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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites, inter alia: “the detection host having a plurality of AI judgment units....the AI judgment unit receiving at least one captured picture...generating at least one judgment signal...and the processing unit outputting a judgment results”. However, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed AI judgment units as of the filing date. In particular, the specification does not describe:
The architecture of the AI model (e.g., neural network type, classifier structure, or algorithmic framework);
The manner in which captured images are processed;
The features or parameters extracted from the images;
The decision logic used to generate the “judgment signal”
The relationship among the plurality of AI judgment units.
Absent such disclosure, the specification merely describes the desired result of using AI for judgment without demonstrating possession of any specific technical solution. Accordingly, the written description requirement is not satisfied. Specifically, the specification does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the claimed AI judgment functionality without undue experimentation. The AI limitations are recited purely in functional terms such as: receiving captured images; generating judgment signals; outputting judgment results. However, the specification does not disclose the corresponding algorithm, processing workflow or computational structure necessary to achieve these functions. This renders the scope of the claims non-enabled.
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 1-8 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.
With respect to claim 1, the term “AI judgment unit” is indefinite because the claim fails to recite sufficient structure, programming, or algorithmic detail corresponding to the recited function. It is unclear whether the “AI judgment unit” correspond to: a neural network model, a rule-based classifier, dedicated hardware circuitry or software executed by a general processor. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear.
For purposes of examination, and in light of the indefiniteness and lack of structural specificity discussed above, the broadly recited “AI judgment unit”; “judgment signal” and “processing unit” are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard as encompassing any image processing or classification system configured to analyze capture inspection images and output defect judgment results. Accordingly, these limitations are considered to read on conventional machine vision systems, including rule-based classifier and other automated image analysis algorithms known in the art at the time of filling.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderman et al (U.S.Pat. 6,122,042) in view of Narula et al (U.S. 2021/0382026 A1) and further in view of Xu et al (U.S.Pat. 11,784,084 B2).
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Wunderman discloses a micro LED detection device (see figure 1A) comprising: illumination arrays and optical focusing/detection paths having a first detection module (42) and a second detection module (48) linked with a stepper driving module; acquisition of optical signals from an inspected object; and processing units. Thus, Wunderman teaches detection modules; illumination sources (30); signal capture; processing units (40; 42; 44) and automated judgment outputs (see figure 1A). Wunderman does not specifically teach: multiple optical detection modules arranged for multi-angle detection; microscope lens based detection heads; laser illumination sources, as recited in the instant claims. Narula discloses an optical detection system (see figure 5) using directed illumination and multiple detection modules. Narula discloses directed light sources (102) illuminating a sample (110) ; detection of transmitted and scatter light (112; 252; 254) ; multiple optical detection paths, multi-angle optical detection configurations and optical analysis based on captured signals (see paragraphs [0132-0134]). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the micro LED detection device of Wunderman to include the multi-angle optical detection architecture of Narula in order to improve defect detection accuracy. Wunderman as modified by Narula, lacks to disclose the stepper driving module with precision positioning platforms having a first air float platform, a second air float platform and a third air float platform, as recited in the claim. This feature is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xu teaches a high precision air-bearing stage apparatus having a bracket and a connecting rod provided on the device table on the bracket being provided with a stepper driving module (see figure 1); a sliding table (8) supported by air bearings (15-17); air cushion levitation between bearing surfaces; bearing seats supporting the floating platform; linear motor driving modules; multi-axis positioning capability and precision positioning for wafer or chip inspection (see col. 4, lines 13-35) . It would have been obvious to incorporate the precision air-bearing stage of Xu into the detection device of Wunderman and Narula in order to provide high-precision positioning of inspection optics and reduce vibration during optical measurement and improve the quality of the detection device.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the bracket is provided with a linkage seat, the stepper driving module is connected to the linkage seat, and the detection modules are provided on the linkage seat”. It is noted that Wondermun teaches detection modules mounted within an inspection apparatus housing and operably connected to signal acquisition components, as discussed. Narula discloses structural arrangment for supporting optical detection components and positioning light detection paths relative to the sample, as discussed. This suggests mounting frameworks for detection modules but does not explicitly disclose a linkage seat driven by a motion module. Xu teaches stepper and mechanically couple stage components used to support samples on precision motion systems. It would have been obvious to mount the detection modules of Wondermun as modified by Narula on the precision stage support structures of Sanying to allow positional adjustment and scanning inspection.
As to claim 3, Wunderman as modified by Narula, lacks to show the first detection module and the second detection module being assembled on the leakage seat by lifting modules. Xu discloses vertical error compensation and positional adjustment mechanisms (Z stage)/lifting module in the stage system (see col.3, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to position the first detection module and the second detection module of Wunderman as modified by Narula onto the lifting modules of Xu to allow focus optimization and inspection distance control routine in optical inspection system.
As to claim 4, Wunderman discloses the first microscope lens (46) and the second microscope lens (48) are disposed on a same horizontal reference line and on a same horizontal tangent line (see figure 2A).
With respect to claims 5-7, claims recite additional structure features relating to: guide parts for limiting motion of floating platforms; platform brackets connecting multiple floating platforms, and guide shafts and shaft passages for maintaining alignment. As demonstrated, Xu discloses guided motion constraints, structural stage supports and mechanical alignment structure within floating stage assemblies. Such structures correspond to the claimed motion-limiting guides, platform support brackets and alignment shafts. It would have been obvious to incorporate the structure motion guidance and alignment features of Xu into the optical inspection system formed by Wunderman and Narula in order to maintain positional stability of floating platforms and ensure controlled motion during inspection. It is noted that selection and arrangement of such configurations would have been a matter of design choice and routine optimization based on desired stability.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yeh et al (U.S. Pat. 12,068,182); Aceti et al (US 2022/0276164 A1) disclose detection systems and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
2/18/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882