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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8 recite limitations that been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it they use a generic placeholders “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites “a setting unit which sets a threshold value based on a grayscale value of comparative data compared with the inspection data; and an inspection unit which determines whether the inspection target is defective based on the threshold value” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can visually inspect the images and determine through simple mathematical calculation a threshold value based on grayscale values and to perform a mental comparison to determine whether the inspection target is defective based on the threshold value. The claim further recites “an imaging unit which captures the inspection target and outputs image data corresponding to the inspection target; a data extraction unit which receives the image data and extracts inspection data corresponding to an inspection area of the inspection target from the image data” which are mere data gather steps which are insignificant extra solution activities. The claim does not recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recite “wherein the setting unit sets the threshold value to increase as the grayscale value of the comparative data increases” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally calculate the threshold value based on the grayscale value.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the grayscale value of the comparative data has a range comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can visually inspect the image or a graph of grayscale values and determine different sections or regions.
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the setting unit sets the grayscale value of the comparative data and the threshold value such that an increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data is directly proportional to an increase amount of the threshold value in each of the first section, the second section, and the third section” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally calculate the threshold value based on the grayscale value in each of the first, second and third sections.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein a relationship between the increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and the increase amount of the threshold value in the first section is defined as a first proportional value, a relationship between the increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and the increase amount of the threshold value in the second section is defined as a second proportional value, a relationship between the increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and the increase amount of the threshold value in the third section is defined as a third proportional value, the third proportional value is set greater than the second proportional value by the setting unit, and the second proportional value is set greater than the first proportional value by the setting unit” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally calculate the threshold value based on the grayscale value and can mentally determine that the threshold values are proportional to the grayscale values in different sections. Alternatively, the values can be determined using a general-purpose computer.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the setting unit sets the threshold value to which a first correction value is applied in the first section, sets the threshold value to which a second correction value is applied in the second section, and sets the threshold value to which a third correction value is applied in the third section” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally calculate the threshold value based on the grayscale value, and moreover can mentally determine correction values to account for any distortions. Alternatively, the values can be determined using a general-purpose computer.
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein a reference grayscale value is defined in a range of the grayscale value of the comparative data, and the inspection unit does not determine whether the inspection target is defective in a section where the grayscale value is greater than the reference grayscale value” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally determine whether the grayscale value is greater than a reference value.
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the inspection area comprises a first inspection area and a second inspection area, the data extraction unit extracts first inspection data corresponding to the first inspection area and second inspection data corresponding to the second inspection area, and the inspection unit determines whether the first and second inspection data are defective based on different threshold values from each other” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally determine whether there is a defect by comparing with the threshold values.
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the comparative data correspond to a comparative area from the image data to be compared with the inspection area” which merely states that the comparative data is to be compared with the inspection area, which can be performed mentally by a person.
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the inspection target comprises a plurality of cells” which merely describes the data that is gathered, which is merely a data gathering step.
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the inspection target comprises a plurality of layers, and the inspection area and the comparative area are defined in a same layer”, which merely describes the data that is gathered, which is merely a data gathering step.
Dependent claim 12 recites “a light source which irradiates a light; and an optical member which controls a path of the light to direct toward the inspection target” which merely describes that the data is gathered using a light source to capture an image, which is simply a data gathering step.
With regard to claim 13, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 14, the claim recites “extracting the inspection data and the comparative data comprises setting an inspection area and a comparative area, which the extraction is merely a data gathering step.
With regard to claim 15, the claim recites “wherein an increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and an increase amount of the threshold value have a linear relationship” which merely describes the relationship between the comparative data and the threshold value. It is noted that calculation of the threshold value can be performed mentally for different regions of the image, such as based on the position or distance of the region in the image.
With regard to claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the grayscale value of the comparative data has a range comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section, the grayscale value of the comparative data and the threshold value have a first linear relationship in the first section, the grayscale value of the comparative data and the threshold value have a second linear relationship in the second section, and the grayscale value of the comparative data and the threshold value have a third linear relationship in the third section” which merely describes the relationship between the comparative data and the threshold value. It is noted that calculation of the threshold value can be performed mentally for different regions of the image, such as based on the position or distance of the region in the image.
With regard to claim 17, the claim recites “wherein the third linear relationship has a slope greater than a slope of the second linear relationship, and the second linear relationship has the slope greater than a slope of the first linear relationship” which merely describes the relationship between the data and threshold. This limitation may also be interpreted as describing a mathematical relationship, which is an abstract idea.
With regard to claim 18, the claim recites “providing the inspection target; and
irradiating a light to the inspection target using a light source” which merely describes the process of gathering the image data by capturing an image using a light source.
With regard to claim 19, the claim recites “wherein the irradiating the light to the inspection target comprises controlling a path of the light toward the inspection target using an optical member” which merely describes the process of gathering the image data by capturing an image using a light source.
With regard to claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the inspection target has a multi-layer
structure comprising a metal layer, and the outputting the image data by the imaging unit comprises: capturing the metal layer; and outputting the image data” which is merely a data output step, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-8 recite limitation comprising “unit” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 3, 5, 9-12 fail to further disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D11.
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach an imaging unit which captures the inspection target and outputs image data corresponding to the inspection target (see fig. 1, ¶ 59: imaging system to capture input image); a data extraction unit which receives the image data and extracts inspection data corresponding to an inspection area of the inspection target from the image data (see fig. 1: pixels from region of interest of input image compared to reference data); a setting unit which sets a threshold value based on a grayscale value of comparative data compared with the inspection data (see fig. 1, ¶¶ 76, 24: threshold value); and an inspection unit which determines whether the inspection target is defective based on the threshold value (see fig. 1: identifying defects).
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach wherein the setting unit sets the threshold value to increase as the grayscale value of the comparative data increases (see ¶ 76: higher threshold set as the noise and grayscale value increases).
With regard to claim 3, D1 teach inspection device of claim 2, wherein the grayscale value of the comparative data has a range comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section (see fig. 9, ¶76: plurality of different regions used for comparison).
With regard to claim 4, D1 teach inspection device of claim 3, wherein the setting unit sets the grayscale value of the comparative data and the threshold value such that an increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data is directly proportional to an increase amount of the threshold value in each of the first section, the second section, and the third section (see fig. 9, ¶ 76: threshold value proportional to the noise in each of the plurality of regions).
With regard to claim 5, D1 teach inspection device of claim 4, wherein a relationship between the increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and the increase amount of the threshold value in the first section is defined as a first proportional value, a relationship between the increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and the increase amount of the threshold value in the second section is defined as a second proportional value, a relationship between the increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and the increase amount of the threshold value in the third section is defined as a third proportional value, the third proportional value is set greater than the second proportional value by the setting unit, and the second proportional value is set greater than the first proportional value by the setting unit (see ¶ 76: threshold value in each of the regions is proportional or function of proximity or position, where the proportional threshold value is higher in regions with more significant noise).
With regard to claim 8, D1 teach inspection device of claim 1, wherein the inspection area comprises a first inspection area and a second inspection area, the data extraction unit extracts first inspection data corresponding to the first inspection area and second inspection data corresponding to the second inspection area, and the inspection unit determines whether the first and second inspection data are defective based on different threshold values from each other (see fig. 9, ¶ 76: threshold value proportional to the noise in each of the plurality of regions, detecting defects based on the threshold values).
With regard to claim 9, D1 teach inspection device of claim 1, wherein the comparative data correspond to a comparative area from the image data to be compared with the inspection area (see fig. 1, ¶¶ 76, 54, 61: reference area comparison).
With regard to claim 10, D1 teach inspection device of claim 1, wherein the inspection target comprises a plurality of cells (see ¶¶ 54, 56: cell comparison).
With regard to claim 13, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 14, D1 teach wherein the extracting the inspection data and the comparative data comprises setting an inspection area and a comparative area (see ¶¶ 53, 61: inspection region and reference region are set to be compared).
With regard to claim 18, see discussion of claim 12.
With regard to claim 19, see discussion of claim 12.
With regard to claim 20, D1 teach see fig. 1: capturing semiconductor wafer image). D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the inspection target has a multi-layer structure comprising a metal layer, however it is known that semiconductor wafer inherently comprises multiple layers including a metal layer.
Claims 11, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D1.
With regard to claim 11, D1 teach inspection device of claim 9, wherein the inspection target see ¶¶ 54, 56: wafer dies are compared to reference regions to detect defects). D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the wafer or die comprises plurality of layers, however semiconductor wafer of D1 inherently comprises a plurality of layers. One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to compare regions in the same layer in order to detect defects because each layer would comprise of different structures.
With regard to claim 15, D1 teach wherein an increase amount of the grayscale value of the comparative data and an increase amount of the threshold value see ¶ 76: threshold value in each of the regions is proportional or function of proximity or position, where the proportional threshold value is higher in regions with more significant noise). D1 fails to explicitly teach a linear relationship, however D1 suggests a linear relationship when describing that the threshold is proportional to the noise or the distance (position), for example. One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to vary the threshold based on a linear function that is dependent on the distance (position) or the amount of noise, yielding predictable and enhanced results.
With regard to claim 16, D1 teach wherein the grayscale value of the comparative data has a range comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section, the grayscale value of the comparative data and the threshold value have a first see fig. 9, ¶ 76: threshold value proportional to the noise in each of the plurality of regions). D1 fails to explicitly teach a linear relationship, however D1 suggests a linear relationship when describing that the threshold is proportional to the noise or the distance (position), for example. One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to vary the threshold based on a linear function that is dependent on the distance (position) or the amount of noise, yielding predictable and enhanced results.
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 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.
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and further in view of D22.
With regard to claim 6, D1 teaches inspection device of claim 4, wherein the setting unit sets the threshold value see fig. 9, ¶ 76: threshold value proportional to the noise in each of the plurality of regions). D1 fails to explicitly teach that a correction value is applied to each of the regions, however D2 teaches the missing features (see ¶¶ 58, 93, 97, 103: correction of distortion).
Based on the combined teachings, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of D2 into the configuration of D1 such that image distortion in the plurality of regions are corrected before performing defect detection yielding predictable results and improved detection of defects by correcting for distortions.
With regard to claim 12, D1 fails to explicitly teach inspection device of claim 1, further comprising: a light source which irradiates a light; and an optical member which controls a path of the light to direct toward the inspection target. However, D2 teaches the missing features (see ¶¶ 12, 41: light is irradiated to the wafer and an image is captured using a camera; ¶ 40: reflection mirror to direct the light to the wafer). One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to incorporate known teachings of D2 into the configuration of D1. In particular, it would have been obvious to irradiate the wafer with light directed by a reflection mirror and capturing an image yielding predictable and enhanced imaging results by using light.
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2003/0228050.
2 US Publication No. 2016/0125590.