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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 3/27/2026 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “semiconductor inspection” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Owens does not teach “a preset angular velocity profile”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP §2131, ipsissimus verbis, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, the identity of terminology is not required. Preset angular velocity profile (220) of Owens is based on the speed of the stage (210) as shown in Owens fig. 2 and stated in paragraph 0104. Therefore, Owens teaches “a preset angular velocity profile based on the speed of the stage”.
As to Applicant’s argument that Owens does not teach “generate an image… during the defined time interval”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language as filed states that the mirror system moves at a specified angular velocity for a defined time interval, and that an image sensor generates an image of a portion of the substrate during the defined time interval. As a direct quote from paragraph 0104 of Owens, “during a single forward scan, a portion of the substrate is imaged”. Owens directly teaches that the mirror system moves at a specified angular velocity for a defined time interval during which images are taken of the substrate in figure 2 as well as in paragraphs 0020, 0030, 0074, and 0104 (where paragraph 0104 describes a time interval during which the velocity tracking mirror rotates and images are taken of the substrate as previously quoted). Therefore, Owens teaches the claims as written.
As to Applicant’s argument that Owens does not teach the additional limitation “a second mirror positioned opposite the first mirror in a stationary orientation” of claim 19, examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the language “a second mirror positioned opposite the first mirror in a stationary orientation” does not mean that the mirror cannot or does not rotate at all. Further, as cited in the Office Action mailed 12/31/2025 and in para. 0074 of Owens, the acceleration tracking mirror rotates as a function of velocity fluctuations/accelerations of the moving stage or substrate. Therefore, when the mirror moves at a constant speed without fluctuation or accelerations, the acceleration tracking mirror may remain stationary, since it would not be rotating due to velocity fluctuations/accelerations.
Therefore, Owens still teaches claims 1-21 as written.
Finally, regarding Applicant’s assertion that “substantially constant” is not indefinite due to the Federal Circuit consistently holding that “substantially” is permissible in patent claims when the specification provides reasonable context for understanding the scope of the term, Examiner respectfully disagrees that those Federal Circuit decisions apply to this claim language. On page 10 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant states that “a person of ordinary skill in the art of semiconductor inspection imaging would readily understand that “substantially constant speed” refers to a stage velocity that is maintained at a generally uniform rate.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement - what is a “generally uniform rate”? What are the acceptable deviations from the listed speed which would result in a “substantially constant” speed as claimed? Is within 5mm/s considered substantially constant, or are the deviations smaller than or larger than that? How does a “substantially constant” speed have a “generally uniform rate”? Rate of what? Does “substantially constant” actually mean 0 acceleration? In the independent claims as written, there is currently no indication as to what the speed may be that is “substantially constant”, nor any indication of what deviations of speed are acceptable to be deemed “substantially constant” in the art. How can one of ordinary skill determine what is a substantially constant speed and what is not a substantially constant speed in the context of the independent claims as written?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, claims state the limitation “substantially constant” in line 4 of claim 1, line 3 of claim 11, and line 4 of claim 19. This limitation is unclear because the term “substantially constant” can encompass myriad speed variations such as derivations of 5 mm/sec, 10 mm/sec, 2.3 mm/sec, etc. What are the metes and bounds of the claims as written? Dependent claims 6 and 16 give a value for what the “substantially constant” speed may be greater than, but the acceptable bounds for variations in speed are still not specified. Would art teaching a variable speed between 30 mm/sec and 50mm/sec be considered “substantially constant” since the speed remains within a set range? What deviations from the listed speed are considered acceptable for this limitation? Is within 5mm/s considered substantially constant? Is 0 acceleration? Or are the deviations smaller than or larger than that? Regarding the independent claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b) I). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation to be met so long as a velocity is constant.
Also, claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 11-16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owens et. al US 20180252936 (hereinafter “Owens” of record).
Regarding claim 1, Owens teaches an image capture system to reduce motion blurring during semiconductor inspection, the image capture system comprising:
a stage (Owens fig. 1 - 110) to hold a substrate (Owens fig. 1 - 120) for inspection (Owens fig. 1), wherein the stage (110) is configured to move at a substantially constant speed during inspection (Owens fig. 1 - arrow beside 110 shows velocity, see also para. 0074-0076);
a microscope objective (Owens fig. 1 - 130) positioned opposite the stage (Owens fig. 1);
a mirror system (Owens fig. 1 - 140, 150) to receive light beams from the microscope objective (130) representative of the substrate (120) and reflect the light beams to a tube lens (Owens fig. 1 – unlabeled object between 150 and 160, see also para. 0152 – a tube lens may be used along the optical path at other locations), the mirror system (140, 150) including a mirror (Owens fig. 1 - 140) configured to move according to a preset angular velocity profile based on the speed of the stage (Owens fig. 2, see also para. 0104), wherein the mirror system (140, 150) to move at a specified angular velocity for a defined time interval (Owens fig. 1-2, see also para. 0074 and 0104); and
an image sensor (Owens fig. 1 - 160 includes an image sensor, see also para. 0074) to generate an image of a portion of the substrate (120) based on light beams received from the tube lens during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 1, see also para. 0074 and 0152).
Regarding claim 2, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1, and Owens further teaches further comprising:
a piezo-electric motor coupled to the mirror (140, Owens para. 0008 and 0023) to dither the mirror in a specified angle range across its equilibrium position based on the preset angular velocity profile (Owens para. 0065).
Regarding claim 3, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 2, and Owens further teaches wherein the mirror (140) dithers at a maximum angular speed during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 2 – 230 is steeper than 220, see also para. 0111).
Regarding claim 4, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1,and Owens further teaches wherein the angular velocity of the mirror (140) reaches a substantially constant speed during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 2 – 220 has a constant velocity when rotating, see also para. 0111 and 0130), the substantially constant speed being lower than other time intervals in the angular velocity profile (Owens fig. 2 – 220 is lower than 230).
Regarding claim 5, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1, and Owens further teaches wherein the mirror (140) is a digital micromirror device (Owens para. 0149 – the velocity tracking mirror is a scanning mirror).
Regarding claim 6, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1, and Owens further teaches wherein the substantially constant speed (220) is greater than 20 mm/sec (Owens para. 0076).
Regarding claim 7, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1, and Owens further teaches further comprising:
a processor (Owens para. 0148) to receive images from the image sensor (within 160) to detect whether a defect is present in the substrate (120).
Regarding claim 11, Owens teaches a method for inspection of a substrate, the method comprising:
loading the substrate (Owens fig. 1 - 120) on a stage (Owens fig. 1 - 110) of an inspection system (Owens fig. 1);
moving the stage (110) at a substantially constant speed (Owens fig. 1 - arrow beside 110 shows velocity, see also para. 0074-0076);
positioning the stage (110) opposite a microscope objective (Owens fig. 1 – 110 is opposite 130);
moving a mirror (Owens fig. 1 - 140) to reflect light beams from the microscope objective (130) representative of the substrate to a tube lens (Owens fig. 1 – unlabeled object between 150 and 160, see also para. 0152 – a tube lens may be used along the optical path at other locations), the mirror (140) moving according to a preset angular velocity profile based on the speed of the stage (Owens fig. 2, see also para. 0104), wherein mirror (140) moves at a specified angular velocity for a defined time interval (Owens fig. 1-2, see also para. 0074 and 0104); and
generating an image of a portion of the substrate (120) based on light beams received from the tube lens during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 1, see also para. 0074 and 0152).
Regarding claim 12, Owens teaches the method of claim 11, and Owens further teaches further comprising:
dithering the mirror (140) in a specified angle range across its equilibrium position based on the preset angular velocity profile using a piezo-electric motor (Owens para. 0065).
Regarding claim 13, Owens teaches the method of claim 12, and Owens further teaches wherein the mirror dithers at a maximum angular speed during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 2 – 230 is steeper than 220, see also para. 0111).
Regarding claim 14, Owens teaches the method of claim 11, and Owens further teaches wherein the angular velocity of the mirror (140) reaches a substantially constant speed during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 2 – 220 has a constant velocity when rotating, see also para. 0111 and 0130), the substantially constant speed being lower than other time intervals in the angular velocity profile (Owens fig. 2 – 220 is lower than 230).
Regarding claim 15, Owens teaches the method of claim 11, and Owens further teaches wherein the mirror (140) is a digital micromirror device (Owens para. 0149 – the velocity tracking mirror is a scanning mirror).
Regarding claim 16, Owens teaches the method of claim 11, and Owens further teaches wherein the substantially constant speed (220) is greater than 20 mm/sec (Owens para. 0076).
Regarding claim 19, Owens teaches a system comprising:
a microscope objective (Owens fig. 1 - 130) positioned opposite a stage (Owens fig. 1 – 110, 130 is opposite to 110) holding a substrate (Owens fig. 1 - 120) for inspection (Owens fig. 1), wherein the stage (110) is configured to move at a substantially constant speed during inspection (Owens fig. 1 - arrow beside 110 shows velocity, see also para. 0074-0076);
a tube lens (Owens fig. 1 – unlabeled object between 150 and 160, see also para. 0152 – a tube lens may be used along the optical path at other locations);
a mirror system (Owens fig. 1 – 140, 150) positioned between the microscope objective (130) and the tube lens (Owens fig. 1 – 140 and 150 are between 130 and the lens before 160), the mirror system (140, 150) to receive light beams from the microscope objective (130) representative of the substrate (120) and reflect the light beams to the tube lens (Owens fig. 1 – unlabeled object between 150 and 160, see also para. 0152 – a tube lens may be used along the optical path at other locations), the mirror system (140, 150) including:
a first mirror (Owens fig. 1 - 140) to move according to a preset angular velocity profile based on the speed of the stage (Owens fig. 2, see also para. 0104), wherein the first mirror (140) to move at a specified angular velocity for a defined time interval (Owens fig. 1-2, see also para. 0074 and 0104), and a second mirror (Owens fig. 1 - 150) positioned opposite the first mirror (140) in a stationary orientation (Owens fig. 1 – 150 positioned opposite 140, and may remain stationary when 110 operates at a constant velocity without fluctuation); and
a camera (Owens fig. 1 - 160) to generate an image of a portion of the substrate (120) based on light beams received from the tube lens during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 1-2, see also para. 0074, 0104, and 0152).
Regarding claim 20, Owens teaches the system of claim 19, and Owens further teaches further comprising:
a piezo-electric motor coupled to the first mirror (140, Owens para. 0008 and 0023) to dither the first mirror in a specified angle range across its equilibrium position based on the preset angular velocity profile (Owens para. 0065), wherein the mirror (140) first dithers at a maximum angular speed during the defined time interval (Owens fig. 2 – 230 is steeper than 220, see also para. 0111).
Regarding claim 21, Owens teaches the system of claim 19, and Owens further teaches wherein the first mirror (140) is a digital micromirror device (Owens para. 0149 – the velocity tracking mirror is a scanning mirror).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Arnold et. al US 20150301428 (hereinafter “Arnold” of record).
Regarding claim 8, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1, and Koyama further teaches the tube lens (17).
Owens does not specify wherein the tube lens includes a fluidic focusing device including a variable focus shift based on a variable index of refraction.
In the same field of endeavor, Arnold teaches wherein the tube lens includes a fluidic focusing device (Arnold fig. 29 - 300) including a variable focus shift based on a variable index of refraction (Arnold para. 0017 – the index of refraction of the lens may be controlled via a driving signal from a controller) for the purpose of controlling the shape of the emitted beam (Arnold para. 0196). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fluidic focusing device as taught by Arnold in the image capture system of Owens in order to control the shape of the emitted beam (Arnold para. 0196).
Regarding claim 9, Owens and Arnold teach the image capture system of claim 8, and Arnold further teaches wherein the fluidic focusing device (300) includes a tunable acoustic gradient lens (Arnold para. 0002 and 0196).
Regarding claim 17, Owens teaches the method of claim 11, and Koyama further teaches the tube lens (17).
Owens does not specify wherein the tube lens includes a fluidic focusing device including a variable focus shift based on a variable index of refraction.
In the same field of endeavor, Arnold teaches wherein the tube lens includes a fluidic focusing device (Arnold fig. 29 - 300) including a variable focus shift based on a variable index of refraction (Arnold para. 0017 – the index of refraction of the lens may be controlled via a driving signal from a controller), wherein the fluidic focusing device (300) includes a tunable acoustic gradient lens (Arnold para. 0002 and 0196) for the purpose of controlling the shape of the emitted beam (Arnold para. 0196). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fluidic focusing device as taught by Arnold in the image capture system of Owens in order to control the shape of the emitted beam (Arnold para. 0196).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raghunathan US Patent 9,678,326 (hereinafter “US 326” of record).
Regarding claim 10, Owens teaches the image capture system of claim 1, and Owens further teaches the tube lens (Owens para. 0152).
Owens does not specify wherein the tube lens includes a digital micromirror device, however Owens does teach scanning mirrors (Owens para. 0146).
In the same field of endeavor, US 326 teaches wherein the tube lens (US 326 fig. 1 – 122, 130) includes a digital micromirror device (US 326 col. 5 lines 4-8) for the purpose of allowing different light collection angles to be selectively imaged onto the light detector (US 326 col. 5 lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tube lens include a digital micromirror device as taught by US 326 in the image capture system of Owens in order to allow different light collection angles to be selectively imaged onto the light detector (US 326 col. 5 lines 15-17).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens and Arnold as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Raghunathan US Patent 9,678,326 (hereinafter “US 326” of record).
Regarding claim 18, Owens and Arnold teach the method of claim 17, and Owens further teaches the tube lens (Owens para. 0152).
Owens and Arnold do not specify wherein the tube lens includes a digital micromirror device, however Owens does teach scanning mirrors (Owens para. 0146).
In the same field of endeavor, US 326 teaches wherein the tube lens (US 326 fig. 1 – 122, 130) includes a digital micromirror device (US 326 col. 5 lines 4-8) for the purpose of allowing different light collection angles to be selectively imaged onto the light detector (US 326 col. 5 lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tube lens include a digital micromirror device as taught by US 326 in the image capture system of Owens and Arnold in order to allow different light collection angles to be selectively imaged onto the light detector (US 326 col. 5 lines 15-17).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights