DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. 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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered.
III. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1,8, and 14 and Osada have been considered and generally are persuasive. The rejection of Kolchin et al. in view of Osada will be withdrawn, and Osada will be replaced with a different prior art reference but only with respect to claim 5. The examiner submits that Kolchin et al. teaches the features of amended claims 1,8, and 15, which includes those of previous claims 4,11, and 17). See below.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
A. Claims 1,3,7,8,10,14,16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolchin et al. (US 2018/0103247 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2007/0146685 A1) and further in view of the Korean publication of Kim et al. (KR 10-2022-0067565 A)
As to claim 14, Kolchin et al. teaches a system (Fig. 1, optical inspection system “100”) comprising:
a light assembly (Fig. 1, illumination source “101”) configured to project light ([0047],
lines 10-12) onto a workpiece (Fig. 1, wafer “103”), wherein the workpiece is a multilayer structure ([0082], lines 1-8);
an imaging assembly (Fig. 1, collection optics “118” and detector “125”) configured to capture a
plurality of light images of the workpiece ([0052], lines 1-9), wherein each of the plurality of light images is captured with the imaging assembly being focused at a different height relative to the workpiece ([0058], lines 1-4); and
a processor (Fig. 1, processor “131”) in electronic communication with the structured light
assembly ([0047], lines 18-20) and the imaging assembly ([0054], lines 1-9), wherein the processor is configured to:
define a section plane through the workpiece, wherein the section plane intersects each of the plurality of structured light images (e.g., Figs. 2 or 3);
determine a focus score for each pixel of the plurality of structured light images intersected by the section plane, wherein the focus score corresponds to a reflection of the structured light pattern reflected by the workpiece at a corresponding focal depth (e.g., Fig. 13, steps “202/203”); and
generate a cross-sectional image of the workpiece based on the plurality of light images
received from the imaging assembly (Fig. 2/3; [0067]) by combining the focus score of each pixel in the section plane to generate the cross-sectional image of the workpiece (Fig. 13, step “204”).
Claim 14 differs from Kolchin et al. in that it requires that (1) that the light assembly includes a pattern generator that produces the structured light and (2) that each layer of the multilayer structure is transparent or semi-transparent such that the structured light pattern is transmissible through the workpiece.
(1) However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Yoo et al. discloses a system (Fig. 6) for inspecting a semiconductor wafer (Fig. 6, sample “610”; [0003]; [0005], lines 1-4) for the presence of stress damage or foreign particles ([0043], lines 1-5). The system includes a light source (Fig. 6, light source “620”) and a pattern generator (Fig. 6, pattern generator “609”) that produces a structured diffraction pattern from the light source on the wafer ([0058], lines 8-12). The diffraction pattern reflected from the sample is captured by a camera (Fig. 6, CCD camera “618”; [0061]), and an image of the sample is analyzed to determine whether stress damage or a foreign particle is present ([0061]). In light of the teaching of Yoo et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a pattern generator in front of Kolchin’s light source that produces a diffraction pattern that illuminates the wafer because, as Yoo et al. notes in para. [0037], analyzing a diffraction-patterned image of the wafer can lead to accurate and efficient non-destructive defect determination with applicability to both patterned and non-patterned semiconductor wafers.
(2) Further in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Kim et al. teaches a
method of inspecting a liquid crystal display panel for a defect (p. 3, line 30 – p. 4, line 2), the panel including a plurality of transparent layers (p. 9, lines 31-36). In light of the teaching of Kim et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Kolchin’s system for display panel inspection because this would increase the system’s versatility and allow for application of the advantages of Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al., to a commonly-manufactured semiconductor material.
As to claim 16, Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al. and Kim et al., teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the workpiece is disposed on a stage (see Kolchin et al., Fig. 1, Z-translation stage “121”), and the processor is further configured to:
send instructions to move the stage to adjust a distance of the imaging assembly relative to the
workpiece (see Kolchin et al., [0055], lines 1-9); and
capture a structured light image of the workpiece using the imaging assembly at each distance to
obtain the plurality of structured light images at different focal depths (see Kolchin et al.,
[0058], lines 1-4).
As to claim 20, Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al. and Kim et al., teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the workpiece is a flat panel display (see Kim et al., p. 3, line 30 – p. 4, line 2).
Claims 1,3,7,8, and 10 are method claims and computer-readable medium claims reciting features or steps substantially similar to or encompassed by the processor functions or features of claims 14,16 and 20. Therefore, they are rejected as detailed above.
B. Claims 2,9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolchin et al. (US 2018/0103247 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2007/0146685 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-2022-0067565 A) and further in view of the nature (Light – Science & Applications) publication of Kwon et al.
As to claim 15, Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al. and Kim et al., teaches the system of claim 14. The claim differs from Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al. and Kim et al., in that it requires that the plurality of structured light images comprises at least 100 images captured at different focal depths. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Kwon et al. discloses a method of detecting a defect in a semiconductor using a focal stack having one thousand (1,000) images (p. 12, col. 2, lines 5 and 6). In light of the teaching of Kwon et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to capture one thousand images during-z-direction scanning in Kolchin’s system because this would ensure ample cross-sectional resolution of the images from which defects are detected.
Claims 2 and 9 are a method claim and computer-readable medium claim reciting a feature substantially similar to the system feature of claim 15. Therefore, they are rejected as detailed above.
C. Claims 5,12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolchin et al. (US 2018/0103247 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2007/0146685 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-2022-0067565 A) and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2018/0277452 A1)
As to claim 18, Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al., Kim et al., teaches the system of claim 17. The claim differs from Kolchin et al., as modified by Yoo et al. and Kim et al., in that it requires that the processor is further configured to compare the focus score of each pixel in the section plane to a preset threshold, wherein the preset threshold is greater than or equal to zero, fill each pixel of the section plane having a focus score greater than the preset threshold with a first color, fill each pixel of the section plane having a focus score less than the preset threshold with a second color that is different from the first color, wherein the cross-sectional image is defined by pixels of the first color and pixels of the second color.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Singh et al. discloses a system for inspecting a wafer for a defect (Fig. 1; [0002]). An image of the wafer is captured ([0040], lines 1 and 2), and image pixels that have a value greater than a threshold are assigned a black color ([0040], lines 8-11). Conversely, image pixels that have a value less than a threshold is assigned a white color ([0040], lines 11 and 12). This monochromatic image is then output for further inspection ([0040], lines 18-21).
Although Singh et al. does not capture a focus stack of images spanning the height of the wafer, like Kolchin et al., the examiner nevertheless submits that the reference discloses a defect classification method that is applicable to Kolchin et al. That is, before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to monochromatize the cross-sectional images formed by Kolchin et al. in the manner described by Singh et al. As Singh et al. notes in para. [0040], lines 18-21, ambiguity is reduced in the image by simplifying the image for inspection even if some detail is lost in the process.
Claims 5 and 12 are method claims and computer-readable medium claims reciting steps substantially similar to or encompassed by the processor functions of claim 18. Therefore, they are rejected as detailed above.
V. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,13, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See the Office action dated October 20, 2025 for their reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
VI. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights