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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/29/2025. The amendment has been entered. Applicant has submitted Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 19-26 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 19-26 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Regarding the amendments and remarks about Basol (US 20100210040 A1), Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant argues that Basol only discloses the detect of light emitting effects and not light absorbing defects. Basol discloses, in [0065] as well as throughout, how it relates to solar cells. From [0066]:
… the first defect 124 and the second defect 125 reduce the performance of the completed solar cell. The shunt resistance introduced by such defects reduces the fill factor and thus the efficiency of the device.
As Examiner understands it, Basol does discuss detecting defects in solar cells. Solar cells, by their nature, are light absorbing. As quoted above, Basol detects defects that would affect the light absorbing layer of the solar cell and efficiency of the cell. As such, Examiner is not persuaded.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of the references, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant’s main argument is combining the references would change the principle operation of the references. Examiner disagrees.
Examiner, in the previous action, argued that, for the purposes of the combination with Lee, that Examiner was relying on the teaching over structure. This was reasonable to Examiner as, for the purposes, Lee is relied upon for the comparison and analysis parts of the claimed invention. Lee teaches principles that are generally applicable in the art and Examiner understands that PHOSITA would have the skill to implement the teaches of Lee with the other references from the art. Additionally and similarly, Examiner combined Basol for the method of scanning internal defects.
As stated in the previous action:
Examiner understands the combination as follows: Mizutani discloses transmitting light through the object for defect detection and provides the core of the rejection (Mizutani, FIG. 1, [0030]), Lee discloses the analysis of comparing symbols, something that is, arguably, self-evident in the art (Lee, [0104]), and Basol discloses that light absorbing defects may be internal and that there is a desire and methods for their detection (Basol, FIG. 5, [0046]).
Examiner doesn’t see how combining the analysis of Lee or the methods of Basol undermine the principle of operation of Mizutani, even after reviewing Applicant’s arguments. As such, Examiner maintains the combination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US20180195952A1), in view of Lee (US20210028035A1), in further view of Basol (US 20100210040 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizutani discloses:
A method comprising:
directing light comprising a plurality of wavelengths (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], illumination optical system (or light projecting optical system) 10, and [0074], “since a halogen lamp or the like that is a broadband light source with many wavelengths is used as the light source, the refractive index of the lens will vary between wavelengths, resulting in transmitted polarized light in various directions”) at a first side of a semiconductor structure (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], substrate 5), there the semiconductor structure comprises a plurality of semiconductor devices over a semiconductor substrate, wherein the first side of the semiconductor substrate is a surface of the semiconductor substrate (Mizutani, [0003], Examiner notes that, incorporated by reference, the discussion of defect detection in gallium nitride freestanding substrate with a plurality of semiconductor structures within it);
detecting a first transmitted light intensity (Mizutani, FIG. 1, [0030], “by way of an image produced by light transmitted through or reflected by the substrate”)at a second side of the semiconductor structure (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], light receiving optical system (or imaging optical system) 20), wherein the first transmitted light intensity corresponds to the light that penetrated the semiconductor structure from the first side to the second side (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], “a two-dimensional distribution of optical distortion (birefringence) of the observation target 5, such as a substrate, is acquired as video or an image from intensity information of the image sensor”); and …
Mizutani discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
…comparing the first transmitted light intensity to a second transmitted light intensity, wherein the second light intensity corresponds to an expected intensity of light, and …
… wherein the presence of a light-absorbing defect is indicated by the first transmitted light intensity being less than the second transmitted light intensity at all wavelengths of the plurality of wavelengths.
However, Lee, in a similar field of endeavor (imaging ellipsometry (IE)-based inspection method), discloses:
…comparing the first transmitted light intensity to a second transmitted light intensity, wherein the second light intensity corresponds to an expected intensity of light (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”), and …
… wherein the presence of a light-absorbing defect is indicated by the first transmitted light intensity being less than the second transmitted light intensity (Lee, [0104], Examiner notes that inherently the intensity would be less if there is a light absorbing defect since the light absorbing defect would have absorbed some of the light) at all wavelengths of the plurality of wavelengths (Examiner notes that detecting all of the wavelengths would be inherent due to the plurality of wavelengths used).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizutani with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the system of Mizutani. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
The combination of Mizutani and Lee discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… based on the comparing of the first transmitted light intensity to the second transmitted light intensity, determining the presence of a light-absorbing defect comprising a region of light-absorbing material, where in the light-absorbing defect is located between the semiconductor substrate and the second side, …
However, Basol, in a similar field of endeavor (method and apparatus for detecting the locations of shorting defects in a thin film solar cell), discloses:
… based on the comparing of the first transmitted light intensity to the second transmitted light intensity, determining the presence of a light-absorbing defect comprising a region of light-absorbing material, where in the light-absorbing defect is located between the semiconductor substrate and the second side (Basol, FIG. 5, [0046], defect regions 27A, 27B, and 27C. Examiner notes that defect regions 27A, 27B, and 27C are internal and between the outermost layers), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani and Lee with the knowledge and detection of defects between the sides of Basol. PHOSITA would have known about the knowledge and detection of defects between the sides as disclosed by Basol and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani and Lee. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically detection of known possible defects between the sides of the semiconductor structure.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol discloses Claim 1, and Basol further discloses:
… wherein the region of light-absorbing material comprises a conductive residue (Basol, [0009], “etching or anodizing of CIGS type compound materials leave behind conductive residues comprising metallic species of Cu, In or Ga at the etched location that actually may make shorting even worse than before etching”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol with the conductive residue of Basol. PHOSITA would have known about conductive residue and its properties as disclosed by Basol and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically detection of known possible conductive residue defects.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mizutani and Lee discloses Claim 1, and Mizutani further discloses:
… wherein the light is directed at a first region of a plurality of regions of the semiconductor structure, wherein the first region extends from the first side of the semiconductor structure to the second side of the semiconductor structure (Mizutani, FIG. 7(b), [0066], “in FIG. 7(b) a number of regions where the contrast between black and white is prominent can be observed.” Examiner notes that PHOSITA would be knowledgeable enough to designate whichever regions, shapes, and sizes required for their particular needs).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol discloses Claim 1, and Lee further discloses:
… wherein directing light at the first side of the semiconductor structure comprises: emitting light from a light source; and using a reflector to reflect the light toward the first side (Lee, FIG. 1, [0023], beam splitter 150).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol with the beam splitter of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of beam splitters as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of beam splitters to manipulate and control the light.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol discloses Claim 1, and Mizutani further discloses:
… wherein the light is visible light (Mizutani, [0073], “using visible light or light in a wavelength range adjacent to visible light”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Lee further discloses:
… wherein the second light intensity corresponds to an intensity of light for when the defect is not present (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
Claims 5, 8, and 10-13, 15, 17, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US20180195952A1), in view of Lee (US20210028035A1), in view of Basol (US 20100210040 A1), and in further view of Xu (US20240044799A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol discloses Claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose:
…wherein the second transmitted light intensity is associated with the first region.
However, Xu, in a similar field of endeavor (detecting photoluminescence for applications), discloses:
… wherein the second light intensity is associated with the first region (Xu, [0081], “The defect detection may be performed using either absolute values or relative comparisons (e.g., device-to-device, region-to-region, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol with the region comparison of Xu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of region comparison as disclosed by Xu and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of region-to-region comparison for defects.
Regarding Claim 8, Mizutani discloses:
A method comprising:
performing a patterning process on a first region of a semiconductor structure (Mizutani, FIG. 7(b), [0066], “in FIG. 7(b) a number of regions where the contrast between black and white is prominent can be observed.” Examiner notes that PHOSITA would be knowledgeable enough to designate whichever regions, shapes, and sizes required for their particular needs), wherein the first region extends from a first side of the semiconductor structure to a second side of the semiconductor structure (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], substrate 5), wherein the semiconductor structure comprising a plurality of different material layers (Mizutani, [0040], “One example of a measured object of this thickness is a semiconductor monocrystalline substrate, which includes uniaxially polarized crystalline substrates such as a monocrystalline 4H—SiC substrate and a monocrystalline 6H—SiC substrate”);
positioning the semiconductor structure between a light source (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], illumination optical system (or light projecting optical system) 10) and a light detector (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], light receiving optical system (or imaging optical system) 20);
using the light source, illuminating the first side of the semiconductor structure with light, wherein the light enters the first side of the first region (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], “a two-dimensional distribution of optical distortion (birefringence) of the observation target 5, such as a substrate, is acquired as video or an image from intensity information of the image sensor”);
using the light detector, detecting light from the second side of the first region to generate a first light measurement (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], “a two-dimensional distribution of optical distortion (birefringence) of the observation target 5, such as a substrate, is acquired as video or an image from intensity information of the image sensor”), …
Mizutani discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… based on the first light measurement, determining if a defect that blocks light is present …
However, Lee, in a similar field of endeavor (imaging ellipsometry (IE)-based inspection method), discloses:
…based on the first light measurement, determining if a defect that blocks light is present (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizutani with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the system of Mizutani. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
The combination of Mizutani and Lee discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… in at least one material layer of the plurality of different material layers within the first region.
However, Basol, in a similar field of endeavor (method and apparatus for detecting the locations of shorting defects in a thin film solar cell), discloses:
… in at least one material layer of the plurality of different material layers (Basol, FIGS. 3-4, [0036], “The CIGS solar cell 40 may be obtained by depositing a grid pattern 41 on the TCO film 26 of the solar cell structure 30.” Examiner notes that as most easily shown in FIG. 4, there are internal divots and walls where the defects are searched for) within the first region (Basol, FIG. 5, [0046], defect regions 27A, 27B, and 27C), wherein the defect has a smaller cross-sectional area than the first region (Examiner notes that a defect detected within a region would inherently be smaller than the region).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani and Lee with the knowledge and detection of defects between the sides of Basol. PHOSITA would have known about the knowledge and detection of defects between the sides as disclosed by Basol and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani and Lee. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically detection of known possible defects between the sides of the semiconductor structure.
The combination of Mizutani and Lee discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first light measurement comprising a total summed intensity of the light detected from the second side of the first region; and …
However, Xu, in a similar field of endeavor (detecting photoluminescence for applications), discloses:
… wherein the first light measurement comprising a total summed intensity of the light detected from the second side of the first region (Xu, [0081], “The defect detection may be performed using either absolute values or relative comparisons (e.g., device-to-device, region-to-region, etc.). In one such example, the computer subsystem may compare an absolute emitted intensity for each device to a threshold (or thresholds), which may correspond to a range of absolute emitted intensities below (and possibly above) the nominal or designed absolute emitted intensity that are unacceptable for the device”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol with the value comparison of Xu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of value comparison as disclosed by Xu and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of value-to-value comparison for defects.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses Claim 8, and Xu further discloses:
… wherein the light source is a laser light source (Xu, [0043], “the light sources may include any other suitable light sources such any suitable lasers, arc lamps, multiple color LEDs, etc. known in the art configured to generate light at any suitable wavelength(s) known in the art”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the laser of Xu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of lasers as disclosed by Xu and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of lasers to control, produce, and direct light for defect analysis.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses Claim 8, and Xu further discloses:
… wherein the light source is a chemiluminescent light source (Xu, [0029], “There are multiple types of PL including fluorescence, phosphorescence, and chemiluminescence”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the chemiluminescent light source of Xu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of chemiluminescent light sources as disclosed by Xu and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of chemiluminescent light sources for defect detection.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses Claim 8, and Lee further discloses:
… wherein determining if a defect is present in the first region comprises comparing a first value of the first light measurement to a second value of a second light measurement (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses Claim 12, and Lee further discloses:
… wherein the second light measurement is generated before the first light measurement (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses Claim 8, and Lee further discloses:
… wherein positioning the semiconductor structure comprises placing the semiconductor structure on a stage, wherein the light source is in the stage (Lee, FIG. 1, [0022], stage 155. Examiner notes that in combining Mizutani, Lee, and Basol, PHOSITA would reasonably know about the use of stages and modify the stage of Lee to allow for the transmission of light as described by Mizutani).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the stage of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of stages as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of stages or other holder commonly used to keep the substrate in position for analysis.
Regarding Claim 17, Mizutani discloses:
A defect inspection system comprising:
a light emitter (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], illumination optical system (or light projecting optical system) 10);
a light detector configured to detect light emitted from the light emitter and generate intensity data based on the detected light (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], light receiving optical system (or imaging optical system) 20);
…a semiconductor structure between the light emitter and the light detector, wherein the semiconductor structure comprises a semiconductor device on a semiconductor substrate, wherein the semiconductor substrate faces the light emitter (Mizutani, FIG. 2, [0031], substrate 5); and
a controller configured to receive the intensity data from the light detector and analyze the intensity data to determine whether … of the semiconductor structure has a defect comprising a region of light-absorbing material (Mizutani, FIG. 1, [0030], “step 52 of evaluating crystal quality (as examples, defects due to crystal quality, distortion due to crystal defects, and lattice distortions due to displacement in the atomic arrangement) of at least a part of the substrate by way of an image produced by light transmitted through or reflected by the substrate”), … wherein the light-absorbing material is a different material than the semiconductor substrate (Mizutani, [0040], “One example of a measured object of this thickness is a semiconductor monocrystalline substrate, which includes uniaxially polarized crystalline substrates such as a monocrystalline 4H—SiC substrate and a monocrystalline 6H—SiC substrate”).
Mizutani discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… a holder configured to hold …
Examiner notes that Mizutani inherently has some sort of holder or stage, but, more explicitly, Lee, in a similar field of endeavor (imaging ellipsometry (IE)-based inspection method), discloses:
…a holder configured to hold (Lee, FIG. 1, [0022], stage 155) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizutani with the stage of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of stages as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the system of Mizutani. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a stage to hold and control the substrate.
The combination of Mizutani and Lee discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… the interior …
However, Basol, in a similar field of endeavor (method and apparatus for detecting the locations of shorting defects in a thin film solar cell), discloses:
… the interior (Basol, FIG. 5, [0046], defect regions 27A, 27B, and 27C) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani and Lee with the knowledge and detection of defects between the sides of Basol. PHOSITA would have known about the knowledge and detection of defects between the sides as disclosed by Basol and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani and Lee. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically detection of known possible defects between the sides of the semiconductor structure.
The combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol discloses the above limitations but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein analyzing the intensity data comprises comparing the intensity data to an intensity threshold, …
However, Xu, in a similar field of endeavor (detecting photoluminescence for applications), discloses:
… wherein analyzing the intensity data comprises comparing the intensity data to an intensity threshold (Xu, [0081], “The defect detection may be performed using either absolute values or relative comparisons (e.g., device-to-device, region-to-region, etc.). In one such example, the computer subsystem may compare an absolute emitted intensity for each device to a threshold (or thresholds), which may correspond to a range of absolute emitted intensities below (and possibly above) the nominal or designed absolute emitted intensity that are unacceptable for the device”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol with the value comparison of Xu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of value comparison as disclosed by Xu and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, and Basol. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of value-to-value comparison for defects.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses the limitations of Claim 8, and Lee further discloses:
… based on the first light measurement, determining if expected material is missing the first region (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses the limitations of Claim 8, and Lee further discloses:
… wherein the first light measurement is a measurement of the average light intensity detected from the second side of the first region (Lee, [0104], “the intensity data for each wavelength is compared with reference data (S126). Here, the reference data may be intensity data for each wavelength, which is obtained by measuring the inspection target 200 that has been determined to be normal”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the intensity comparison of Lee. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of intensity comparison as disclosed by Lee and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of light intensity comparison for defect detection.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Mizutani further discloses:
… wherein the light-absorbing material comprises a metal (Mizutani, [0076], “This testing method is also applicable to the substrates that have a thin film of metal, semiconductor, oxide, an organic material or an inorganic compound formed on a surface on the substrate described above, and the thin film may be a heteroepitaxially grown film”).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Xu further discloses:
… wherein analyzing the intensity data further comprises determining the defect is present when an intensity of the intensity data is smaller than the intensity threshold (Xu, [0081], “The defect detection may be performed using either absolute values or relative comparisons (e.g., device-to-device, region-to-region, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the region comparison of Xu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of region comparison as disclosed by Xu and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of value-to-value comparison for defects.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US20180195952A1), in view of Lee (US20210028035A1), in view of Basol (US 20100210040 A1), in further view of Xu (US20240044799A1), and in further view of Trivedi (US 20190032114 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the defect comprises a dielectric material.
However, Trivedi, in a similar field of endeavor (POINT-OF-CARE NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION AND DETECTION), discloses:
… wherein the defect comprises a dielectric material (Trivedi, [0008], “The surface of the test region may be coated with a reflective material (for example, silver, aluminum) and/or a dielectric mirror stack designed to specifically reflect the incident energy, which may be coated by a thin layer of dielectric”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu with the dielectric material of Trivedi. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of dielectric material as disclosed by Trivedi and how to use them to modify the combination of Mizutani, Lee, Basol, and Xu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a dielectric material for coating.
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 CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights