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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 1/21/2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 January 21 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
On page 9 of the remarks, the applicant argues that Hess does not teach “a first characteristic” of the “plurality of repeating patterns” since “peaks in autocorrelation” are indicative of “repeating patterns” but not indicative of “a first characteristic” of the pattern-just that the pattern repeats.
The examiner disagrees. The argument is unclear, because the applicant is arguing “indications” of the claim instead of what is in the claim. If the applicant wishes for such a limitation to be considered, the applicant should provide the language explicitly in the claims. However, as claimed, Hess et al teaches the claimed limitation. As explained in the previous rejection, the repeating patterns have a first characteristic that is compared in the autocorrelation of page 2, paragraph 28.
On page 10 of the remarks, the applicant argues that, since Hess does not teach the “first characteristic”, Hess cannot teach that the pattern feature is determined based on a change of the first characteristic.
The examiner disagrees. As explained above, Hess does teach the first characteristic: that which is being autocorrelated in page 2, paragraph 28. Since the characteristic is being matched in a quantitative way, changes of the first characteristic is determined (page 2, paragraph 28).
On page 10 of the remarks, the applicant further argues that Hess contains no teaching of “a change between cells/ die in the autocorrelation would identify areas that are not included in the die to die and cell to cell inspection’”.
The examiner disagrees. As disclosed by Hess in page 2, paragraph 28 die-to-die and cell to cell inspection areas are determined for cells with identical structure, including finding areas that are correlated in autocorrelation. Die-to golden inspection is necessary where the other inspection processes are not available- and thus the areas that are not correlated (page 2, paragraph 28). Even if this is not the case, die-to-die and cell to cell comparison could also be interpreted as the determined pattern feature that is corresponded to a first area of the wafer, because the change in characteristic in autocorrelation determines where the die to die and cell to cell structure comparison occurs. Therefore, the reference Hess discloses the claimed limitations in multiple ways. Therefore, the rejection is repeated below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20130279792 (Hess et al).
Regarding claim 1, Hess et al discloses a method of facilitating inspection of a wafer (fig. 3-5), the method performed by a semiconductor wafer inspection system (fig. 2) and comprising: identifying, by the semiconductor wafer (page 3, paragraph 36) inspection system, a plurality of repeating patterns from reference image data associated with a layout design of the wafer by identifying the repeating die and cell patterns from reference data (fig. 3, items 300, 302), wherein the plurality of repeating patterns in the reference image data have a first characteristic, i.e. the characteristics of the image that are being compared in autocorrelation (page 2, paragraph 28); determining a pattern feature of one of the identified plurality of repeating patterns based on a change of the first characteristic of the plurality of repeating patterns in the reference image data, since a change between cells/ die in the autocorrelation would identify areas that are not included in the die to die and cell to cell inspection of fig. 4, item 402, 404 and must be included in the die-to-database inspection of fig. 4, item 406 or die-to-golden (fig. 6, item 606); and causing a first area of the wafer corresponding to the determined pattern feature to be evaluated (fig. 4, item 408, fig. 6, item 608).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 1are equally applicable to claims 2 and 15. Claims 2 and 15 distinguish from claim 1 only in that claim 2 is an apparatus for facilitating inspection of a wafer, comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to cause a semiconductor wafer inspection system to perform operations of claim 1, and claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of semiconductor wafer inspection system to cause the semiconductor wafer inspection system to perform operations for extracting pattern contour information from an inspection image, the operations being operations of the method of claim 1. Hess et al teaches further this feature, i.e. an apparatus for facilitating inspection of a wafer (fig. 2), comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions (fig. 2, item 206, 208, claim 1); and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (fig. 2, item 204, claim 1), and a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of semiconductor wafer inspection system (fig. 2, item 206, 208, memory of claim 1, fig. 2, item 204, processor)
Regarding claim 3, Hess et al discloses the plurality of repeating patterns corresponds to a plurality of array cells on the wafer (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hess et al discloses causing the first area of the wafer to be evaluated comprises: causing to detect one or more defects in the first area corresponding to the determined pattern feature (fig. 4, item 406, item 408, fig. 6, item 606, 608, page 3, paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 10, Hess et al discloses causing the first area of the wafer to be evaluated comprises: identifying the first area on the wafer corresponding to the determined pattern feature (fig. 4, item 406, fig. 6, item 606); and causing an inspection system to inspect the identified first area on the wafer by making the comparison of the first areas (fig. 4, item 406, fig. 6, item 606).
Regarding claim 11, Hess et al discloses causing the inspection system to inspect the identified first area using a first parameter, the parameters specified in the database (fig. 4, item 406, fig. 6, item 606); and causing the inspection system to inspect a second area on the wafer using a second parameter, i.e. the die to die or cell to cell inspections of fig. 4, item 402, 404, and fig. 6, items 602, 606, with any of the parameters that are specified in autocorrelating the features (page 4, paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 12, Hess et al discloses causing the first area of the wafer to be evaluated comprises: obtaining inspection image data of the wafer from an inspection system (fig. 2, item 202, page 3, paragraph 33) after performing the inspection of the wafer, i.e. the inspection at multiple focus levels (page 3, paragraph 33); identifying, from the obtained inspection image data of the wafer, a set of inspection image data associated with the first area on the wafer corresponding to the determined pattern feature (fig. 4, item 400, 406, fig. 6, item 600, 606); and evaluating the identified set of inspection image data based on the determined pattern feature in the reference image data (fig. 4, item 406, fig. 6, item 606, based on determined pattern features of fig. 3, 5).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to claim 16. Claim 16 distinguishes from claim 9 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 10. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claims 17 and 19. Claims 17 and 19 distinguish from claim 10 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180277337 (Anantha et al)
Regarding claim 14, Hess et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Hess et al does not disclose expressly the apparatus is communicatively coupled to or integrated in a charged particle multi-beam system.
Anantha et al discloses a charged particle multi-beam system (page 5, paragraph 60).
Hess et al and Anantha et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. defect detection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a charged particle multi-beam system.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by providing multiple beam sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the system of Hess et al with the multi-beams of Anantha et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 13, Anantha et al discloses the inspection of the wafer is performed using a charged-particle beam inspection system (page 5, paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 18, Hess et al discloses causing the first area of the wafer corresponding to the determined pattern feature to be evaluated comprises inspecting the first area using an inspection system (fig. 2, fig. 4, fig. 6). Anantha et al discloses the inspection system includes a charged-particle beam inspection system (page 5, paragraph 60).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 18 are equally applicable to claim 20. Claim 20 distinguishes from claim 18 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150279024 (Tsuchiya et al)
Regarding claim 4, Hess et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Hess et al does not disclose expressly the plurality of array cells correspond to a plurality of memory cells.
Tsuchiya et al et al discloses the plurality of array cells correspond to a plurality of memory cells (page 1, paragraph 7).
Hess et al and Tsuchiya et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. wafer inspection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have cells correspond to memory cells.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more flexible system by allowing all types of cells to be inspected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the system of Hess et al with the memory cells to be inspected of Tsuchiya et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Hess et al discloses the first characteristic of the plurality of repeating patterns includes autocorrelated data associated with the repeating patterns (page 2, paragraph 28). Tsuchiya et al discloses the correlated data is pitch (page 8, paragraph 98).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190171114 (Staals et al).
Regarding claim 5, Hess et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Hess et al discloses the first characteristic of the plurality of repeating patterns includes features from autocorrelated data associated with the repeating patterns (page 2, paragraph 28).
Hess et al does not disclose expressly the features of cells/ die include density of the features.
Staals et al discloses the features of cells/ die include density of the features (page 9, paragraph 120).
Hess et al and Staals et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. inspecting substrates.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use density of features.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by considering a known metric of cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the system of Hess et al with density consideration of feature density to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170372464 (Kitamura).
Regarding claim 7, Hess et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Hess et al discloses the first characteristic of the plurality of repeating patterns includes autocorrelated data associated with the repeating patterns (page 2, paragraph 28).
Hess et al does not disclose expressly the correlated data is shape.
Kitamura discloses correlated data is shape (page 8, paragraph 173, 182).
Hess et al and Kitamura are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. die-to-die comparison for inspection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use shape.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate system by considering the shape of the die.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the system of Hess et al with shape consideration of Kitamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Hess et al discloses the pattern feature includes the image data of a repeating pattern of the plurality of repeating patterns that is autocorrelated (page 2, paragraph 28). Kitamura et al discloses image data is of an edge portion of a repeating pattern, which is part of the shape (page 8, paragraph 173, 182).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 2/3/2026
Prosecution Insights