is directed to an inspection system with luminescent materials (also note that the defects of Pettibone include "pits or cracks in the surface of a wafer" [column 4, lines 25-30] which is further in line with Yager) and teaches a photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule and a marker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between the substrate and the marker molecule and the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest. (column 4, line 60 – column 5, line 25; note that the defect, 160, is on the substrate which corresponds to wafer, 106, as explained in column 4, lines 10-30). Additionally, Pettibone teaches this provides the benefit of maximizing the efficiency of the fluorescent properties (column 5, lines 1-10).
PNG
media_image7.png
490
234
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
427
464
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule and a marker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between the substrate and the marker molecule and the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest – in order to maximize the efficiency of the fluorescent properties.
Yager suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest (e.g. as seen in paragraph 18, the fluorophores bind to the exposed area, which suggests that the larger the exposed area, the more fluorophores and therefore the greater the fluorescent signal). Additionally, like Yager (and like Applicant), Pettibone is directed to an inspection system with luminescent materials (also note that the defects of Pettibone include "pits or cracks in the surface of a wafer" [column 4, lines 25-30] which is further in line with Yager) and teaches signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest (column 13, lines 45-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest in order to measure the size of the defect/feature.
Regarding claim 2, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material preferentially attaches to one of the first material or the second material of the substrate (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 3, Yager teaches the illumination source is configured to excite the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 4, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more organic dyes, one or more fluorophores, one or more quantum dots, one or more carbon dots, one or more transition metals, one or more conjugated polymers, or one or more phosphorescent nanoparticles (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 6, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material is configured to selectively bind to one of the first material or the second material of the substrate (paragraph 18).
Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the binding is to a monolayer.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of binding to a monolayer (paragraphs 9 and 60). Additionally, Hamasaki teaches this provides the benefit of effective binding in a variety of conditions (paragraphs 9 and 60) and ensuring that the binding is easy and efficient (paragraph 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material is configured to selectively bind to a monolayer of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate in order to ensure effective binding in a variety of conditions.
Regarding claim 12, Yager teaches one of the first material or the second material includes at least one of: porous carbon doped organosilicon, copper, cobalt, ruthenium, tungsten, aluminum, silicon, polycrystalline silicon, titanium nitride, or silicon nitride (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 14, Yager teaches a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more detectors, the controller including one or more processors to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to identify one or more defects on the surface of the substrate based on the detected photoluminescent emission from the one or more detectors (paragraphs 26 and 28).
Regarding claim 15, Yager teaches the feature of interest includes a defect of interest (paragraphs 26, 28, and 18).
Regarding claim 17, Yager teaches the feature of interest includes a material of interest (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 18, Yager teaches the substrate includes a wafer (suggested by inspection wafers in paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 29, Yager teaches one of the first material or the second material includes at least one of: porous carbon doped organosilicon, copper, cobalt, ruthenium, tungsten, aluminum, silicon, polycrystalline silicon, titanium nitride, or silicon nitride (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 31, Yager teaches the feature of interest includes a defect of interest (paragraphs 26, 28, and 18).
Regarding claim 34, Yager teaches a method (figures 1 and 3) comprising:
generating one or more illumination beams using an illumination source (paragraphs 14 and 25);
directing the one or more illumination beams to a substrate, the substrate including at least a first material and at least a second material (graphene, 12, and exposed area SiO2, 15), wherein the first material is different from the second material, the substrate further including a photoluminescent material (18; paragraph 18) configured to selectively bind to a surface of at least one of the first material or the second material (paragraph 18); and
detecting photoluminescent emission emitted preferentially from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate using one or more detectors (paragraphs 5 and 31).
Additionally, Yager suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach using optical elements to do the above directing (Note that the examples given in paragraph 31 include fluorescence microscopes and automated optical inspection machines, which would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art the use of optical elements). Additionally, using optical elements to direct a beam to and from a measurement site is well known in the field. For example, like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of using a set of optical elements (512, 513, 517) configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from the illumination source (507) to a surface of the substrate; the set of optical elements (512, 513, 517) configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate to the one or more detectors (518). Benefits include being able to direct the beams of light along the desired axes and to the desired positions (“so as to be on the same axis” in paragraph 67 of Hamasaki) and see below.
Similarly, as another example, like Yager (and like Applicant), Plain is directed to an optical fluorescence measurement system and teaches that a set of optical elements configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from an illumination source to a surface of the substrate, the set of optical elements configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material to one or more detectors (paragraph 78). Additionally, Plain teaches this provides the benefits of directing the beam to the desired region of the sample and collecting an optimum light intensity from the sample region (paragraph 78).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it comprises a set of optical elements configured to direct the one or more illumination beams from the illumination source to a surface of the substrate; the set of optical elements configured to direct the photoluminescent emission from the photoluminescent material of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate to the one or more detectors – in order to guide the light beam to the target area along one’s desired beam path, guide the emission to the desired area of the detector along one’s desired beam path, provide for a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and optimize collected and detected light intensity.
Regarding, “the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule…,” Yager teaches the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule and a marker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between the substrate and the marker molecule and the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest (figure 1 and paragraph 18; for more details, see the examiner’s response to arguments, which are reproduced below for Applicant’s convenience).
Regarding the claim limitation containing the linker molecule, upon further search and consideration, the examiner has concluded that the primary reference, Yager, teaches the limitation of the linker molecule. First, the examiner searched general dictionaries and chemical dictionaries and did not find a specialized definition for the term “linker molecule.” Further, Applicant’s specification did not provide a definition of the term. Therefore, the term is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as a molecule that provides for linking (i.e. connecting or joining), which is consistent with Applicant’s use in the specification. As can be seen in figure 1, the luminescent material includes a molecule that enables a preferential material connection. In other words, it is a linker. (This can also be seen by contrasting it with the alternative embodiment of figure 2, which includes a linker as a part of the substrate). Also, with respect to the cited embodiment of figure 1, and as described in paragraph 18, “the silane fluorophore 18 can bind preferentially with the exposed area 15 of the surface and not to the graphene layer 12 due to an amino silane moiety present in the silane fluorophore 18… has ethoxy groups in the amino silane moiety. The ethoxy groups can react with the hydroxyl groups adsorbed at the surface of the substrate 10 to bind the silane fluorophore 18 to the exposed area 15 of the surface via an oxygen atom, while forming ethanol (not shown) as a by-product. Accordingly, the fluorophore 18 can adhere to the exposed area 15, and not to the graphene layer 12, to label the defect 14 in the graphene layer 12, with a reduced likelihood of leaching from the substrate 10.” The examiner additionally provides the reference Wassel (Scratch resistant non-fouling surfaces) (also included in the additional prior art section) which describes amino silane as a linker molecule in the abstract.
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers Yager as teaching this limitation. Alternatively, like Yager (and like Applicant), Pettibone is directed to an inspection system with luminescent materials (also note that the defects of Pettibone include "pits or cracks in the surface of a wafer" [column 4, lines 25-30] which is further in line with Yager) and teaches a photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule and a marker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between the substrate and the marker molecule and the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest. (column 4, line 60 – column 5, line 25; note that the defect, 160, is on the substrate which corresponds to wafer, 106, as explained in column 4, lines 10-30). Additionally, Pettibone teaches this provides the benefit of maximizing the efficiency of the fluorescent properties (column 5, lines 1-10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule and a marker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between the substrate and the marker molecule and the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest – in order to maximize the efficiency of the fluorescent properties.
Yager suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest (e.g. as seen in paragraph 18, the fluorophores bind to the exposed area, which suggests that the larger the exposed area, the more fluorophores and therefore the greater the fluorescent signal). Additionally, like Yager (and like Applicant), Pettibone is directed to an inspection system with luminescent materials (also note that the defects of Pettibone include "pits or cracks in the surface of a wafer" [column 4, lines 25-30] which is further in line with Yager) and teaches signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest (column 13, lines 45-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest in order to measure the size of the defect/feature.
Regarding claim 35, Yager teaches identifying one or more defects on a surface of the substrate based on the detected photoluminescent emission from the one or more detectors (paragraphs 26, 28, and 18).
Regarding claim 36, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more organic dyes, one or more quantum dots, one or more carbon dots, one or more transition metals, or one or more conjugated polymers (paragraphs 14 and 18).
Regarding claim 38, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material is configured to selectively bind to one of the first material or the second material of the substrate (paragraph 18).
Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the binding is to a monolayer.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of binding to a monolayer (paragraphs 9 and 60). Additionally, Hamasaki teaches this provides the benefit of effective binding in a variety of conditions (paragraphs 9 and 60) and ensuring that the binding is easy and efficient (paragraph 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material is configured to selectively bind to a monolayer of one of the first material or the second material of the substrate in order to ensure effective binding in a variety of conditions.
Regarding claim 44, Yager teaches one of the first material or the second material includes at least one of: porous carbon doped organosilicon, cooper, cobalt, ruthenium, tungsten, aluminum, silicon, polycrystalline silicon, titanium nitride, or silicon nitride (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 48, in the above combination signal generation of the photoluminescent material is not dependent on a volume of the feature of interest (since it’s dependent on the surface area due to the photoluminescent material being on the surface and not embedded in the volume; in the interest of compact prosecution, also see the additional prior art which describes area and volume as being distinct dependencies one might choose).
Regarding claim 49, in the above combination a first feature of interest and a second feature of interest having equivalent surface areas but differing volumes have the same amount of photoluminescent material (since it’s dependent on the surface area due to the photoluminescent material being on the surface and not embedded in the volume; in the interest of compact prosecution, also see the additional prior art which describes area and volume as being distinct dependencies one might choose).
Regarding claim 52, in the above combination signal generation of the photoluminescent material is not dependent on a volume of the feature of interest (since it’s dependent on the surface area due to the photoluminescent material being on the surface and not embedded in the volume; in the interest of compact prosecution, also see the additional prior art which describes area and volume as being distinct dependencies one might choose).
Regarding claim 53, in the above combination a first feature of interest and a second feature of interest having equivalent surface areas but differing volumes have the same amount of photoluminescent material (since it’s dependent on the surface area due to the photoluminescent material being on the surface and not embedded in the volume; in the interest of compact prosecution, also see the additional prior art which describes area and volume as being distinct dependencies one might choose).
Claims 7 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager, Hamasaki, Plain, and Pettibone as applied to claims 4 and 36 above, and further in view of Jayaraman (US 20120171776 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 39, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material has a photoluminescent emission time scale less than 10 nanoseconds.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Jayaraman is directed to an optical photoluminescence based system and teaches photoluminescent material has a photoluminescent emission time scale less than 10 nanoseconds (paragraph 32).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material has a photoluminescent emission time scale less than 10 nanoseconds in order to detect quickly.
Claims 8, 13 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager, Hamasaki, Plain, and and Pettibone as applied to claims 1, 4 and 36 above, and further in view of Bogaart (US 20160097983 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 40, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material has a spatial characteristic length between 2 nanometers and 4 nanometers.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Bogaart is directed to an optical inspection system and teaches the photoluminescent material has a size between 2 nanometers and 4 nanometers (2 nm and 3 nm in paragraph 84).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material has a spatial characteristic length between 2 nanometers and 4 nanometers in order to have a compact device that can measure with high spatial precision.
Regarding claims 13, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the size of the photoluminescent material is between 3 nanometers and 5 nanometers.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Bogaart is directed to an optical inspection system and teaches the size of the photoluminescent material is between 3 nanometers and 5 nanometers (3 nm in paragraph 84).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the size of the photoluminescent material is between 3 nanometers and 5 nanometers in order to have a compact device that can measure with high spatial precision.
Claims 9 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager, Hamasaki, Plain, and Pettibone as applied to claims 4 and 36 above, and further in view of Jones (US 20200240992 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 41, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material has a quantum yield greater than 15 percent.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Jones is directed to an optical photoluminescence based system and method and teaches photoluminescent material has a quantum yield greater than 15 percent (paragraph 48).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material has a quantum yield greater than 15 percent in order to have high efficiency and large signal.
Claims 10, 11, and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager, Hamasaki, Plain, and Pettibone, as applied to claims 5 and 37 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20100291685 A1)
Regarding claims 10 and 42¸ Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more hydrophobic fluorophores or one or more hydrophilic fluorophores.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Zhang is directed to an optical inspection system and method and teaches a photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more hydrophobic fluorophores or one or more hydrophilic fluorophores (paragraphs 2, 36, 39, 41, 46, and 62). Additionally, Zhang teaches this provides the benefit of having the photoluminescent material properties adapted to the properties of the target materials (paragraphs 2, 36, 39, 41, 46, and 62).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more hydrophobic fluorophores or one or more hydrophilic fluorophores – in order to have the photoluminescent material properties adapted to the properties of the target materials.
Regarding claim 11, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the linker molecule includes a self- assembled monolayer material.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of including a self- assembled monolayer material (paragraphs 9, 37, 54, and 60). Additionally, Hamasaki teaches this provides the benefit of effective binding in a variety of conditions (paragraphs 9 and 60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the linker molecule includes a self- assembled monolayer material in order to ensure effective binding in a variety of conditions.
Regarding claim 43, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the linker molecule includes a self- assembled monolayer material.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of including a self- assembled monolayer material (paragraphs 9, 37, 54, and 60). Additionally, Hamasaki teaches this provides the benefit of effective binding in a variety of conditions (paragraphs 9 and 60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the linker molecule includes a self- assembled monolayer material in order to ensure effective binding in a variety of conditions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager, Hamasaki, Plain, and Pettibone as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yakovlev (US 6611326 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the feature of interest includes a pattern of interest.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Yakovlev is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of a feature of interest includes a pattern of interest (column 8, lines 30-50; column 8, line 65-67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the feature of interest includes a pattern of interest in order to evaluate substrates that have patterned surfaces to determine if it meets the desired quality goals.
Claims 19, 21, 29, 31, 33, and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager (US 20150079683 A1) in view of Pettibone (US 9970873 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Yager teaches:
a first material (one of: graphene, 12, and exposed area SiO2, 15);
a second material (the other of: graphene, 12, and exposed area SiO2, 15), wherein the first material is different from the second material; and
a photoluminescent material (18) configured to selectively bind to a surface of at least one of the first material or the second material to enhance signal contrast of a feature of interest (paragraph 18);
wherein the photoluminescent material includes a marker molecule, the marker molecule configured to selectively mark a targeted material to amplify the feature of interest (paragraph 18).
Regarding, “the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule…,” Yager teaches the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between either the first material or the second material and the marker molecule (figure 1 and paragraph 18; for more details, see the examiner’s response to arguments, which are reproduced below for Applicant’s convenience).
Regarding the claim limitation containing the linker molecule, upon further search and consideration, the examiner has concluded that the primary reference, Yager, teaches the limitation of the linker molecule. First, the examiner searched general dictionaries and chemical dictionaries and did not find a specialized definition for the term “linker molecule.” Further, Applicant’s specification did not provide a definition of the term. Therefore, the term is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as a molecule that provides for linking (i.e. connecting or joining), which is consistent with Applicant’s use in the specification. As can be seen in figure 1, the luminescent material includes a molecule that enables a preferential material connection. In other words, it is a linker. (This can also be seen by contrasting it with the alternative embodiment of figure 2, which includes a linker as a part of the substrate). Also, with respect to the cited embodiment of figure 1, and as described in paragraph 18, “the silane fluorophore 18 can bind preferentially with the exposed area 15 of the surface and not to the graphene layer 12 due to an amino silane moiety present in the silane fluorophore 18… has ethoxy groups in the amino silane moiety. The ethoxy groups can react with the hydroxyl groups adsorbed at the surface of the substrate 10 to bind the silane fluorophore 18 to the exposed area 15 of the surface via an oxygen atom, while forming ethanol (not shown) as a by-product. Accordingly, the fluorophore 18 can adhere to the exposed area 15, and not to the graphene layer 12, to label the defect 14 in the graphene layer 12, with a reduced likelihood of leaching from the substrate 10.” The examiner additionally provides the reference Wassel (Scratch resistant non-fouling surfaces) (also included in the additional prior art section) which describes amino silane as a linker molecule in the abstract.
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers Yager as teaching this limitation. Alternatively, like Yager (and like Applicant), Pettibone is directed to an inspection system with luminescent materials (also note that the defects of Pettibone include "pits or cracks in the surface of a wafer" [column 4, lines 25-30] which is further in line with Yager) andteaches a photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between either the first material or the second material and the marker molecule (column 4, line 60 – column 5, line 25; note that the defect, 160, is on the substrate which corresponds to wafer, 106, as explained in column 4, lines 10-30). Additionally, Pettibone teaches this provides the benefit of maximizing the efficiency of the fluorescent properties (column 5, lines 1-10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material includes a linker molecule, the linker molecule configured to enable a preferential material connection between either the first material or the second material and the marker molecule – in order to maximize the efficiency of the fluorescent properties.
Yager suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest (e.g. as seen in paragraph 18, the fluorophores bind to the exposed area, which suggests that the larger the exposed area, the more fluorophores and therefore the greater the fluorescent signal). Additionally, like Yager (and like Applicant), Pettibone is directed to an inspection system with luminescent materials (also note that the defects of Pettibone include "pits or cracks in the surface of a wafer" [column 4, lines 25-30] which is further in line with Yager) and teaches signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest (column 13, lines 45-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that signal generation of the photoluminescent material is dependent on the area of the feature of interest in order to measure the size of the defect/feature.
Regarding claim 21, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more organic dyes, one or more quantum dots, one or more carbon dots, one or more transition metals, or one or more conjugated polymers (paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 29, Yager teaches one of the first material or the second material includes at least one of: porous carbon doped organosilicon, cooper, cobalt, ruthenium, tungsten, aluminum, silicon, polycrystalline silicon, titanium nitride, or silicon nitride (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 31, Yager teaches the feature of interest includes a defect of interest (paragraphs 26, 28, and 18).
Regarding claim 33, Yager teaches the feature of interest includes a material of interest (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 50, in the above combination signal generation of the photoluminescent material is not dependent on a volume of the feature of interest (since it’s dependent on the surface area due to the photoluminescent material being on the surface and not embedded in the volume; in the interest of compact prosecution, also see the additional prior art which describes area and volume as being distinct dependencies one might choose).
Regarding claim 51, in the above combination a first feature of interest and a second feature of interest having equivalent surface areas but differing volumes have the same amount of photoluminescent material (since it’s dependent on the surface area due to the photoluminescent material being on the surface and not embedded in the volume; in the interest of compact prosecution, also see the additional prior art which describes area and volume as being distinct dependencies one might choose).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yakovlev.
Regarding claim 20, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material preferentially attaches to one of the first material or the second material of the patterned wafer (paragraph 18).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the wafer is a patterned wafer.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Yakovlev is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of a wafer is a patterned wafer (columns 1 and 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the wafer is a patterned wafer in order to inspect circuits and other devices for defects.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hamasaki and Yakovlev.
Regarding claim 23, Yager teaches the photoluminescent material is configured to selectively bind to one of the first material or the second material of the wafer (paragraph 18; for wafer, see paragraph 45).
Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the binding is to a monolayer; and the wafer is a patterned wafer.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of binding to a monolayer (paragraphs 9 and 60). Additionally, Hamasaki teaches this provides the benefit of effective binding in a variety of conditions (paragraphs 9 and 60) and ensuring that the binding is easy and efficient (paragraph 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material is configured to selectively bind to a monolayer of one of the first material or the second material of the wafer in order to ensure effective binding in a variety of conditions.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the wafer is a patterned wafer.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Yakovlev is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of a wafer is a patterned wafer (columns 1 and 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the wafer is a patterned wafer in order to inspect circuits and other devices for defects.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jayaraman.
Regarding claim 24, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material has a photoluminescent emission time scale less than 10 nanoseconds.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Jayaraman is directed to an optical photoluminescence based system and teaches photoluminescent material has a photoluminescent emission time scale less than 10 nanoseconds (paragraph 32).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material has a photoluminescent emission time scale less than 10 nanoseconds in order to detect quickly.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bogaart.
Regarding claim 25, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material has a spatial characteristic length between 2 nanometers and 4 nanometers.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Bogaart is directed to an optical inspection system and teaches the photoluminescent material has a size between 2 nanometers and 4 nanometers (2 nm and 3 nm in paragraph 84).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material has a spatial characteristic length between 2 nanometers and 4 nanometers in order to have a compact device that can measure with high spatial precision.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jones (US 20200240992 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material has a quantum yield greater than 15 percent.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Jones is directed to an optical photoluminescence based system and teaches photoluminescent material has a quantum yield greater than 15 percent (paragraph 48).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material has a quantum yield greater than 15 percent in order to have high efficiency and large signal.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 27¸ Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more hydrophobic fluorophores or one or more hydrophilic fluorophores.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Zhang is directed to an optical inspection system and method and teaches a photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more hydrophobic fluorophores or one or more hydrophilic fluorophores (paragraphs 2, 36, 39, 41, 46, and 62). Additionally, Zhang teaches this provides the benefit of having the photoluminescent material properties adapted to the properties of the target materials (paragraphs 2, 36, 39, 41, 46, and 62).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more hydrophobic fluorophores or one or more hydrophilic fluorophores – in order to have the photoluminescent material properties adapted to the properties of the target materials.
Regarding claim 28, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the linker molecule includes a self- assembled monolayer material.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Hamasaki is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of including a self- assembled monolayer material (paragraphs 9, 37, 54, and 60). Additionally, Hamasaki teaches this provides the benefit of effective binding in a variety of conditions (paragraphs 9 and 60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the linker molecule includes a self- assembled monolayer material in order to ensure effective binding in a variety of conditions.
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yakovlev.
Regarding claim 30, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the patterned wafer includes an integrated circuit device.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Yakovlev is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of a patterned wafer includes an integrated circuit device (column 1, lines 20-30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the materials inspected are a part of a patterned wafer that includes an integrated circuit device in order to ensure that there the integrated circuit performs as desired by determining whether there are defects that can affect performance.
Regarding claim 32, Yager doesn’t explicitly teach the feature of interest includes a pattern of interest.
Like Yager (and like Applicant), Yakovlev is also directed to an optical inspection system and provides a general teaching of a feature of interest includes a pattern of interest (column 8, lines 30-50; column 8, line 65-67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the feature of interest includes a pattern of interest in order to evaluate substrates that have patterned surfaces to determine if it meets the desired quality goals.
Claim 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager, Hamasaki, Plain, and Pettibone as applied to claims 1 and 34 above, and further in view of Chou (US 20140154668 A1).
Regarding claims 45 and 47, the above combination suggests the linker molecule comprises at least one of polydopamine (pDA), polynorepinephrine (pNE), or self- assembled monolayer (SAM) (suggested since Pettibone teaches PEG-thiol where PEG is a linker and thiol forms a self-assembled monolayer in column 6, line 60 – column 7, line 40). Additionally, Chou is also directed to optical measurements on substrates and teaches a linker comprising a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (paragraphs 104 and 129), Additionally, Chou teaches that a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) provides good binding and optimization for diverse applications (paragraphs 129 and 182),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the linker molecule comprises at least a self- assembled monolayer (SAM) – in order to ensure good binding and/or provide optimization for diverse applications.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager and Pettibone as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Chou.
Regarding claim 46, the above combination suggests the linker molecule comprises at least one of polydopamine (pDA), polynorepinephrine (pNE), or self- assembled monolayer (SAM) (suggested since Pettibone teaches PEG-thiol where PEG is a linker and thiol forms a self-assembled monolayer in column 6, line 60 – column 7, line 40). Additionally, Chou is also directed to optical measurements on substrates and teaches a linker comprising a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (paragraphs 104 and 129), Additionally, Chou teaches that a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) provides good binding and optimization for diverse applications (paragraphs 129 and 182),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the linker molecule comprises at least a self- assembled monolayer (SAM) – in order to ensure good binding and/or provide optimization for diverse applications.
Additional Prior Art
Wassel (Scratch resistant non-fouling surfaces) which describes amino silane as a linker molecule in the abstract
Ruckh (US 10845305 B1) US 10845305 B1 reads, “(c) a pH-sensitive fluorophore that includes a hydrophobic substance and that is configured to fluoresce with a fluorescence intensity that increases or decreases as a function of the local pH over a range of pH values according to an intrinsic intensity function, wherein the intrinsic intensity function has a first rate of change of fluorescence intensity over the range of pH values” (column 2, lines 20-30).
US 9970873; cited by Applicant B1 teaches a linker molecule and monolayer.
US 20170045451 A1 Is also directed to an optical measurement using photoluminescence and teaches one can choose to make the signal proportional to either the surface area or volume (paragraphs 108, 114) The analysis of such nanoparticles by fluorescence based flow cytometry, according to the methods provided herein, can quantitatively determine the size of the nanoparticles by stoichiometric staining of the surface area using a fluorescent surface area probe or volume probe, whereby the fluorescent intensity is proportional to the surface area or volume, respectively.”
US 20070281288 A1 Readsw, “[0138] According to still further features in the described preferred embodiments the determination of the concentration of the analyte is by calculating an occupation area of the fluorescent material, the occupation area being defined as a projection of an occupation volume on a plane perpendicular to a direction of the excitation light.” And “[0409] The amount of optical signals generated by the biological material is proportional to the projection area of the fluorescent material on a plane perpendicular to the direction defined by detector 108 and slice 324.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights