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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 11/05/2025, filed with the office on 02/03/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 11/05/2025 have been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objection of record with respect to claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2 and 4-12 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 11 and 12 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1, 11 and 12, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
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, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0333921 A1), in view of Sugihara et al. (US 2014/0055774 A1) and in further view of Encrenaz et al. (US 2021/0287062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches, An inspection apparatus (Suzuki, ¶0005: “an inspection apparatus”) comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire a first image and a second image (Suzuki, ¶0084: “Image signals output from the first and second image pickup elements are supplied to a signal processing device”) for inspecting an inspection target; (Suzuki, ¶0111: “a variation in luminance at each pattern edge from the inspection target”) generate a plurality of deformed images by applying a plurality of deformation processes to at least one of the first image or the second image; (Suzuki, ¶0101: “the first image pickup element 17, which picks up the transmission image of the photomask to be inspected, is supplied to dilation means… image is dilated”). However, Suzuki does not explicitly teach, calculate, for each pixel, a difference value between a pixel value of the first image and a pixel value of the second image, using the deformed images; calculate a pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value by integrating a plurality of difference values calculated for the respective deformed images; and detect an anomaly of the inspection target based on the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value, wherein the plurality of deformation processes are a plurality of dilation processes with different ranges of neighboring pixels for reference or a plurality of erosion processes with different ranges of neighboring pixels for reference.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Sugihara teaches, calculate, for each pixel, a difference value between a pixel value of the first image and a pixel value of the second image, using the deformed images; (Sugihara, ¶0115: “second optical image is subtracted from the first optical image to generate a difference image of them”) calculate a pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value (Sugihara, ¶0114: “A defect can be detected using an image (difference image) corresponding to a difference between the first optical image and the second optical image”) by integrating a plurality of difference values calculated for the respective deformed images; and detect an anomaly of the inspection target based on the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value, (Sugihara, ¶0115: “differences between an each pixel value of the difference image and the average value are obtained. A pixel in which an absolute value of such a difference is more than a predetermined value is determined as the pixel having a defect”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki using the teachings of Sugihara to introduce calculating pixel by pixel differences between two images. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detecting an anomaly in the inspected target based on the difference being too high. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki and Sugihara to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Suzuki and Sugihara does not explicitly teach, wherein the plurality of deformation processes are a plurality of dilation processes with different ranges of neighboring pixels for reference or a plurality of erosion processes with different ranges of neighboring pixels for reference.
In another analogous filed of endeavor, Encrenaz teaches, wherein the plurality of deformation processes are a plurality of dilation processes with different ranges of neighboring pixels for reference or a plurality of erosion processes with different ranges of neighboring pixels for reference. (Encrenaz, ¶0046: “a morphological dilation is applied to the distance transform, meaning that each pixel in a defined neighborhood (or more formally, to which a structural element, or kernel, is applied) takes the highest pixel value in that neighborhood”; ranges of neighboring pixels are interpreted as defined neighborhoods of different kernel sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the teachings of Encrenaz to introduce deforming an image by applying a dilation processing on a neighborhood of pixels. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing a difference between a normal and a deformed image to detect an anomaly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first image is a transmission image generated based on light that has transmitted through the inspection target, (Suzuki, ¶00005: “the transmitted beam transmitted through the photomask is received by a second detector that is disposed on the opposite side of the light source”) the second image is a reflection image generated based on light that has reflected from the inspection target, (Suzuki, ¶0005: “a light source is projected toward a pattern forming surface of a photomask; the reflected beam reflected by the pattern forming surface of the photomask is received by a first detector”) and the processing circuitry is configured to generate an inverted image by applying light-dark inversion processing to the transmission image or the reflection image, (Sugihara, ¶0080: “it is preferable to invert the tone of any one of the optical images and match the optical image to the other optical image”) and calculate the difference value using a normal image and the inverted image, (Sugihara, ¶0080: “to facilitate positional alignment… comparison between the optical images, it is preferable to invert the tone of any one of the optical images”) the normal image being the transmission image or the reflection image to which the inversion processing is not applied. (Sugihara, ¶0080: “it is preferable to invert the tone of any one of the optical images and match the optical image to the other optical image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara using the additional teachings of Sugihara to introduce inverting an image. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing a difference between a normal image and an inverted image to detect an anomaly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to subject the inverted image or the normal image to a pixel value correction so that a range of pixel values of the inverted image and a range of pixel values of the normal image match each other, (Sugihara, ¶0073: “correction processing using a filter imitating PSF, that is, a convolution filter is applied to the two optical images, whereby the optical images can be matched to each other to some extent”) and calculate the difference value using the image subjected to the pixel value correction. (Sugihara, ¶0074: “a value in that a difference between the images after the filter processing is at a minimum, and can then be estimated for each subsequent image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the additional teachings of Sugihara to introduce correcting pixel values of an image to make the corresponding pixels match in the first and second images. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of only considering pixels with larger deformity for defect detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz to obtain the invention in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value of a pixel, for which the calculated difference values have different signs, to zero. (Sugihara, ¶0079: “a method of minimizing a difference between a histogram of the gray scale value of the first optical image and a histogram of the gray scale value of the second optical image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the additional teachings of Sugihara to introduce minimizing a difference value. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of correcting the pixel values within small displacement by minimizing the difference between the pixels among the images to 0. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate, if the generated deformed images include only deformed images of the first image, (Suzuki, ¶0101: “the first image pickup element 17, which picks up the transmission image of the photomask to be inspected, is supplied to dilation means 50 so that the edge of the image of the light-transmitting portion of the transmission image is dilated”) a difference between a pixel value of each deformed image and a pixel value of the second image as the difference value; (Sugihara, ¶0115: “second optical image is subtracted from the first optical image to generate a difference image of them”) calculate, if the generated deformed images include only deformed images of the second image, (Suzuki, ¶0049: “a dilation processing unit that performs, for the image signal output from the second pickup element”) a difference between a pixel value of each deformed image and a pixel value of the first image as the difference value; (Sugihara, ¶0115: “second optical image is subtracted from the first optical image to generate a difference image of them”) and calculate, if the generated deformed images include one or more deformed images of the first image and one or more deformed images of the second image, (Sugihara, ¶0115: “second optical image is subtracted from the first optical image to generate a difference image of them”; and ¶0049: “a dilation processing unit that performs, for the image signal output from the second pickup element”) a difference between the pixel value of each deformed image of the first image and the pixel value of each deformed image of the second image as the difference value. (Sugihara, ¶0115: “second optical image is subtracted from the first optical image to generate a difference image of them”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz references presented in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the inspection apparatus recited in claim 9 is met by Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz.
Regarding claim 11, it recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of the method claim 11 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in apparatus claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Additionally, Suzuki teaches, An inspection method (Suzuki, ¶0003: “The present invention relates to an inspection method”).
Regarding claim 12, it recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable program instructions corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited program instructions of the computer readable medium of claim 12 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of the apparatus claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Additionally, Encrenaz teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute functions (Encrenaz, ¶0076: “a non-transitory, tangible machine readable medium 900 in association with a processor 902. The machine readable medium 900 stores instructions 904 in a non-transitory manner. The instructions 904, when executed by the processor 902, cause the processor 902 carry out processes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the aditional teachings of Encrenaz to introduce a computer-readable medium. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of storing the program instructions to be used by a computer to automatically perform the defect detection method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz to obtain the invention in claim 12.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0333921 A1), in view of Sugihara et al. (US 2014/0055774 A1), in further view of Encrenaz et al. (US 2021/0287062 A1) and still in further view of Terauchi et al. (US 2019/0296062 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: if the dilation process is to be applied as the deformation process, determine, for each pixel, whether or not to apply the dilation process (Suzuki, ¶0116: “transmission image signal subjected to the dilation processing. Note that the dilation processing is carried out as needed”). However, the combination of Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz does not explicitly teach, in accordance with an amount of change between a pixel value of an image to which the erosion process has been applied after the dilation process and a pixel value of an image not subjected to the deformation process; and if the erosion process is to be applied as the deformation process, determine, for each pixel, whether or not to apply the erosion process in accordance with an amount of change between a pixel value of an image to which the dilation process has been applied after the erosion process and an image not subjected to the deformation process.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Terauchi teaches, in accordance with an amount of change between a pixel value of an image to which the erosion process has been applied after the dilation process and a pixel value of an image not subjected to the deformation process; and if the erosion process is to be applied as the deformation process, determine, for each pixel, whether or not to apply the erosion process in accordance with an amount of change between a pixel value of an image to which the dilation process has been applied after the erosion process and an image not subjected to the deformation process. (Terauchi, ¶0125: “a case is assumed where, as a process to be performed before the process for correcting (replacing) some pixels in an image in the present embodiments, the amount of position displacement between a plurality of images is detected and relative movement and combination are performed. For example, it is possible to detect the amount of position displacement between a plurality of images, select a combination target image from among the plurality of image in accordance with the amount of position displacement, and obtain a combined image on the basis of the amount of position displacement and the combination target image. That is, it is possible to detect the amount of pixel displacement between a plurality of images, set one of the plurality of images as a reference image and the remaining images as comparison images, select a combination target image from among the comparison images in accordance with the amount of pixel displacement between the reference image and each of the comparison images”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the teachings of Terauchi to introduce replacing pixels to apply a dilation/erosion processing on an image. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing a difference between a normal image and an inverted image to detect an anomaly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara, Encrenaz and Terauchi to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Sugihara in further view of Encrenaz and still in further view of Terauchi teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to forgo application of the deformation process to a pixel at which the amount of change is large, and apply the deformation process to a pixel at which the amount of change is small. (Terauchi, ¶0053: “a replacement pixel and/or a correction value based on the replacement pixel for replacing the defective pixel on the basis of the amount of pixel displacement between the plurality of pieces of image data and position information about the defective pixel in the piece of image data”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara in further view of Encrenaz and still in further view of Terauchi using the additional teachings of Terauchi to introduce replacing pixels based on amount of change/displacement. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of correcting the pixels with small displacements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara, Encrenaz and Terauchi to obtain the invention in claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0333921 A1), in view of Sugihara et al. (US 2014/0055774 A1), in further view of Encrenaz et al. (US 2021/0287062 A1) and still in further view of Martinez-Bauza et al. (US 2012/0014590 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to However, the combination of Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz does not explicitly teach, select, as the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value, a difference value whose absolute value is smallest from among the plurality of difference values.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Martinez-Bauza teaches, select, as the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value, a difference value whose absolute value is smallest from among the plurality of difference values. (Martinez-Bauza, ¶0006: “provides a lowest aggregated matching cost, wherein the aggregated matching cost is a difference between pixel values of pixels in the first image and corresponding pixels in a second image”; ¶0066: “an absolute difference (AD) function to calculate matching cost”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the teachings of Martinez-Bauza to introduce determining the lowest absolute difference between corresponding pixels between two images. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of discarding pixels with low displacements from defect determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara, Encrenaz and Martinez-Bauza to obtain the invention in claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0333921 A1), in view of Sugihara et al. (US 2014/0055774 A1), in further view of Encrenaz et al. (US 2021/0287062 A1) and still in further view of Huang et al. (US 2017/0270652 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz teaches, The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a difference between a pixel value of a deformed image of the first image and a pixel value of the second image as a first difference value. However, the combination of Suzuki, Sugihara and Encrenaz does not explicitly teach, and calculate a difference between a pixel value of a deformed image of the second image and a pixel value of the first image as a second difference value; and calculate a first integrated difference value by integrating a plurality of first difference values calculated for the respective deformed images, calculate a second integrated difference value by integrating a plurality of second difference values calculated for the respective deformed images, and calculate the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value by integrating the first integrated difference value and the second integrated difference value.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches, and calculate a difference between a pixel value of a deformed image of the second image and a pixel value of the first image as a second difference value; (Huang, ¶0008: “a second difference image is generated based on a second comparison of the first image and the third image”; the deformed second image is interpreted as a third image) and calculate a first integrated difference value by integrating a plurality of first difference values calculated for the respective deformed images, (Huang, ¶0008: “a first difference image is generated based on a first comparison of the first image and the second image”) calculate a second integrated difference value by integrating a plurality of second difference values calculated for the respective deformed images, (Huang, ¶0008: “the second difference image indicating differences between the first image and the third image”) and calculate the pixel-by-pixel integrated difference value by integrating the first integrated difference value and the second integrated difference value. (Huang, ¶0008: “a third difference image is generated based on the first difference image and the second difference image, the third difference image indicating defect signals for the target component”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Sugihara and in further view of Encrenaz using the teachings of Huang to introduce a second difference value. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of defect detection using the first and second difference values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Suzuki, Sugihara, Encrenaz and Huang to obtain the invention in claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 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, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662