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 .
Objection to Title
The objection to the title has been withdrawn in light of the more descriptive title
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant argues that Mano's cutout unit does not receive an image already containing an inspection mark. It is noted that Applicant's argument is directed at how Mano's process is different; however, the claims are directed to the structure of a test system. Applicant's argument does not establish how the structure of Mano's test system is structurally different. The claim requires the assessment subsystem to be capable of receiving a test image having probe marks. Here, there is no reason to believe that Mano's cutout unit is not capable of receiving an image with probe marks. Furthermore, Mano teaches the cutout unit is not limited to perform the cutout out first but can be made to receive an embedded image. See passage after the discussion of Fig. 9, "However, the present invention is not limited to this, and after the inspection mark is embedded in the inspection image D1, The input image D2 may be cut out from the inspection image D1."
Applicant argues Mano's "inspection mark" is not a probe mark. As Applicant provides no explanation, the Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant argues that the CNN of Mano outputs a numerical score and does not output "specific analytical data such as the location (region mark RM), the quantity, or the presence of exposed substrate." The Examiner is not persuaded as this argument does not specifically point out how the language of the claim patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Examiner does not find that the claim requires the "specific analytical data" nor the presence of exposed substrate.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
assessment subsystem in claims 1-10,
neural network subsystem in claims 1-10,
process control processor in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the neural network subsystem is "separated from the assessment subsystem" and it is unclear what the bounds are by the term "separated" because Figure 1 shows them directly connected to each other and they are together in the test system 10. There is no explanation in the specification.
Claim 1 recites "coordination of the probe marks" at it is not clear if this is referring to positional coordinates of the probe marks or if this is saying that there is coordination of some kind of the probe marks with each other. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as spatial coordinates.
Claim 1 recites "wherein the neural network subsystem is configured to identify an image specification of the probe marks in the test image and to generate coordination of the probe marks, an amount of the probe marks, inspection of a substrate of at least one pad in the tested wafer" and there are two aspects that are unclear. First, it is unclear what the distinction is between the "identify an image specification" and the generated "coordination of the probe marks, an amount of the probe marks, inspection of a substrate." The specification indicates the "coordination of the probe marks, an amount of the probe marks, inspection of a substrate" to be types of an image specification, and will be interpreted as such. Second, it is unclear what is particular about the neural network system that makes it configured to generate an "inspection of at least one pad in the test wafer" and how it is different than a generic inspection of a different substrate. There does not appear to be any particular configuration whether the substrate is of a pad or something else, and the limitation will be examined as such.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the same limitation already present in claim 1 and no other limitation. According, claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10, as interpreted by the Examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mano et al. (JP 2019132594) in view of Official notice.
Mano shows:
A test system, comprising:
an assessment subsystem configured to receive a test image, having probe marks (preprocessing unit 320 and/or inspection image database 200 are capable of receiving such an image; Abstract: "a cutout unit which cuts out a part of an inspection image obtained by imaging the object to be inspected as an input image" and "However, the present invention is not limited to this, and after the inspection mark is embedded in the inspection image D1, The input image D2 may be cut out from the inspection image D1." See second to last paragraph), of a tested wafer from a probe apparatus (imaging device 100, Abstract: "an implantation unit which implants an inspection mark");
a neural network subsystem separated from the assessment subsystem (340, Abstract: "neural network"); and
a process control processor configured to control, in response to the probe apparatus obtaining the test image, the assessment subsystem to perform an assessment operation to transmit the test image to the neural network subsystem in an automation mode (Abstract: "an inspection unit which inputs the input image with the inspection mark implanted thereto to the neural network"),
wherein the neural network subsystem is configured to identify an image specification of the probe marks in the test image and to generate coordination of the probe marks, an amount of the probe marks, inspection of a substrate of at least one pad in the tested wafer, or the combinations thereof as analyzed data of the test image to the assessment subsystem (Mano generates an inspection of a substrate of wafer W and therefore is capable of inspecting a substrate of a pad in the tested wafer),
wherein the assessment subsystem is further configured to generate a first probe mark inspection result based on the analyzed data to the process control processor for generating a test result (see discussion of Fig. 7, Para. [0036]: "when the score that the inspection result is a non-defective product is 0.8 and the score that the inspection result is a foreign object failure is 0.2, the inspection unit 340 sets the inspection result of the input image D2 as a non-defective product.").
In the alternative to the ability to generate an inspection of a substrate of a pad in the tested wafer as discussed above, it would be obvious to generate the position of the marks and the number of marks. Mano teaches the generation of the size, area, and shape of marks (see discussion of Figs. 8 and 9), and teaches that the invention is not limited to these. Official notice is taken that obtaining of location, i.e. coordinates, and the number of marks was well known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to obtain the spatial coordinate and the quantity of marks in order better obtain potential defects on the wafer.
2. The test system of claim 1, wherein the assessment subsystem is further configured to generate, by comparing the test image and an analyzed image in the analyzed data, a training data to the neural network subsystem, wherein the training data includes the test image and a corresponding identification data (discussion of Fig. 5, "On the other hand, as shown in the lower part of FIG. 5, when the area mark RM is embedded in the input image D2, even if the position of the foreign matter in the input image D2 is the same, the input images D2a, D2b, D2c is a different image. As a result, in the learning step (step S140), which will be described later, the learning unit 330 can learn the characteristics of the region mark RM and the foreign matter together, so that the input image D2c in which the foreign matter Cc exists in the region mark RM is a foreign matter failure…After the region mark RM is embedded in the input image D2 (step S120 (see FIG. 2)), the preprocessing unit 320 stores a learning data set including a plurality of input images in the input image database 400 (step S130).".
3. The test system of claim 2, wherein the neural network subsystem is further configured to be trained by the training data to update weight values in a neural network model operating in a neural network processor in the neural network subsystem (See discussion of Fig. 6) being that the Mano neural network is a CNN, it would inherently be able to learn and update weight values with more training images/data).
4. The test system of claim 1, wherein the image specification includes coordination of the probe marks, an amount of the probe marks, inspection of a substrate of at least one pad in the tested wafer, or the combinations thereof (See discussion of claim 1).
5. The test system of claim 1, wherein the assessment subsystem is configured to compare the analyzed data with a plurality of quality thresholds, and to generate the first probe mark inspection result indicating a first failure result when at least one value in the analyzed data fails to meet a corresponding threshold in the plurality of quality thresholds (First paragraph for discussion of Fig. 6: "Then, the score of each classification of the inspection result is output from the input image D2 by the CNN. In the present embodiment, the non-defective product and the foreign object defect are used as the classification of the inspection result, but other classifications such as a shape defect may be used. In this embodiment, each classification score is output from the output layer LO so that the total of the classification scores is 1").
8. The test system of claim 1, further comprising:
a database subsystem comprising a data server configured to store the test image, the analyzed data and the first probe mark inspection result in a list data (See discussion for Fig. 1: "The inspection image captured by the imaging apparatus 100 is stored in the inspection image database 200. " and "The image processed by the preprocessing unit 320 is stored in the input image database 400."),
wherein the assessment subsystem is further configured to access the list data and to generate a second probe mark inspection result based on the list data and a second quality threshold. (discussion for Fig. 7]:"When the learned CNN parameter is stored in the input image database 400 instead of the learned CNN, the inspection unit 340 reads the parameter from the input image database 400. Thereafter, the inspection unit 340 inputs the input image D2 in which the inspection mark is embedded into the learned neural network, and determines the inspection result of the input image using the output of the neural network (step S250).")
9. The test system of claim 8, wherein the neural network subsystem is further configured to access the list data and to be trained by a training data to update a neural network model operating in the neural network subsystem (See discussion of Fig. 6) being that the Mano neural network is a CNN, it would inherently be able to continue to learn and the learned model with more training images/data).
10. The test system of claim 1, wherein the assessment subsystem is further configured to perform the assessment operation for a plurality of images of a plurality of lots according to a work queue provided by the process control processor (this is considered implicit, if not inherent, as the device of Mano is not disclosed as single-use and that it must be discarded. Being computer based, there is no reason to believe it cannot be used for additional wafers).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 6, Mano shows all the elements of claim 1 but does not disclose that the processor is configured to generate a test result indicating a second failure in response to the first probe mark inspection result indicating the first failure result.
It is taken to be admitted prior art that it was well known to provide a second alert when a first alert is not acknowledged as received. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious provide another alert when the first alert has not been acknowledged as received, thereby generating a second test result indicating a second failure in response to the first probe mark inspection result indicating the first failure result. Consistent with the disclosure (para. [0031] as published), the terms "first" and "second" are used to distinguish each from the other.
Regarding claim 7, Mano shows all the elements of claim 1 but does not disclose that the analyzed data includes distances between the probe marks and edges of pads in the tested wafer. Official notice is taken that it was well known to use an edge for an origin in a coordinate system. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use the edge of the wafer in the image for its fixed and stable position and therefore maintaining a precise location.
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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacolleti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights