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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 6/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are overcome by amendment, as is the warning regarding claim 16.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejections to claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are overcome by amendment, but “the steps” in claim 17 still lacks antecedent basis.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s first argument is that Jung teaches bright-field illumination for die positioning and dark-field imaging for defect detection; however, this argument is not persuasive. Paragraph 72 of Jung indicates that there are advantages in detecting defects in a bright-field configuration, as well as pointing out that the bright-field and dark-field configurations are not mutually influenced, suggesting that one could perform the bright-field inspection alone or separate from dark-field inspection without compromising the bright-field configuration.
Applicant’s second argument is that Hashiguchi only teaches dark-field inspection; however, this argument is moot. Hashiguchi is relied on to teach moving bright-field illuminated regions, not inspection in regions that are actively subjected to bright-field illumination at time of imaging.
As claim 1 is not allowed, the other independent claims are not allowed for similar reasons, and the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the steps" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as introducing those steps (i.e., as “steps” instead of “the steps”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US patent publication 20050168729) in view of Hashiguchi (foreign patent document JP 2020094877), further in view of Kobashi (Foreign Patent Document JP2018195735A). See machine translations provided with the action dated 6/5/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising:
an imaging device (FIG. 6, camera 4) that images a die (FIG. 6, wafer 6);
a lighting device having a light source (FIG. 6, illumination device 2’, including light source 11’ and light guide or light guiding bundle 12’) that is a point light source or a line light source (paragraph 40, note that the end of an optical fiber is approximately a point source), the light source illuminates a single area on the die within a field of view of the imaging device (FIG. 6, incident illumination device 2’ lights a single area on the surface 32 of wafer 6, in view of the camera 4); and
a controller (FIG. 6, computer 14),
wherein the area is a bright field area (paragraph 41) in which a recess formed on surface of the die is observed as a dark area and surface of the die other than the recess is observed as a bright area, by the imaging device (see paragraph 41. Note that light would still be scattered from defects, such as a recess in the die, in directions other than would be predicted from specular reflection from an unrecessed surface while using the bright-field configuration just as in the dark-field configuration, but that, since the specularly reflected light is directed to the camera in the bright-field configuration, light scattered elsewhere would not be detected by the camera, so would be missing light would be darker than if all the light were reflected as expected),
wherein the controller is configured to:
(a) apply a light beam to the die by the light source to form the bright field area and the dark field area on the die, and acquire image data by imaging the die using the imaging device (paragraph 8 describes taking both bright-field images and dark-field images);
(b) detect the dark area as a flaw, if the dark area is recognized within the bright field area by image processing the image data (paragraph 48, last sentence); and
(c) inspect an entirety of the die within the field of view (paragraph 20 describes taking images of an area slightly larger than the die to ensure that the entire die is imaged, even taking into account tolerances) by repeatedly inspecting the bright field area by moving the bright field area at a predetermined pitch on the die within the field of view and imaging of the die (FIG. 1 shows a way to do this for both bright-field and dark-field illumination).
Jung teaches both the use of bright-field inspection and dark-field inspection, stating that each has advantages (paragraph 72), so does not explicitly teach inspecting only the bright-field area. Paragraph 72 also points out that, in the system disclosed by Jung, the bright-field measurements and dark-field measurements are not mutually influenced, suggesting that the advantages of bright-field inspection could be obtained in a system that does not also perform dark-field inspection (whether by skipping dark-field imaging to simplify the design, by separating the dark-field imaging to another optical system to parallelize the imaging, or by imaging both illumination types together but offloading the inspection of dark-field images to external computing hardware to parallelize the analysis), at worst foregoing the separate advantages of dark-field imaging in the same system. Further, it is generally considered obvious to eliminate both a step or element (such as dark-field inspection) and its function (such as the advantages of dark-field inspection) if the function of the element is not desired (such as when performing only bright-field inspection would suffice). See MPEP 2144.04 II.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical inspection apparatus of Jung by not performing the dark-field inspection together in the same apparatus as the bright-field inspection, predictably achieving the intended purpose of inspecting a wafer (title of Jung) with the advantages of bright field imaging (paragraph 72), avoiding or separating the burden of dark-field inspection, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection combining bright-field and dark-field illumination, Hashiguchi does teach using a bright field area smaller than the die (FIG. 3 shows a lighting unit in which LEDs 1014a-1014h are arranged, as well as a procedure of lighting them one at a time (steps S18 to S20, described in paragraphs 49-53) that produces a single bright-field region and a dark-field region in the captured image). By having separate illumination from each of a number of separate light sources, Hashiguchi is able to capture an image with both bright-field and dark-field illumination (paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection apparatus of Jung with the smaller area of bright field of Hashiguchi to achieve the predictable result of capturing both bright-field data and dark-field data in a single image.
Jung does not teach a bond head which mounts the die onto a substrate.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Kobashi does teach a bond head which mounts the die onto a substrate (FIG. 2, bonding head 41). By including a bonding head, Kobashi is able to bond parts of a semiconductor device together as part of fabricating a larger system (paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection apparatus of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, to include a bond head like that of Kobashi to continue the semiconductor manufacturing process, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection combining bright-field and dark-field illumination, Hashiguchi does teach that the controller is configured to move the bright field area by moving a light-emitting position of the light source (steps S18 to S20 involve capturing images by switching which LED is on at a given time, changing the position of illumination by changing which portion is producing the illumination. Also, lighting unit 101 is attached to movable mechanism 103, which can move the light-emitting position when desired, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified when the movable mechanism is used in service of combining the lighting unit of Hashiguchi with the inspection apparatus of Jung). By moving the light-emitting position of the lighting unit, Hashiguchi is able to move the bright-field area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection apparatus of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, to move the bright-field region in the manner of Hashiguchi, by either switching which light source is active or physically moving the lighting unit to provide a means of moving the bright-field region.
Regarding claim 3, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that the controller is configured to move the bright field area by moving the die (paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 4, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to move the bright field area by moving the imaging device.
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of semiconductor wafers, Kobashi teaches that the controller is configured to move the bright field area by moving the imaging device (paragraph 60, option e).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semiconductor inspection device of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, by moving the imaging device in the manner of Kobashi, in order to capture the desired field of view on the die, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that when the controller is configured to repeat moving the bright field area such that the areas to which the bright field areas are moved overlap (paragraph 20). By overlapping the bright-field images, Jung is able to image the entire area using bright-field illumination without uninspected gaps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have retained the feature of overlapping bright-field images while designing the inspection apparatus of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, in order to retain the predictable benefit of inspecting the entire die with bright-field illumination.
Regarding claim 7, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that the controller is configured to, after transfer of image data of first bright field area by the imaging device (paragraphs 18 and 48), perform an image process and a determination process of the first bright field area in parallel with transfer of image data of a subsequent bright field area by the imaging device (paragraphs 38 and 48 mention that the image data conveyed to the computer may be temporarily stored or further processed. Choosing to further process the data instead of temporarily storing it would mean performing the processing in parallel with the ongoing image acquisition).
Regarding claim 8, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that a half mirror disposed between the imaging device and the die is further provided (FIG. 6, beam splitter mirror 50); and
the light source is configured to illuminate the die using the half mirror (FIG. 6, illumination device 2’ shines on region 8 using beam splitter mirror 50).
Regarding claim 18, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that the light source is a point light source (paragraph 40, note that the end of an optical fiber is approximately a point source), and the bright field area formed on the die is a circular shape (the reflection of a point source on a flat surface is typically a circular shape).
Regarding claim 19, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that the predetermined pitch is the distance at which the adjacent bright field regions contact or overlap each other (paragraph 20, which describes overlapping the areas imaged in a bright-field configuration).
Regarding claim 20, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that the imaging device is equipped with a macro lens having a field of view wider than the diameter of the lens itself (FIG. 6. Note that the field of view from objective 5 widens downward toward the illuminated region 8, indicating a widening field of view).
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US patent publication 20050168729) in view of Hashiguchi (foreign patent document JP 2020094877) and Kobashi (Foreign Patent Document JP2018195735A), further in view of Sasaki (US patent publication 20180347970).
Regarding claim 9, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, teaches or renders obvious the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Jung further teaches that the lighting device is disposed between the imaging device and the die, and the lighting device includes a half mirror (FIG. 6, beam splitter mirror 50, disposed between camera 4 and wafer 6);
Jung does not explicitly teach that the lighting device includes a surface emitting illuminator;
the surface emitting illuminator includes a plurality of LEDs disposed flat in a matrix configuration, and the LEDs are operable to individually turn on and turn off; and
the controller is configured to light some of the plurality of LEDs to form the point light source or the line light source.
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of semiconductor wafers, Sasaki teaches that the lighting device includes a surface emitting illuminator (FIG. 5A, pattern light illuminating section 2, shown in detail in FIG. 3);
the surface emitting illuminator includes a plurality of LEDs disposed flat in a matrix configuration, and the LEDs are operable to individually turn on and turn off (FIG. 3, LEDs 20 and 21, shown in FIG. 5A as not all being equally active); and
the controller is configured to light some of the plurality of LEDs to form the point light source or the line light source (FIG. 5A shows patterns of LEDs acting as point light sources, combining to make particular patterns of illumination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semiconductor inspection device of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi and Kobashi, with the light emitting surface of Sasaki as a particular way to implement the point or line illumination, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 9 (as described above).
Jung does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to change a lighting site of the LED to move the point light source or the line light source.
Hashiguchi does explicitly teach that the controller is configured to change a lighting site of the LED to move the point light source or the line light source (FIG. 4, steps S18 to S20, described in paragraphs 49-53) as a way to scan the bright-field region across the wafer under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semiconductor inspection device of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, to change a lighting site of the LED as the particular way of scanning the surface of the wafer under test, as taught by Hashiguchi.
Regarding claim 11, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, teaches or renders obvious teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 10 (as described above).
While neither Jung nor Sasaki explicitly teaches that the controller is configured to light all the plurality of LEDs at a time of alignment, Sasaki does teach turning all the LEDs in pattern light illuminating section 2 to increase the light emission (paragraph 95). Depending on the nature of the alignment, increasing illumination may be helpful during a time of alignment, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have turned on all the LEDs of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, during a time of alignment.
Regarding claim 12, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 11 (as described above).
Jung does not explicitly teach that the lighting device further comprises: a diffuser provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the half mirror; and a side plate provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the diffuser.
Sasaki does teach that the lighting device further comprises: a diffuser provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the half mirror (FIG. 5A, diffusing member 24); and a side plate provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the diffuser (FIG. 5A, the walls of pattern light illuminating section 2 that distance diffusing member 24 from LEDs 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 13, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 11 (as described above).
Jung does not explicitly teach that the lighting device further includes a liquid crystal panel provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the half mirror.
Sasaki does teach that the lighting device further includes a liquid crystal panel provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the half mirror (paragraph 83). This is one of the ways that Sasaki teaches for controlling the pattern light illuminating section 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semiconductor inspection device of Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, with the liquid crystal panel of Sasaki as a means to control the light emitting surface.
Regarding claim 14, Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, teaches the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 10 (as described above).
Neither Jung nor Sasaki explicitly teaches a second lighting device disposed between the imaging device and the die, the second lighting device including a surface emitting illuminator, a half mirror, and a diffuser provided between the surface emitting illuminator and the half mirror, however mere duplication of parts does not generally patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung, as modified by Hashiguchi, Kobashi, and Sasaki, further via the mere duplication of parts to provide a second lighting device with the same parts present in the first lighting device.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US patent publication 20050168729) in view of Hashiguchi (foreign patent document JP 2020094877).
Regarding claim 16, Jung teaches an inspection apparatus comprising:
an imaging device (FIG. 6, camera 4) that images a die (FIG. 6, wafer 6);
a lighting device having a light source (FIG. 6, illumination device 2’, including light source 11’ and light guide or light guiding bundle 12’) that is a point light source or a line light source (paragraph 40, note that the end of an optical fiber is approximately a point source), the light source illuminating a single area on the die within a field of view of the imaging device (FIG. 6, incident illumination device 2’ lights a single area on the surface 32 of wafer 6, in view of the camera 4); and
a controller (FIG. 6, computer 14),
wherein the area is a bright field area (paragraph 41) in which a recess formed on surface of the die is observed as a dark area and surface of the die other than the recess is observed as a bright area, by the imaging device (see paragraph 41. Note that light would still be scattered from defects, such as a recess in the die, in directions other than would be predicted from specular reflection from an unrecessed surface while using the bright-field configuration just as in the dark-field configuration, but that, since the specularly reflected light is directed to the camera in the bright-field configuration, light scattered elsewhere would not be detected by the camera, so would be missing light would be darker than if all the light were reflected as expected),
wherein a surface of the die other than the area is a dark field area that is observed by the imaging device as a dark area (paragraph 8 describes taking both bright-field images and dark-field images),
wherein the controller is configured to:
(a) apply a light beam to the die by the light source to form the bright field area and the dark field area on the die, and acquire image data by imaging the die using the imaging device (paragraph 8 describes taking both bright-field images and dark-field images);
(b) detect the dark area as a flaw, if the dark area is recognized within the bright field area by image processing the image data (paragraph 48, last sentence); and
(c) inspect an entirety of the die within the field of view (paragraph 20 describes taking images of an area slightly larger than the die to ensure that the entire die is imaged, even taking into account tolerances) by repeatedly inspecting the bright field area by moving the bright field area at a predetermined pitch on the die within the field of view and imaging the die (FIG. 1 shows a way to do this for both bright-field and dark-field illumination).
Jung teaches both the use of bright-field inspection and dark-field inspection, stating that each has advantages (paragraph 72), so does not explicitly teach inspecting only the bright-field area. Paragraph 72 also points out that, in the system disclosed by Jung, the bright-field measurements and dark-field measurements are not mutually influenced, suggesting that the advantages of bright-field inspection could be obtained in a system that does not also perform dark-field inspection (whether by skipping dark-field imaging to simplify the design, by separating the dark-field imaging to another optical system to parallelize the imaging, or by imaging both illumination types together but offloading the inspection of dark-field images to external computing hardware to parallelize the analysis), at worst foregoing the separate advantages of dark-field imaging in the same system. Further, it is generally considered obvious to eliminate both a step or element (such as dark-field inspection) and its function (such as the advantages of dark-field inspection) if the function of the element is not desired (such as when performing only bright-field inspection would suffice). See MPEP 2144.04 II.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical inspection apparatus of Jung by not performing the dark-field inspection together in the same apparatus as the bright-field inspection, predictably achieving the intended purpose of inspecting a wafer (title of Jung) with the advantages of bright field imaging (paragraph 72), avoiding or separating the burden of dark-field inspection, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Jung does not explicitly teach using a bright field area smaller than the die.
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection combining bright-field and dark-field illumination, Hashiguchi does teach using a bright field area smaller than the die (FIG. 3 shows a lighting unit in which LEDs 1014a-1014h are arranged, as well as a procedure of lighting them one at a time (steps S18 to S20, described in paragraphs 49-53) that produces a single bright-field region and a dark-field region in the captured image). By having separate illumination from each of a number of separate light sources, Hashiguchi is able to capture an image with both bright-field and dark-field illumination (paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection apparatus of Jung with the smaller area of bright field of Hashiguchi to achieve the predictable result of capturing both bright-field data and dark-field data in a single image, which one may choose to inspect separately, if desired.
Regarding claim 17, Jung teaches a manufacturing method for a semiconductor device using a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus including an imaging device (FIG. 6, camera 4) that images a die (FIG. 6, wafer 6), and a lighting device having a light source (FIG. 6, illumination device 2’, including light source 11’ and light guide or light guiding bundle 12’) that is a point light source or a line light source (paragraph 40, note that the end of an optical fiber is approximately a point source), the light source illuminates a single area on the die within a field of view of the imaging device (FIG. 6, incident illumination device 2’ lights a single area on the surface 32 of wafer 6, in view of the camera 4);
the area is a bright field area (paragraph 41) in which a recess formed on a surface of the die is observed as a dark area and a surface of the die other than the recess is observed as a bright area, by the imaging device (see paragraph 41. Note that light would still be scattered from defects, such as a recess in the die, in directions other than would be predicted from specular reflection from an unrecessed surface while using the bright-field configuration just as in the dark-field configuration, but that, since the specularly reflected light is directed to the camera in the bright-field configuration, light scattered elsewhere would not be detected by the camera, so would be missing light would be darker than if all the light were reflected as expected), the light source illuminates a single area on the die within a field of view of the imaging device (FIG. 6, incident illumination device 2’ lights a single area on the surface 32 of wafer 6, in view of the camera 4), and a surface of the die other than the area is a dark field area that is observed by the imaging device as a dark area (paragraph 8 describes taking both bright-field images and dark-field images), the method comprising the steps of:
(a) applying a light beam to the die by the light source to form the bright field area and the dark field area on the die and acquire image data by imaging the die using the imaging device (paragraph 8 describes taking both bright-field images and dark-field images);
(b) detecting the dark area as a flaw, if the dark area is recognized within the bright field area by image processing the image data (paragraph 48, last sentence); and
(c) inspecting an entirety of the die within the field of view (paragraph 20 describes taking images of an area slightly larger than the die to ensure that the entire die is imaged, even taking into account tolerances) by repeatedly inspecting the bright field area by moving the bright field area at a predetermined pitch on the die within the field of view and imaging of the die (FIG. 1 shows a way to do this for both bright-field and dark-field illumination).
Jung teaches both the use of bright-field inspection and dark-field inspection, stating that each has advantages (paragraph 72), so does not explicitly teach inspecting only the bright-field area. Paragraph 72 also points out that, in the system disclosed by Jung, the bright-field measurements and dark-field measurements are not mutually influenced, suggesting that the advantages of bright-field inspection could be obtained in a system that does not also perform dark-field inspection (whether by skipping dark-field imaging to simplify the design, by separating the dark-field imaging to another optical system to parallelize the imaging, or by imaging both illumination types together but offloading the inspection of dark-field images to external computing hardware to parallelize the analysis), at worst foregoing the separate advantages of dark-field imaging in the same system. Further, it is generally considered obvious to eliminate both a step or element (such as dark-field inspection) and its function (such as the advantages of dark-field inspection) if the function of the element is not desired (such as when performing only bright-field inspection would suffice). See MPEP 2144.04 II.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical inspection apparatus of Jung by not performing the dark-field inspection together in the same apparatus as the bright-field inspection, predictably achieving the intended purpose of inspecting a wafer (title of Jung) with the advantages of bright field imaging (paragraph 72), avoiding or separating the burden of dark-field inspection, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Jung does not explicitly teach using a bright field area smaller than the die.
In the same field of endeavor of optical inspection combining bright-field and dark-field illumination, Hashiguchi does teach using a bright field area smaller than the die (FIG. 3 shows a lighting unit in which LEDs 1014a-1014h are arranged, as well as a procedure of lighting them one at a time (steps S18 to S20, described in paragraphs 49-53) that produces a single bright-field region and a dark-field region in the captured image). By having separate illumination from each of a number of separate light sources, Hashiguchi is able to capture an image with both bright-field and dark-field illumination (paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection method of Jung with the smaller area of bright field of Hashiguchi to achieve the predictable result of capturing both bright-field data and dark-field data in a single image, which one may choose to inspect separately, if desired.
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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights