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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16 are pending in the Amendment filed 05/25/2026, and are as previously presented.
Claims 6-7 and 13-15 were previously objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 100976604 B1) in view of Buzaglo et al. (US 20210334946 A1), and of claims 5 and 9-10 further in view of Chan et al. (KR 102305139 B1), are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments. See “Response to Arguments” below.
However, claims 11-12 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 100976604 B1) in view of Buzaglo et al. (US 20210334946 A1), and further in view of Chan et al. (KR 102305139 B1).
Claims 1-10 are allowed, and claims 13-15 remain objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see “Remarks” filed 05/25/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive to overcome the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 100976604 B1) in view of Buzaglo et al. (US 20210334946 A1), and of claims 5 and 9-10 further in view of Chan et al. (KR 102305139 B1).
Applicant argues as to the application of Lee to the limitation “treating an edge region of a substrate using a plasma” of claim 1:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Lee does not disclose plasma treatment as part of its own invention. The Examiner relied on the "Background" section of Lee to find that a configuration of "processing the edge region of a substrate using plasma" is disclosed. However, Lee is an invention directed to a standalone inspection apparatus, not a plasma treatment apparatus.
“Specifically, paragraph [0004] of Lee states that "there exists a bevel etching apparatus that can remove residual thin films or particles by locally generating plasma at the edge region of a wafer." This merely acknowledges a separate bevel etching apparatus as prior art. The invention of Lee itself is an inspection apparatus that inspects a wafer that has already been processed by such a separate bevel etching apparatus. None of the elements recited in Claim 1 of Lee performs plasma treatment.
“Accordingly, Lee's mention of plasma treatment is no more than an acknowledgment of pre-existing prior art, and does not mean that the invention of Lee performs plasma treatment. It is improper for the Examiner to have derived the plasma-treatment element of Claim 1 of the present application by relying on the Background portion of Lee.” [“Remarks”, pg. 3, para. 3-5].
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the problem that the invention of Lee is configured to solve (i.e., ensuring the correct amount of thin film remains on the edge of a substrate) directly results from a step of bevel etching a wafer within a bevel etching apparatus capable of generating plasma to remove residual thin films or particles on the edge of a substrate [Background, pg. 2, para. 2-3]. Although other bevel etching operations may benefit from the invention of Lee (e.g., a chemical etching process to remove residual thin films), the only disclosed process within Lee is that of treating an edge region of a substrate using a plasma. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily understand that the invention of Lee is to be employed within this context, and the teaching therefore anticipates the instant limitation.
Applicant argues as to the combination of Buzaglo and Lee as applied to claim 1:
“Buzaglo 's "reference image" corresponds to a non-defective (good) image, not a defect image. The Examiner relied on paragraphs [0037]-[0038] of Buzaglo to find that the configuration of Claim 1 of the present application-namely, that "the image stored in the database is a defect image of a substrate determined to be defective"-is disclosed. This, however, is a misinterpretation of the disclosure of Buzaglo.” [“Remarks”, pg. 3, para. 6-8].
In response, this argument is not persuasive because, as noted by the Examiner in the rationale to combine the Buzaglo reference with Lee, Buzaglo teaches a deep-learning model that references both good images and images of various defects in order to improve the detection performance for defective wafers.
Applicant argues as to the combination of Buzaglo and Lee as applied to claim 1:
“Moreover, in Buzaglo this reference image corresponds to an image of a die, not of a wafer. Therefore, Buzaglo fails to cure the deficiency of Lee that the Examiner himself acknowledged- namely, that Lee does not disclose "a defect image of a substrate determined to be defective." Buzaglo's externally supplied training data is fundamentally different from the limitation of Claim 1 of the present application, which requires an image that was "previously stored in the database in the determination step," i.e., an image generated and stored by the determination step itself.’ [“Remarks”, pg. 4, para. 1].
In response, this argument is persuasive because Buzaglo neither explicitly nor implicitly incorporates the decision of the model on a non-training image for use in subsequent wafer analysis. Buzaglo teaches that the deep learning model may store classified wafer images as reference images for subsequent wafer inspection [para. 0038], but does not include non-training image in the database [para. 0039-40].
For the foregoing reason, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 100976604 B1) in view of Buzaglo et al. (US 20210334946 A1), and of claims 5 and 9-10 further in view of Chan et al. (KR 102305139 B1), are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 100976604 B1) in view of Buzaglo et al. (US 20210334946 A1), and further in view of Chan et al. (KR 102305139 B1).
As to claim 11, modified Lee discloses a substrate treating method [Abstract] comprising:
treating an edge region of a substrate using a plasma at a process chamber including a plasma source generating the plasma at the edge region [pg. 7, para. 7];
acquiring an image to be determined by imaging a substrate on which a treatment is completed [pg. 7, para. 6], and determining whether the image to be determined and an image stored in a database match [pg. 7, para. 7; Buzaglo, claim 1]; and
performing a maintenance operation on the dielectric plate if the image to be determined matches at least any one among images stored in the database [pg. 7, para. 7; Buzaglo, claim 1].
Lee discloses comparing the acquired image of the wafer with the image of a pre-stored good wafer, in order to determine if the wafer to be inspected is defective [pg. 7, para. 7], and therefore fails to explicitly disclose:
determining whether the image to be determined and an image stored in a database match.
However, Buzaglo et al. (US 20210334946 A1) teaches a method for classifying and inspecting for defects in semiconductor wafers [Abstract; claim 1] comprising:
determining whether the image to be determined and an image stored in a database match. [claim 1; para. 0037-40].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of comparing the acquired image of the semiconductor wafer with a reference image of a good wafer to determine if the wafer to be inspected is defective, of Lee, to include applying different deep learning models, including comparing the acquired image of a semiconductor with reference images of both good wafers and wafers containing various defects, of Buzaglo, in order to improve detection of defective wafers, as taught by Buzaglo [para. 0037-38].
Modified Lee fails to explicitly disclose:
the substrate supported on a support unit and a dielectric plate positioned above the support unit to face the support unit.
However, Chan et al. (KR 102305139 B1) teaches a load lock chamber and apparatus for treating a substrate edge region with a plasma process [Abstract; pg. 10, para. 2], comprising: the substrate W supported on a support unit 300 and a dielectric plate 520 positioned above the support unit to face the support unit [pg. 8-9; Fig. 3].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma etching apparatus for removing a film at a bevel region of a wafer and having upper and lower electrodes, of Lee, to include the plasma etching apparatus including upper and lower electrodes, a support unit, and a dielectric plate facing the support unit, of Chan, in order to more efficiently remove a film at an edge/bevel region of a wafer, as taught by Chan [pg. 10, para. 2].
As to claim 12, modified Lee discloses the substrate treating method of claim 11, wherein the image stored in the database is a defective image of a substrate which has been determined as needing the maintenance operation [Lee, pg. 7, para. 7], which is previously stored in the database [Buzaglo, claim 1].
As to claim 16 modified Lee discloses the substrate treating method of claim 12, wherein whether the image to be determined matches the defective image is determined based on whether a boundary displaying the image to be determined and a boundary displayed on the defective image match, and the boundary is between the edge region of the substrate which is treated by the plasma the central region of the substrate [Lee, pg. 7, para. 7].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claim 13-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s persuasive argument has overcome the prior art rejections of record. See “Response to Arguments”, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show methods of image analysis including self-learning and continual learning features [Abstract].
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 CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights