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 Objections
Claims 6-10 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim identifiers on claims 6-10 are incorrect. Applicant explicitly elected claims 1, 5, 11, 12, without traverse in the response filed 09/26/2025. Applicant also stated on the record “Please withdraw Inventions IA, And IIA through IIF, claims 2-4, 6-10 and 13-20”. Since no argument was made by applicant that these claims would somehow need to be rejoined at this time the examiner will assume the issue was a typographical error. As such on next reply it is required the proper identifiers be used. Please see 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
As to claim 27, line 5, it is believed the “and” should be deleted as only the final and on line 9 is necessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 21-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 101362548 B1 where a machine translation is provided hereinwith for citations) in view of in view of Kobashi et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0215770 A1).
As to claim 1, Jung discloses and shows in figures 2 and 3, an optical inspection system, comprising (Abstract, ll. 1-3):
a die carrier (62) configured to carry a die (20), wherein a backside surface of the die faces away from the die carrier (explicitly required for camera 80 to image the backside in figure 2) (page 3, ll. 36-40);
a camera device disposed above (i.e. optically above relative to the emission/detection path of the camera 80) the die carrier, wherein the camera device comprises a light source (disclosed but not shown) configured to emit a light and a first optical sensor (80 as noted above) (page 3, ll. 36-40, page 5, ll. 29-33)
a processor (i.e. controller) device configured to determine a defect existing on one of the plurality of detecting spots if an intensity of the light reflected by the plurality of detecting spots is less than a predetermined value (page 3, ll. 7-12; page 5, ll. 29-39; where the examiner is interpreting that the predetermined value is white as specifically disclosed is set via the source (i.e. it is predetermined that the source make the entire rear surface white). Further where the examiner is interpreting that in the optical art implicitly white and black are a variance is photon intensity detected by the detector, as applicant has failed to define “intensity” in any particular manner).
Jung does disclose the need to measure alignment of the die in addition to the detection of foreign matter (page 3, ll. 41-43).
Jung does not explicitly disclose where the camera is movable, instead that the die carrier is movable or where the camera is configured to capture images of a plurality of detecting spots on the backside surface, wherein the plurality of detecting spots comprising a plurality of die corners of the die
However, Kobashi does disclose and show in figures 11A-D and in ([0104], ll. 8-22; [0107]) the basic concept when scanning a die under test that one can shift the light source, the die or the camera, all achieving the same end result of ensuring the entire surface (i.e. plurality of die corners are inherently measured when the full die surface is imaged as disclosed) of the die is imaged for defect analysis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung with a camera that is movable, instead that the die carrier is movable or where the camera is configured to capture images of a plurality of detecting spots on the backside surface, wherein the plurality of detecting spots comprising a plurality of die corners of the die in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of as explicitly disclosed multiple ways to ensure efficient and accurate scanning of the sensor over the sample under test.
As to claim 21, Jung discloses and shows in figures 2 and 3 an optical inspection system, comprising:
a die carrier (62) configured to carry a die (20) (page 3, ll. 36-40);;
a camera device (80) disposed above the die carrier and comprises a light source (disclosed but now shown) configured to emit a light and a first optical sensor configured to detect an intensity of the light reflected by a plurality of detecting spots on a backside surface of the die (page 3, ll. 36-40, page 5, ll. 29-33); and
a processor (i.e. controller) coupled to the camera device and configured to determine the die being a bad die if the intensity of the light is less than a predetermined value (page 3, ll. 7-12; page 5, ll. 29-42; where the examiner is interpreting that the predetermined value is white as specifically disclosed is set via the source (i.e. it is predetermined that the source make the entire rear surface white). Further where the examiner is interpreting that in the optical art implicitly white and black are a variance is photon intensity detected by the detector, as applicant has failed to define “intensity” in any particular manner, lastly as explicitly disclosed if the defects are detected the controller may determine the die is bad and remove it).
Jung does disclose the need to measure alignment of the die in addition to the detection of foreign matter (page 3, ll. 41-43).
Jung does not explicitly disclose where the camera is movable, instead that the die carrier is movable or where the camera is configured to capture images of a plurality of detecting spots on the backside surface, wherein the plurality of detecting spots comprising a plurality of die corners of the die
However, Kobashi does disclose and show in figures 11A-D and in ([0104], ll. 8-22; [0107]) the basic concept when scanning a die under test that one can shift the light source, the die or the camera, all achieving the same end result of ensuring the entire surface (i.e. plurality of die corners are inherently measured when the full die surface is imaged as disclosed) of the die is imaged for defect analysis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung with a camera that is movable, instead that the die carrier is movable or where the camera is configured to capture images of a plurality of detecting spots on the backside surface, wherein the plurality of detecting spots comprising a plurality of die corners of the die in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of as explicitly disclosed multiple ways to ensure efficient and accurate scanning of the sensor over the sample under test.
As to claims 5 and 25, Jung discloses an optical inspection system, further comprises a second optical sensor and a reflector disposed between the camera device and the second optical sensor, wherein the camera device comprises a light source for emitting light toward the die, (Fig. 3 of Jung; page 4, ll.16-24; page 5, ll. 29-33 the use of a light source 72 and reflector 76 to relay light to the sample under test).
Jung does not explicitly disclose the light is reflected sequentially by a first one of the plurality of detecting spots, the reflector, and a second one of the plurality of detecting spots, and is then detected by the second optical sensor
However, Kobashi does disclose and show in figures 11A-D and in ([0104], ll. 8-22; [0107]) the basic concept when scanning a die under test that one can shift the light source, the die or the camera, all achieving the same end result of ensuring the entire surface (i.e. plurality of die corners are inherently measured when the full die surface is imaged as disclosed) of the die is imaged for defect analysis. Further, inherently in for example figure 11D, the light source moving between the two positions as shown in solid vs hidden lines results in the sequential detection of first and second detection spots.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung where the light is reflected sequentially by a first one of the plurality of detecting spots, the reflector, and a second one of the plurality of detecting spots, and is then detected by the second optical sensor in order to provide the advantage increased accuracy and expected results as obviously optical scanning is well-known in the optical art as explicitly shown in figures 11A-D of Kobashi as an alternative form of imaging, further in doing so one can more precisely measuring varying areas of the sample under test vs a broad field image of the sample as a whole.
As to claim 22, Jung disclose and shows in figures 4-6 an optical inspection system, wherein the camera device is configured to capture images of the plurality of detecting spots on the backside surface, and the plurality of detecting spots comprising a plurality of die corners of the die (the camera and figures shown in figures 4-6 include a plurality of detection spots, further a plurality of corners, implicitly the back/rear side surface image is similar to that as shown in the noted figures) (page 5, ll. 29-39; the examiner notes that the claim element is essential non-limiting as the applicant is defining a system claim based on the material worked upon, as nothing claimed requires and structural distinct features from that previously claimed. Please see MPEP 2115).
As to claim 24, Jung discloses and shows in figures 2 and 3, an optical inspection system, wherein the intensity (i.e. white vs black area) of the light reflected by one of the plurality of detecting spots is detected by the first optical sensor (page 5, ll. 29-39).
As to claim 26, Jung discloses an optical inspection system, wherein the processor is configured to determine a defect existing on one of the plurality of detecting spots if an intensity of the light detected by the second optical sensor is less than a predetermined value (page 4, ll. 30-39; page 5, ll. 16-23; the noted paragraphs are referring to the front side image which is the results of the second sensor 70 and again where the examiner is interpreting that the light is preset to a predetermined white and intensity less than that for a defect is shown as black).
As to claim 27, Jung discloses and shows in figures 2-3. an optical inspection system, comprising:
a die carrier (62) configured to carry a die (20) (page 3, ll. 36-40);;
a camera device (80) disposed above the die carrier, wherein the camera device comprises a light source (disclosed but now shown) configured to emit a light toward the die and a first optical sensor (80) (page 3, ll. 36-40, page 5, ll. 29-33); and
a second optical sensor (70) disposed above the die carrier (explicitly shown in figure 2) (page 5, ll. 16-23);
a reflector (76) disposed between the camera device and the second optical sensor (explicitly shown in figure 3) (page 4, ll. 16-19),
a processor (i.e. controller) coupled to the camera device and the second optical sensor, configured to determine a defect existing on one of the plurality of detecting spots if an intensity of the light detected by the second optical sensor is less than a predetermined value (page 4, ll. 30-39; page 5, ll. 16-23; the noted paragraphs are referring to the front side image which is the results of the second sensor 70 and again where the examiner is interpreting that the light is preset to a predetermined white and intensity less than that for a defect is shown as black).
Jung does disclose the need to measure alignment of the die in addition to the detection of foreign matter (page 3, ll. 41-43).
Jung does not explicitly disclose where wherein the light is reflected sequentially by at least one of a plurality of detecting spots on the die, and the reflector and detected by the second optical sensor.
However, Kobashi does disclose and show in figures 11A-D and in ([0104], ll. 8-22; [0107]) the basic concept when scanning a die under test that one can shift the light source, the die or the camera, all achieving the same end result of ensuring the entire surface (i.e. plurality of die corners are inherently measured when the full die surface is imaged as disclosed) of the die is imaged for defect analysis. In doing so Kobashi teaches the sequential detection of a plurality of spots on the die as result of the time based measurement/movement during scanning.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung with where wherein the light is reflected sequentially by at least one of a plurality of detecting spots on the die, and the reflector and detected by the second optical sensor in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of as explicitly disclosed multiple ways to ensure efficient and accurate scanning of the sensor over the sample under test.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of in view of Kobashi et al. further in view of Song et al. (CN 114965479 A where the examiner is providing a machine translation hereinwith for citation) further in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2025/0123220 A1).
As to claim 11 and 12, Jung in view of Kobashi does not explicitly disclose an optical inspection system, wherein the camera device is movably disposed on a ring sliding rail at a side of the die for changing a light emitting direction of the light emitted by the light source or a system, wherein the ring sliding rail is configured to be moved along an edge of the die and the optical sensor is configured to be moved along a direction parallel to the edge of the die.
However, Song does disclose and show in figure 1, and in (page 4, ll. 53-55; page 5, ll. 18-34) the basic concept of running a camera (22) or light source (23 on a circular sliding (i.e. ring rail (12)). Further as evidenced by Kondo in figures 2 or 3 and in ([0050]-[0051]), a sample (i.e. wafers as shown that contain die) can be scanned in radial or linear manner. As such obviously the light source or camera can be moved along an edge or a direction parallel and it is merely a matter of design choice as evidenced primarily by Kondo which shows each scanning motion, and Kobashi that explicitly taught that one can scan via the light sources, the camera or the sample movement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung in view of Kobashi with an optical inspection system, wherein the camera device is movably disposed on a ring sliding rail at a side of the die for changing a light emitting direction of the light emitted by the light source or a system, wherein the ring sliding rail is configured to be moved along an edge of the die and the optical sensor is configured to be moved along a direction parallel to the edge of the die in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of many common scanning techniques (i.e. circular or linear) one can ensure fully and accurate measurement of the entire surface of the sample under test.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of in view of Kobashi et al. further in view of Kim et al. (KR 101787898 B1).
As to claim 23, Jung in view of Kobashi does not explicitly disclose an optical inspection system, wherein the processor is configured to determining a die center of the die according to the images of the plurality of die corners of the die.
However, Kim does disclose in (page 3, ll. 37-40; page 5, ll. 16-23; page 7, ll. 11-14) the basic geometric concept of using a processing unit to calculate four corners to determine a center of the die under test. This is used for basic position recognition, in other words it can obviously be used for proper die alignment calculations via center point calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung in view of Kobashi with a processor configured to determine a die center of the die according to the images of the plurality of die corners of the die in order to provide the advantage on increased accuracy with a basic four corner/center point calculation one can obviously more accurately align the die on the substrate under processing or help in align the die for further defect imaging analysis.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of in view of Kobashi et al. further in view of Lu (TW M639825U where the examiner has provide a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claim 28, Jung in view of Kobashi does not explicitly disclose an optical inspection system, wherein the reflector comprises a plurality of reflectors arranged along a direction parallel to an edge of the die.
However, Lu does disclose and show in figure 6a labeled below and in (page 5, ll. 5-7) the use of reflectors 50 and 51, next to the edge of the die 110 in order to measure side view of the die under test. Obviously in doing so one can produce a much more detailed representation of the die under test when used in conjunction with the measurements of Jung. The examiner notes for compact prosecution that to overcome the noted limitation and potentially the prior art of record applicant can more clearly define that the reflective surface of which the input beam reflects off of is parallel to the edge of the die, this is in no way the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant limitation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung in view of Kobashi with an optical inspection system, wherein the reflector comprises a plurality of reflectors arranged along a direction parallel to an edge of the die in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy in using multiple additional reflectors obviously one can relay light to more surfaces of the sample under test to produce a more detailed full picture of any defects of the sample under test.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights