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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
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. 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-14, 17, and 19-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palomba (US 20190257768 A1) in view of Mehanian (US 20090059215 A1).
With regards to claims 1, 10, 13, and 20, Palomba discloses a system (Fig. 1) for determining defects on a wafer comprising:
an illumination subsystem configured for directing light having one or more illumination wavelengths to a specimen, wherein one or more parameters of the illumination subsystem are selected to cause the specimen to emit fluorescence [0016; 0017]
a detection subsystem configured for simultaneously and separately detecting the fluorescence and non-fluorescence light from the specimen [0030-0031]; and
a computer subsystem configured for determining information for the specimen using output generated by the detection subsystem responsive to the detected fluorescence or detected non-fluorescent light, wherein the information may include defects and defect classification [0030-0035]. Palomba further discloses wherein the illumination subsystem ay have any suitable inspection system configuration, including bright field (BF), dark field (DF) or combined BF and DF [0022], wherein the BF configuration comprises directing illumination to a specimen at an oblique angle without passing through the detection optics (Fig, 2) [0044].
Palomba does not expressly teach that the BF and DF illumination channels as claimed and detecting a first defect type using only output generated by the detection subsystem responsive to the detected photoluminescence and detecting defects of a second type on the specimen from only output generated by the detection subsystem responsive to the detected non-photoluminescence light.
Menhanian teaches a wafer inspection system having separate BF and DF illumination channels [0020, 0023, 0066], wherein the channels are spatially separated by directing light from two illuminators to different, nonoverlapping regions of the field of view on an objective lens [0021]. Menhanian further teaches a BF illuminator and a DF illuminator that illuminate spatially separated BF and DF fields of view [0065-0067], wherein the BF illumination is directed through the objective lens and the DF illumination is supplied to the wafer surface outside the objective lens [0068] (claim 13), wherein DF illumination is supplied to the specimen at an oblique angle of incidence [0007]. Menhanian further teaches applying defect detection algorithms to BF and DF data to detect different types of defects [0011], wherein defects detected by an algorithm operating on a BF image alone and another defect is detected by an algorithm operating on a DF image alone [0012].
It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the teachings of Manhanian in order to reduce cross talk, thereby improving sensitivity, and to provide defect discrimination and classification.
With regards to claims 2 and 3, Palomba does not teach the claimed wavelengths. However, Palomba does discloses wherein the excitation wavelengths may vary depending upon the specimen material or defect composition [0017]. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the claimed wavelengths in order to analyze a material of interest responsive to said wavelengths.
With regards to claim 9, Palomba does not teach wherein the photoluminescence does not comprise fluorescence. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification would have been known and considered obvious depending upon the type of material under analysis in order to induce the desired light emission.
With regards to claims 11 and 12, although not specifically taught, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Abe with the claimed configurations in order to detect various defects in the semiconductor device.
With regards to claim 14, Palomba discloses wherein the illumination subsystem is further configured for directing light having multiple illumination bands to the specimen, wherein the detection subsystem is further configured for detecting light having multiple detection bands from the specimen [0030], and wherein the computer subsystem is further configured for selecting one or more of the multiple illumination bands and one or more of the multiple detection bands used for determining the information based on one or more characteristics of the specimen [0030].
With regards to claim 17, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification would have been known and considered obvious so as to be utilized in an assembly line during manufacturing to efficiently inspect multiple specimens.
With regards to claim 19, Palomba discloses wherein the detection subsystem comprises a long-pass filter positioned in front of a detector configured for detecting the photoluminescence [0046].
With regards to claim 21, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, Palomba does teach wherein the system may be configured for either or both bright field and/or dark field inspection [0021]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the claimed configuration in order to inspect defects responsive to either or both bright field and/or dark field inspections.
With regards to claims 22-25, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, Palomba does teach wherein the system may be configured for bright field or dark field imaging [0021], separate and simultaneous detection [0030-0031], wherein the detected photoluminescence comprises fluorescence [0016-0017], and wherein the one or more illumination wavelengths may comprise different wavelengths, and wherein the detection subsystem comprises a dichroic beamsplitter configured to direct the fluorescence to a first detector and to allow the non-photoluminescence light to be directed to a second detector [0027]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the claimed configuration in order to inspect defects responsive to bright field or dark field imaging using ultraviolet or blue wavelengths.
With regards to claim 26, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, Palomba does teach wherein the illumination subsystem comprises multiple light sources [0021] and wherein the detection subsystem comprises multiple detectors coupled to the different channels and configured for acquiring images of the specimen [0030]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the claimed configuration in order to detect defects on different parts of the specimen simultaneously.
With regards to claim 27, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, Palomba does teach wherein the system may be configured for bright field or dark field imaging [0021] and separate and simultaneous detection [0030-0031]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the claimed configuration in order to detect defects responsive to bright field or dark field on different parts of the specimen simultaneously.
With regards to claims 28-31, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, Palomba does teach multiple channels [0021, 0030], a dichroic beamsplitter [0027], detecting light reflected or scattered from the specimen [0022], and further wherein the wavelengths may vary depending upon the specimen material or defect composition [0017]. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the claimed wavelengths in order to analyze a material of interest responsive to said wavelengths.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palomba in view of Mehanian and Abe (US 20140234994 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Palomba does not teach the claimed specimen. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Abe teaches a system configured for determining information for a specimen, wherein the specimen comprises electro-optically active devices, and wherein the one or more illumination wavelengths are selected to be absorbable by the electro-optically active devices thereby causing the electro-optically active devices to emit the photoluminescence [0037]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with the teachings of Abe to arrive at the claimed invention in order to inspect electro-optically active devices.
With regards to claim 5, Abe discloses wherein determining the information comprises determining a characteristic of functionality of the electro-optically active devices from the output generated by the detection subsystem responsive to the detected photoluminescence [0011].
With regards to claims 7 and 8, Palomba and Abe discloses the claimed invention according to claim 4. With respect to the specific specimen being claimed, it should be noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) MPEP 2115. In this case, the specimen claimed in claims 7 and 8 do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of the structure recited in claim 4.
With regards to claim 16, Palomba does not teach the claimed configuration. However, Abe discloses determining metrological information for one or more structures formed on the specimen based on the output generated by the detection subsystem responsive to the detected photoluminescence (Figs. 2A-2F and corresponding descriptions). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Palomba with Abe in order to determine additional information about the defects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights