DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( 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 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- 7 and 10- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa, US 2006/0159333 . Regarding claim 1 , Ishikawa discloses a method for detecting a seam in a film (para 0002 and 0004; an image processing method for detecting defects in a semiconductor circuit pattern formed on a semiconductor wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing process ) , comprising: performing a following process on a film in a first wafer (para 0004; an image processing method for detecting defects in a semiconductor circuit pattern formed on a semiconductor wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing process ) : step (a) performing a scan to obtain a gray level image (para 0006 and 0051; the imaging device 4 is constructed from a one-dimensional CCD camera, and the stage 1 is moved so that the camera moves (scans) at a constant speed in the X or Y direction relative to the semiconductor wafer 3. The image signal is converted into a multi-valued digital signal (gray level signal) ) ; step (b) performing a region positioning process on the gray level image to define a plurality of target regions and a seam region located in each of the target regions (para 00 5 0 - 0052 ; the gray level signals of the two adjacent dies are input to the difference detection section 6 which then computes the difference (gray level difference) between the two gray level signals ) ; step (c) obtaining a gray level value of each pixel in each of the seam regions (para 0052 and 0061; the difference detection section 6 computes the difference (gray level difference) between the two gray level signals ; the gray level difference calculated pixel by pixel by the difference detection section 6 ) , and calculating a number of pixels whose gray level values are lower than a gray level threshold value in each of the seam regions (para 0050, 0052, and 0061; compare the images of corresponding portions between adjacent dies. If there is no defect in any of the two adjacent dies, the gray level difference between them is smaller than a threshold value, but if there is a defect in either one of the dies, the gray level difference is larger than the threshold value; the gray level difference calculated pixel by pixel by the difference detection section 6 ) ; step (d) generating a pixel quantity threshold value according to the number in each of the seam regions (para 0052 and 0056 ; the detection threshold value calculation section 7 determines the detection threshold value based on the gray level difference and supplies it to the detection section 8. The detection section 8 compares the gray level difference with the thus determined threshold value to determine whether there exists a defect; Therefore, the detection threshold value calculation section 7, for example, determines the threshold value by performing threshold value determining processing for each portion, and the detection section 8 makes the determination by using the threshold value determined for each portion ) ; and performing step (a) to step (c) (para 0050-0052 and 0061; see the rejections for steps (a)-(c) above ) on a film in a second wafer (para 0005 ; the semiconductor manufacturing process, many chips (dies) are formed on many semiconductor wafers ) , and determining the seam region having the number exceeding the pixel quantity threshold value to be a defect region (para 0050 and 0052; compare the images of corresponding portions between adjacent dies. If there is no defect in any of the two adjacent dies, the gray level difference between them is smaller than a threshold value, but if there is a defect in either one of the dies, the gray level difference is larger than the threshold value (single detection). At this stage, however, this is no knowing which die contains the defect; therefore, the die is further compared with a die adjacent on a different side and, if the gray level difference in the same portion is larger than the threshold value, then it is determined that the die under inspection contains the defect (double detection) ) . Regarding claim 2 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 1, Ishikawa further discloses wherein step (d) comprises: performing electrical detection on the first wafer to obtain an electrical defect distribution diagram (para 0005-0006 and 0018 ) ; and comparing the electrical defect distribution diagram with the seam region to obtain the pixel quantity threshold value, wherein when the number does not exceed the pixel quantity threshold value, the seam region having the number is determined not to cause electrical defects, and when the number exceeds the pixel quantity threshold value, the seam region having the number is determined to cause electrical defects (para 0050 , 0052 , and 0056) . Regarding claim 3 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 1, Ishikawa further discloses wherein after step (c) and before step (d), the method further comprises: performing seam detection to obtain seam information (para 0052 and 0061 ) ; and comparing the seam information with the gray level image (para 0050, 0052, and 0061 ) . Regarding claim 4 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 3, Ishikawa further discloses wherein when the seam information matches the seam region, step (d) is executed (para 0050, 0052, and 0061 ) . Regarding claim 5 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 3, Ishikawa further discloses wherein when the seam information does not match the seam region, the gray level threshold value is adjusted, and the number of pixels whose gray level values are lower than the adjusted gray level threshold value in each of the seam regions is calculated (para 0024-0026 , 0060, and 0066) . Regarding claim 6 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 3, Ishikawa further discloses wherein the seam detection comprises transmission electron microscope detection, and the scan comprises a voltage contrast scan (para 0005-0006 and 0018; an electric image signal is interpreted as a voltage contrast scan ) . Regarding claim 7 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 3, Ishikawa further discloses wherein the seam information comprises a seam position (para 0050 and 0052) . Regarding claim 10 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 1, Ishikawa further discloses wherein the second wafer and the first wafer are wafers manufactured in a same batch (para 0005 ) . Regarding claim 11 , t he method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 1, Ishikawa further discloses wherein the region positioning process comprises: comparing an original design drawing of the film with the gray level image (para 0050-0052 ) ; and defining a boundary of the target region in the gray level image according to a boundary of a polysilicon layer of the original design drawing ( fig. 4; para 0050-0052 ) . 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 . Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa, US 2006/0159333 in view of Huang et al., US 2006/0197090 . Regarding claim 8 , the method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 1, Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the film comprises a conductive layer embedded in a dielectric layer, and the conductive layer is the target region as claimed. However, Huang discloses t he capacitor structure 30 includes a bottom conductive layer 32 which is typically polysilicon. At least one dielectric layer is provided on the upper surface 40 of the bottom conductive layer 32. ( figs. 2-3; para 0024 ) . Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Ishikawa and Huang as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the capacitor structure includes a first conductive layer, at least one dielectric layer having a first area provided on the first conductive layer and a second conductive layer provided on the at least one dielectric layer as taught by Huang into the invention of Ishikawa for the benefit of prevent ing or substantially reduc ing the incidence of dielectric layer breakdown at the edges of a dielectric layer or layer sandwiched between a polysilicon layer and a metal layer or between two polysilicon layers (Huang: para 0014) . Regarding claim 9 , the method for detecting a seam in a film according to claim 8, Huang in the combination further disclose wherein the conductive layer comprises a polysilicon layer (para 0016 and 0024 ) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumiya , US 2009/0196490 discloses a method, of inspecting a semiconductor device for defects . Wang et al., US 2022/0326162 discloses t he disclosure provides a wafer processing system, which can accurately predict the amount of rework and the time of rework to effectively avoid waste of processing time and material cost. Kim et al., US 2004/0150813 discloses a light is irradiated on a wafer including a plurality of pixels. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1937 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8AM-6PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Stephen R Koziol can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (408) 918-7630 . 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. /VAN D HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665