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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06 February 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-20 remain pending in the application (claims 7 and 13 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Rejection dated 17 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 06 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Hsiao et al. (USPGPub 20230069432 A1).
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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezginer et al. (USPGPub 20220383470 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (USPGPub 20230221262 A1), Hsiao et al. (USPGPub 20230069432 A1), and Sreenivasan et al. (USPGPub 20230163013 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sezginer teaches a system for imaging a substrate (116), the system comprising: a single electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitter (102) at a first side of the substrate (116) (see figure 2, light source 102 emitting light 120 towards sample 116; and ¶45, the term “sample” generally refers to a substrate formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material (e.g., a wafer, a reticle/photomask, or the like)); a diffuser (202) between the single EMR emitter (102) and the substrate (116), wherein electromagnetic radiation (120) from the single EMR emitter (102) passes through the diffuser (202) to a surface of the substrate (116) (see figure 2, beam conditioning element 202 (i.e. diffuser) disposed between light source 102 and substrate 116; and ¶56, the one or more beam conditioning elements 202 may include, but are not limited to, one or more polarizers, one or more filters, one or more beam splitters, one or more diffusers, one or more homogenizers, one or more apodizers, one or more beam shapers, or one or more lenses); a photodetector (108) at a second side of the substrate (116), the photodetector (108) configured to capture reflected electromagnetic radiation from the surface of the substrate (116) (see figure 2, detector array 108; and ¶58, the detector assembly or array 108 may receive radiation reflected or scattered (e.g., via specular reflection, diffuse reflection, or the like) from the sample 116); wherein the single EMR emitter (102) and the photodetector (108) are at an angle relative to the surface of the substrate (116) that is not one of parallel and perpendicular (see figure 2, light source 102 and detector array 108 disposed at angles to substrate 116 that are neither perpendicular nor parallel); and a computing device (112) configured to render a single image of the surface of the substrate (116) from the captured reflected electromagnetic radiation (¶64, the one or more target images may be an image captured by the detector array 108 of a location (e.g., a field) on a die on a wafer 116 undergoing testing; and ¶129, The one or more processors 112 may consist of a desktop computer, mainframe computer system, workstation, image computer, parallel processor, or other computer system (e.g., networked computer) configured to execute a program configured to operate the system 100, as described throughout the present disclosure). However, Sezginer fails to explicitly teach wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate; and an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector configured to move the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate (¶20, In the substrate inspection apparatus, the visible light image and the ultraviolet light image may be images obtained by imaging the common region of an entire surface of the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sezginer to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi to capture an image of the entire surface of the substrate because [w]ith this configuration, it is possible to inspect the entire surface of the substrate based on these images (Yamaguchi, ¶20). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector configured to move the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate.
However, Hsiao teaches an actuator (118/314) operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter (106) and the photodetector (108) configured to move the single EMR emitter (106) and the photodetector (108) relative to the substrate (¶22, the optical assembly 110 and the radiation source 106 may both be configured to move horizontally along the horizontal axis 101y together (e.g., by way of the first actuator device 118); and ¶34, the radiation sensor 108 is arranged on a third actuator device 314 that is configured to move the radiation sensor 108 up (e.g., 314u) and down (e.g., 314d) along the vertical axis 101z. In some embodiments, the first actuator device 118 and the third actuator device 314 are configured to move together in a synchronized fashion (e.g., such that the radiation source 106 and the radiation sensor 108 remain at a same or similar height along the vertical axis 101z)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer and Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Hsiao to further provide actuation means for the emitter and detector in order to direct and capture light from the surface of the substrate at multiple locations, detecting every possible defect on said surface. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to move in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction.
However, Sreenivasan teaches wherein the actuator is configured to move in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction (¶458, optical elements (to focus light from and onto light source 2402 and light sensors on MM 108) attached to every single or a group of actuation units …optical elements and light sources 2402 associated with a single actuation unit 1007 can themselves be displaced in the X, Y, and/or Z axes relative to actuation unit 1007. The actuation could be performed using magnetic, electromagnetic (for instance, voice coils), thermal, piezoelectric, and/or pneumatic actuation modalities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, and Hsiao to incorporate the teachings of Sreenivasan to further provide actuation means in the x, y, and z directions in order to direct and capture light from the surface of the substrate at multiple angles, detecting every possible defect on said surface.
Regarding claim 2, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the substrate (Sezginer 116 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) is a semiconductor wafer (Sezginer, ¶45, the term “sample” generally refers to a substrate formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material (e.g., a wafer, a reticle/photomask, or the like)).
Regarding claim 8, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the substrate (Sezginer 116 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) is between the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) and the photodetector (Sezginer 108 | Yamaguchi 41/61/71 | Hsiao 108) (Sezginer, see figure 2, substrate 116 disposed between light source 102 and detector 108).
Regarding claim 16, Sezginer teaches a method, comprising: passing electromagnetic radiation (120) from a single electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitter (102) through a diffuser (202) to a surface of a substrate (116) (see figure 2, light source 102 emitting light 120 towards sample 116 having beam conditioning element 202 (i.e. diffuser) disposed between light source 102 and substrate 116; ¶45, the term “sample” generally refers to a substrate formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material (e.g., a wafer, a reticle/photomask, or the like); and ¶56, the one or more beam conditioning elements 202 may include, but are not limited to, one or more polarizers, one or more filters, one or more beam splitters, one or more diffusers, one or more homogenizers, one or more apodizers, one or more beam shapers, or one or more lenses); capturing electromagnetic radiation reflected from the surface of the substrate (116) with a photodetector (108), wherein the single EMR emitter (102) and the photodetector (108) are at an angle relative to the surface of the substrate (116) that is not one of parallel and perpendicular (see figure 2, detector array 108, light source 102 and detector array 108 disposed at angles to substrate 116 that are neither perpendicular nor parallel; and ¶58, the detector assembly or array 108 may receive radiation reflected or scattered (e.g., via specular reflection, diffuse reflection, or the like) from the sample 116); converting the captured electromagnetic radiation to a single image of the surface of the substrate (116) using a computing device (112); and outputting the single image of the surface of the substrate (116) with the computing device (112) (¶64, the one or more target images may be an image captured by the detector array 108 of a location (e.g., a field) on a die on a wafer 116 undergoing testing; and ¶129, The one or more processors 112 may consist of a desktop computer, mainframe computer system, workstation, image computer, parallel processor, or other computer system (e.g., networked computer) configured to execute a program configured to operate the system 100, as described throughout the present disclosure). However, Sezginer fails to explicitly teach wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate; and adjusting a location of the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate, via an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate (¶20, In the substrate inspection apparatus, the visible light image and the ultraviolet light image may be images obtained by imaging the common region of an entire surface of the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sezginer to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi to capture an image of the entire surface of the substrate because [w]ith this configuration, it is possible to inspect the entire surface of the substrate based on these images (Yamaguchi, ¶20). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach adjusting a location of the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate, via an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector.
However, Hsiao teaches adjusting a location of the single EMR emitter (106) and the photodetector (108) relative to the surface of the substrate (104), via an actuator (118/314) operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter (106) and the photodetector (108) (¶22, the optical assembly 110 and the radiation source 106 may both be configured to move horizontally along the horizontal axis 101y together (e.g., by way of the first actuator device 118); and ¶34, the radiation sensor 108 is arranged on a third actuator device 314 that is configured to move the radiation sensor 108 up (e.g., 314u) and down (e.g., 314d) along the vertical axis 101z. In some embodiments, the first actuator device 118 and the third actuator device 314 are configured to move together in a synchronized fashion (e.g., such that the radiation source 106 and the radiation sensor 108 remain at a same or similar height along the vertical axis 101z)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer and Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Hsiao to further provide actuation means for the emitter and detector in order to direct and capture light from the surface of the substrate at multiple locations, detecting every possible defect on said surface. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to move in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction.
However, Sreenivasan teaches wherein the actuator is configured to move in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction (¶458, optical elements (to focus light from and onto light source 2402 and light sensors on MM 108) attached to every single or a group of actuation units …optical elements and light sources 2402 associated with a single actuation unit 1007 can themselves be displaced in the X, Y, and/or Z axes relative to actuation unit 1007. The actuation could be performed using magnetic, electromagnetic (for instance, voice coils), thermal, piezoelectric, and/or pneumatic actuation modalities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, and Hsiao to incorporate the teachings of Sreenivasan to further provide actuation means in the x, y, and z directions in order to direct and capture light from the surface of the substrate at multiple angles, detecting every possible defect on said surface.
Regarding claim 18, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the substrate (Sezginer 116 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) is between the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) and the photodetector (Sezginer 108 | Yamaguchi 41/61/71 | Hsiao 108) (Sezginer, see figure 2, substrate 116 disposed between light source 102 and detector 108).
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezginer et al. (USPGPub 20220383470 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (USPGPub 20230221262 A1), Hsiao et al. (USPGPub 20230069432 A1), and Sreenivasan et al. (USPGPub 20230163013 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 105470162 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches the surface of a substrate (Sezginer 116 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) (Sezginer, see figure 2). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the surface includes residual silicon oxide defects.
However, Liu teaches wherein the surface includes residual silicon oxide defects (¶20, the residue is silicon dioxide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Liu to have the defects include residual silicon oxide as this material is a common insulator that is deposited on specific semiconductor layers, and the deposition process can lead to potential imperfections.
Claims 4, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezginer et al. (USPGPub 20220383470 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (USPGPub 20230221262 A1), Hsiao et al. (USPGPub 20230069432 A1), and Sreenivasan et al. (USPGPub 20230163013 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Wieser (USPGPub 20240385125 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) (Sezginer, see figure 2, light source 102 emitting light 120). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the emitter includes a light emitting diode (LED).
However, Wieser teaches wherein the emitter includes a light emitting diode (LED) (¶31, The illumination device may be composed of a number of light-emitting diodes (LEDs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Wieser to use LEDs as the light source because they have a high energy efficiency and a long lifespan.
Regarding claim 6, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi and Sreenivasan teaches wherein the diffuser (Sezginer 202) is configured to distribute the electromagnetic radiation from the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) across substantially the entirety of the surface of the substrate (Sezginer 116 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) (Sezginer, see figure 2, beam conditioning element 202 (i.e. diffuser) disposed between light source 102 and substrate 116; and ¶56, the one or more beam conditioning elements 202 may include, but are not limited to, one or more polarizers, one or more filters, one or more beam splitters, one or more diffusers, one or more homogenizers, one or more apodizers, one or more beam shapers, or one or more lenses; and Yamaguchi, ¶20, In the substrate inspection apparatus, the visible light image and the ultraviolet light image may be images obtained by imaging the common region of an entire surface of the substrate). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the diffuser distributes the radiation substantially evenly.
However, Wieser teaches wherein the diffuser distributes the radiation substantially evenly (¶31, The illumination device may have a diffuser, by means of which a homogeneous distribution of the light on the product surface may be achieved while avoiding strong contrasts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Wieser to have the diffuser to provide an even distribution of light over the substrate in order to avoid strong contrasts in the received signals (Wieser, ¶31).
Regarding claim 17, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches distributing the electromagnetic radiation from the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) across substantially the entirety of the surface of the substrate (Sezginer 116 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) through the diffuser (Sezginer 202) (Sezginer, see figure 2, beam conditioning element 202 (i.e. diffuser) disposed between light source 102 and substrate 116; and ¶56, the one or more beam conditioning elements 202 may include, but are not limited to, one or more polarizers, one or more filters, one or more beam splitters, one or more diffusers, one or more homogenizers, one or more apodizers, one or more beam shapers, or one or more lenses; and Yamaguchi, ¶20, In the substrate inspection apparatus, the visible light image and the ultraviolet light image may be images obtained by imaging the common region of an entire surface of the substrate). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the diffuser distributes the radiation substantially evenly.
However, Wieser teaches wherein the diffuser distributes the radiation substantially evenly (¶31, The illumination device may have a diffuser, by means of which a homogeneous distribution of the light on the product surface may be achieved while avoiding strong contrasts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Wieser to have the diffuser to provide an even distribution of light over the substrate in order to avoid strong contrasts in the received signals (Wieser, ¶31).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezginer et al. (USPGPub 20220383470 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (USPGPub 20230221262 A1), Hsiao et al. (USPGPub 20230069432 A1), and Sreenivasan et al. (USPGPub 20230163013 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Jacob (DE 10046354 C1).
Regarding claim 5, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) (Sezginer, see figure 2, light source 102 emitting light 120). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the emitter is a hard light source.
However, Jacob teaches wherein the emitter is a hard light source (¶27, light sources that emit very hard, i.e. very directed, intense light are advantageously used as illumination devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Jacob to use hard light as the illumination source because [i]lluminating the image with very hard light results in the recording of an image signal in which the defects are clearly visible (Jacob, ¶14).
Regarding claim 19, Sezginer as modified by Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan teaches wherein the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) passes light through the diffuser (Sezginer 202) (Sezginer, see figure 2, beam conditioning element 202 (i.e. diffuser) disposed between light source 102 and substrate 116; and ¶56, the one or more beam conditioning elements 202 may include, but are not limited to, one or more polarizers, one or more filters, one or more beam splitters, one or more diffusers, one or more homogenizers, one or more apodizers, one or more beam shapers, or one or more lenses). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the light is hard light.
However, Jacob teaches wherein the light is hard light (¶27, light sources that emit very hard, i.e. very directed, intense light are advantageously used as illumination devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Jacob to use hard light as the illumination source because [i]lluminating the image with very hard light results in the recording of an image signal in which the defects are clearly visible (Jacob, ¶14).
Claims 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sezginer et al. (USPGPub 20220383470 A1) in view of Benvegnu et al. (USPGPub 20220285227 A1), Yamaguchi (USPGPub 20230221262 A1), Hsiao et al. (USPGPub 20230069432 A1), Sreenivasan et al. (USPGPub 20230163013 A1), and Jacob (DE 10046354 C1).
Regarding claim 9, Sezginer teaches a system, comprising: a single electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitter (102) at a first side of the semiconductor substrate (116) (see figure 2, light source 102 emitting light 120 towards sample 116; and ¶45, the term “sample” generally refers to a substrate formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material (e.g., a wafer, a reticle/photomask, or the like)); a diffuser (202) between the single EMR emitter (102) and the semiconductor substrate (116), wherein electromagnetic radiation (120) from the single EMR emitter (102) passes through the diffuser (202) to a surface of the substrate (116) (see figure 2, beam conditioning element 202 (i.e. diffuser) disposed between light source 102 and substrate 116; and ¶56, the one or more beam conditioning elements 202 may include, but are not limited to, one or more polarizers, one or more filters, one or more beam splitters, one or more diffusers, one or more homogenizers, one or more apodizers, one or more beam shapers, or one or more lenses); a photodetector (108) at a second side of the semiconductor substrate (116), the photodetector (108) configured to capture reflected electromagnetic radiation from the surface of the semiconductor substrate (116) (see figure 2, detector array 108; and ¶58, the detector assembly or array 108 may receive radiation reflected or scattered (e.g., via specular reflection, diffuse reflection, or the like) from the sample 116); and a computing device (112) configured to render a single image of the surface of the semiconductor substrate (116) from the captured reflected electromagnetic radiation and configured to detect defects on the semiconductor substrate (116) by comparing the single image to a reference data set (¶64, the one or more target images may be an image captured by the detector array 108 of a location (e.g., a field) on a die on a wafer 116 undergoing testing; ¶129, The one or more processors 112 may consist of a desktop computer, mainframe computer system, workstation, image computer, parallel processor, or other computer system (e.g., networked computer) configured to execute a program configured to operate the system 100, as described throughout the present disclosure; abstract, determining one or more difference images from one or more reference images and the one or more target images, and up-sampling the one or more difference images to generate one or more up-sampled images. One or more wafer defects are detectable in the one or more difference images or the up-sampled images; and see ¶¶95-96 for further details). However, Sezginer fails to explicitly teach a semiconductor processing tool configured to process the semiconductor substrate in an interior of the semiconductor processing tool; an emitter attached to the interior of the semiconductor processing tool; the photodetector attached to the interior of the semiconductor processing tool; wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate; and an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector configured to move the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate, wherein the emitter is a hard light source, and the photodetector is configured to move based on the movements of the single EMR emitter.
However, Benvegnu teaches a semiconductor processing tool (100) configured to process the semiconductor substrate (10) in an interior of the semiconductor processing tool (100) (see figure 1, polishing apparatus 100 having a substrate 10 disposed therein); an emitter (162) attached to the interior of the semiconductor processing tool (100) (see figure 1, light source 162 disposed in the polishing apparatus 100); and the photodetector (164) attached to the interior of the semiconductor processing tool (100) (see figure 1, light detector 164 disposed in the polishing apparatus 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sezginer to incorporate the teachings of Benvegnu to include the substrate within a processing tool in order to simultaneously manufacture the semiconductor substrate while inspecting said substrate, decreasing the number of devices in the manufacturing process. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate; and an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector configured to move the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate, wherein the emitter is a hard light source, and the photodetector is configured to move based on the movements of the single EMR emitter.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the image is substantially an entirety of the surface of the substrate (¶20, In the substrate inspection apparatus, the visible light image and the ultraviolet light image may be images obtained by imaging the common region of an entire surface of the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer and Benvegnu to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi to capture an image of the entire surface of the substrate because [w]ith this configuration, it is possible to inspect the entire surface of the substrate based on these images (Yamaguchi, ¶20). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an actuator operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter and the photodetector configured to move the single EMR emitter and the photodetector in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction relative to the surface of the substrate, wherein the emitter is a hard light source, and the photodetector is configured to move based on the movements of the single EMR emitter.
However, Hsiao teaches an actuator (118/314) operatively coupled to the single EMR emitter (106) and the photodetector (108 configured to move the single EMR emitter (106) and the photodetector (108) relative to the surface of the substrate (104), the photodetector (108) is configured to move based on the movements of the single EMR emitter (106) (¶22, the optical assembly 110 and the radiation source 106 may both be configured to move horizontally along the horizontal axis 101y together (e.g., by way of the first actuator device 118); and ¶34, the radiation sensor 108 is arranged on a third actuator device 314 that is configured to move the radiation sensor 108 up (e.g., 314u) and down (e.g., 314d) along the vertical axis 101z. In some embodiments, the first actuator device 118 and the third actuator device 314 are configured to move together in a synchronized fashion (e.g., such that the radiation source 106 and the radiation sensor 108 remain at a same or similar height along the vertical axis 101z)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Benvegnu, and Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Hsiao to further provide actuation means for the emitter and detector in order to direct and capture light from the surface of the substrate at multiple locations, detecting every possible defect on said surface. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to move in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction; and wherein the emitter is a hard light source.
However, Sreenivasan teaches wherein the actuator is configured to move in an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction (¶458, optical elements (to focus light from and onto light source 2402 and light sensors on MM 108) attached to every single or a group of actuation units …optical elements and light sources 2402 associated with a single actuation unit 1007 can themselves be displaced in the X, Y, and/or Z axes relative to actuation unit 1007. The actuation could be performed using magnetic, electromagnetic (for instance, voice coils), thermal, piezoelectric, and/or pneumatic actuation modalities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, and Hsiao to incorporate the teachings of Sreenivasan to further provide actuation means in the x, y, and z directions in order to direct and capture light from the surface of the substrate at multiple angles, detecting every possible defect on said surface. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the emitter is a hard light source.
However, Jacob teaches wherein the emitter is a hard light source (¶27, light sources that emit very hard, i.e. very directed, intense light are advantageously used as illumination devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sezginer, Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, and Sreenivasan to incorporate the teachings of Jacob to use hard light as the illumination source because [i]lluminating the image with very hard light results in the recording of an image signal in which the defects are clearly visible (Jacob, ¶14).
Regarding claim 10, Sezginer as modified by Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, Sreenivasan, and Jacob teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the semiconductor processing tool (Benvegnu 100) is a chemical-mechanical planarization tool (Benvegnu, ¶4, Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) is one accepted method of planarization).
Regarding claim 11, Sezginer as modified by Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, Sreenivasan, and Jacob teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Benvegnu 162 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) and the photodetector (Sezginer 108 | Benvegnu 164 | Yamaguchi 41/61/71 | Hsiao 108) are each at an angle relative to the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Sezginer 116 | Benvegnu 10 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) that is not parallel (Sezginer, see figure 2, light source 102 and detector array 108 disposed at angles to substrate 116 that are neither perpendicular nor parallel).
Regarding claim 12, Sezginer as modified by Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, Sreenivasan, and Jacob teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the single EMR emitter (Sezginer 102 | Benvegnu 162 | Yamaguchi 44/64/72 | Hsiao 106) and the photodetector (Sezginer 108 | Benvegnu 164 | Yamaguchi 41/61/71 | Hsiao 108) are each at an angle relative to the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Sezginer 116 | Benvegnu 10 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) that is not perpendicular (Sezginer, see figure 2, light source 102 and detector array 108 disposed at angles to substrate 116 that are neither perpendicular nor parallel).
Regarding claim 14, Sezginer as modified by Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, Hsiao, Sreenivasan, and Jacob teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the computing device (Sezginer 112) is further configured to render a single secondary single image from the single image, the single secondary image including at least one visual identifier of the defects on the semiconductor substrate (Sezginer 116 | Benvegnu 10 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) (Sezginer, abstract, determining one or more difference images from one or more reference images and the one or more target images, and up-sampling the one or more difference images to generate one or more up-sampled images. One or more wafer defects are detectable in the one or more difference images or the up-sampled images; and see ¶¶95-96 for further details).
Regarding claim 15, Sezginer as modified by Benvegnu, Yamaguchi, and Jacob teaches the system of claim 9, further comprising a wafer handler (Benvegnu 126), wherein the semiconductor substrate (Sezginer 116 | Benvegnu 10 | Yamaguchi W | Hsiao 104 | Sreenivasan 103/105) is a semiconductor wafer held by a component of the wafer handler (Sezginer, ¶45, the term “sample” generally refers to a substrate formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material (e.g., a wafer, a reticle/photomask, or the like); and Benvegnu, see figure 1, carrier head 126 (i.e. wafer handler); and ¶23, a polishing apparatus 100 includes one or more carrier heads 126, each of which is configured to carry a substrate 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878