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 2026 August 4 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Arguments
The amendments filed on 8/4/2026 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
On pages 8-9, the applicant summarizes the prior art, stating that Amanullah’s embodiment has different sets of golden templates for each different type of illumination, and argues that each of the golden templates are preserved in discrete sets with one set per lighting, and that sets are never combined in the prior art. Therefore, there would be no motivation to combine image values under one lighting condition.
The examiner disagrees. As provided in the previous rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to provide a more robust system by taking into account variability within a reference image data by providing for a modified range that would account for change for matching within the reference data. Simply because Almanullah et al does not provide the embodiment of combining all the templates under different lighting conditions does not exclude the templates from being combined. If different features can be seen under different lighting conditions, Almanullah provides templates for each of these features, as the applicant argues. By providing features for every lighting condition in modifying the range as provided by Kitada, features are detected under whatever changed conditions occurred between the first and second imaging, simplifying the reference data. Even further, if reference data is modified, as provided by Kitada (fig. 10), then more consistency and less storage may be utilized, regardless of the imaging conditions. Therefore, the rejection is repeated, below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12---21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090034831 (Amanullah et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 201800055370 (Kitada et al).
Regarding claim 1, Amanullah et al discloses a computer-implemented method for determining acceptability of a substrate (Fig. 4,5), comprising: generating a model (fig. 4, item 410, 412) representing image data obtained from reference images taken of first substrates, (fig. 4, item 402, page 2, paragraph 18), each reference image including first pixels that correspond to pixels of each of other reference images (fig. 4, item 402, after a few wafers are processed by fig. 4, items 404-414), receiving new image data obtained from second pixels of an image taken of a second substrate when item 414 of fig. 4 determines there is an additional wafer, the method returns to item 402 for additional image, wherein second image values defined by the second pixels are impacted by an imaging attribute external to the second substrate that does not impact acceptability of the second substrate, i.e. a different illumination (page 2, paragraph 22) and wherein the first images are not impacted by the imaging attribute, because the second image is under different illumination conditions (page 2, paragraph 22); updating the model to generate an updated model with modified values(fig. 4, item 410, 412, 418); and determining whether there is a defect (fig. 4, item 518, 520) in a third substrate (fig. 4, item 502) using the modified values (fig. 5, item 504).
Amanullah et al does not disclose expressly the model defines, for each first pixel, a range of acceptable image values; modifying the range of acceptable image values based on the second image values to generate a modified range, and utilizing the modified range in inspection.
Kitada et al discloses the model defines, for each first pixel with corresponding pixels (fig. 9, W have pixels that correspond in the multiple images), a range of acceptable image values, an allowable range (page 3, paragraph 44, page 7, paragraph 94, 98); modifying the range of acceptable image values based on the second image values, i.e. acceptable image data’s values to generate a modified range (fig. 10, update is based on results from difference which is based on image data on virtual inspection); and utilizing the modified range in inspection (fig. 2, “comparison” uses determined range and sensitivity of fig. 10).
Amanullah et al and Kitada et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. 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 a range of values and modify the range.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by taking into account variability within a reference image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Amanullah et al with the range of values of Kitada et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kitada et al discloses each reference image includes image data representing a full die of one of the first substrates, the first substrates being semiconductor substrates, a wafer (fig. 9, “image data” of wafer, page 3, paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 3, Kitada et al discloses the acceptable image data represents a full die of the substrate (fig. 10, “image data group” includes full die), the substrate being a semiconductor substrate, a wafer (page 3, paragraph 44). Kitada et al further discloses the acceptable image data used to update a trained model is new image data of a second substrate (page 9, paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 5, Kitada et al discloses the range of acceptable image values is defined between a first threshold and a second threshold, the top and value of the allowable range (page 3, paragraph 44, page 6, paragraph 88), and wherein modifying the range of acceptable image values includes moving at least one of the first threshold and the second threshold (page 6, paragraphs 88, 89).
Regarding claim 6, Amanullah et al discloses determining whether there is the defect in the third substrate (fig. 5, item 524) by comparing image data representing at least a portion of the third substrate (fig. 5, item 502) and the updated model (fig. 5, item 504, 508, 516).
Regarding claim 7, Amanullah et al discloses the defect in the third substrate is detected, the method further comprising :classifying the defect as acceptable or unacceptable- i.e. rejected (fig. 5, item 524).
Regarding claim 8, Kitada et al discloses each of the model and the updated model defines a number of images (fig. 9, W images), a mean image data value across the number of images (page 7, paragraph 93, 94), and a standard deviation of image data values across the number of images (fig. 9, “exclusion” page 7, paragraph 93, 95).
Regarding claim 9, Kitada et al discloses the standard deviation defined by the model defines the range of acceptable image values (fig. 9, r-z1 group, determines reference image data, page 7, paragraph 95) and the standard deviation defined by the updated model defines the modified range, (page 9, paragraph 115) .
Regarding claim 12, Amanullah et al discloses a state of an environmental condition present at the second substrate when the new image data was obtained is different from a state of the environmental condition present at the first substrates when every one of the reference images was obtained, i.e. a different lighting condition (page 2, paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 13, Amanullah et al discloses receiving further new image data obtained from a fourth substrate, i.e. another image that was used in the process of fig. 4, when moving to the next wafer (fig. 4, item 416); and updating the model again to generate a further updated model with modified values(fig. 4, item 410, 412). Kitada et al also discloses receiving further new image data obtained from a fourth substrate, i.e. when continuing to update the model as explained in page 9, paragraph 114; and updating the model again to generate a further updated model, including modifying the range of acceptable image values again based on the further new image data to generate a further modified range (page 9, paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 14, Kitada et al discloses the model includes a plurality of data distributions (fig. 9, E2, E3), each data distribution corresponding to composite pixel data from a corresponding pixel of the reference images (fig. 9, columns).
Regarding claim 15, Amanullah et al discloses distribution of pixel values are of brightness (page 2, paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 16, Amanullah et al discloses at least some of the first substrates are known to be acceptable, since the first substrates are defining acceptable/ benchmark values (page 1, paragraph 3). Kitada et al also discloses such a feature (fig. 9, page 3, paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 17, Amanullah et al discloses the second substrate is known to be acceptable, because the template is being formed from ideal substrates (page 1, paragraph 2). Kitada et al also discloses the acceptable substrate is known to be acceptable (fig. 9, r-Z1 group, page 9, paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 18, a computer-implemented method for determining acceptability of a substrate (Fig. 4,5), comprising: generating a model (fig. 4, item 410, 412) representing image data obtained from reference images taken of first substrates, (fig. 4, item 402, page 2, paragraph 18), each reference image including first pixels that correspond to pixels of each of other reference images (fig. 4, item 402, after a few wafers are processed by fig. 4, items 404-414), receiving new image data obtained from second pixels of an image taken of a second substrate when item 414 of fig. 4 determines there is an additional wafer, the method returns to item 402 for additional image, wherein second image values defined by the second pixels are impacted by an imaging attribute external to the second substrate that does not impact acceptability of the second substrate, i.e. a different illumination (page 2, paragraph 22) and wherein the first images are not impacted by the imaging attribute, because the second image is under different illumination conditions (page 2, paragraph 22); updating the model to generate an updated model with modified values(fig. 4, item 410, 412, 418); and determining whether there is a defect (fig. 4, item 518, 520) in a third substrate (fig. 4, item 502) using the modified values (fig. 5, item 504). Kitada et al discloses the model defines, for each first pixel with corresponding pixels (fig. 9, W have pixels that correspond in the multiple images), a range of acceptable image values, an allowable range (page 3, paragraph 44, page 7, paragraph 94, 98); modifying the range of acceptable image values based on the second image values, i.e. acceptable image data’s values to generate a modified range (fig. 10, update is based on results from difference which is based on image data on virtual inspection); and utilizing the modified range in inspection (fig. 2, “comparison” uses determined range and sensitivity of fig. 10). Kitada et al further discloses the images are of a full die of semiconductor substrates (fig. 9, “image data”, fig. 10 “image data group”).
Regarding claim 19, Amanullah et al discloses determining that a die of the second semiconductor substrate corresponding to the image of the second semiconductor substrate is acceptable by using it to build the golden template, because the golden template is a benchmark (page 1, paragraph 2). Regarding claim 19, Kitada et al discloses using a full die (fig. 9, 10), and also discloses determining that a die of the acceptable semiconductor substrate corresponding to the full die image of the acceptable semiconductor substrate is acceptable ( fig. 9, E3) and that the acceptable semiconductor substrate corresponds to a second separate substrate than that of the reference (page 9, paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 20, Kitada et al discloses the reference images are of a full die of the first semiconductor substrates (fig. 9, “image data”, fig. 10 “image data group”).Amanullah et al discloses an image of the full die includes a plurality of images of portions of the full die stitched together (pages 3-4, paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 21, Amanullah et al discloses determining whether the third substrate is acceptable or unacceptable (fig. 5, item 524) by comparing image data representing at least a portion of the third substrate (fig. 5, item 502) and the updated model (fig. 5, item 504, 508, 516).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amanullah et al in view of Kitada et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190251349 (Duerksen).
Regarding claim 10, Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) does not disclose expressly different ones of the reference images are obtained using different imaging equipment.
Duerksen discloses different ones of the reference images are obtained using different imaging equipment (page 8, paragraph 92).
Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) and Duerksen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. 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 references from different equipment.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user-friendly, robust system by allowing and considering multiple imaging modalities.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) with multiple imaging for references of Duerksen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Duerksen discloses imaging equipment used to obtain the new image data is different (fig. 15, first data obtained in step 1504 at authentication site), or calibrated differently from, all imaging equipment used to obtain the reference images, since the imaging equipment is from the reference database (fig. 15, item 1508).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amanullah et al in view of Kitada et al, as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050264672 (Takahashi).
Regarding claim 23, Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) does not disclose expressly the third substrate/ the data compared to a reference is incorporated in a light emitting diode (LED) device.
Takahashi discloses the second substrate/ the data compared to a reference is incorporated in a light emitting diode (LED) device (page 10, paragraph 114).
Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) and Takahashi 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 incorporating an LED.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more flexible, useful system by allowing all types of substrates to be inspected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Amanullah et al (as modified by Kitada et al) with the LED attachment of Takahashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Takahashi discloses the first substrates/ reference data are incorporated in light emitting diode (LED) devices (page 10, paragraph 114).
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 M-F: 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 8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights