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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 09, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: July 29, 2026.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending. Claims 1-7 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 4, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-4 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 6, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 6-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 6 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4, 6 and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 7-8, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 has been fully considered. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument in view of newly applied prior art Rieker US2005/0090923 and a different application of prior art Cheung to claim 5. The applicant has argued that Cheung fails to teach the newly amended limitations, however Cheung does teach that a plurality of different wafers are measured by a plurality of measurement devices in parallel (see rejection below). Thus, Cheung may be combined with Shim and Rieker to test a plurality of wafers in parallel.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. US2019/0229023 (called Shim hereinafter, US equivalent to CN110060936A disclosed by the applicant and previously cited) in view of Rieker US2005/0090923 (newly cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shim teaches a method for wafer measurement (Figs. 1-3; Abstract), comprising:
generating a measurement program (Fig. 2; measurement program 210) associated with the recipes (Fig. 2; template selection module 211 and template D20; para [0025, 0029, and 0035]); and
controlling at least one measurement device (Fig. 2; measurement module 215), by executing the measurement program, to automatically measure different wafers according to the recipes (Figs. 1-3; para [0025, 0029, and 0035]; using images of other wafers).
Shim fails to teach generating a plurality of recipes for a plurality of wafers in a same batch, wherein the recipes are designated to measure different wafers in the same batch; automatically switch from one recipe to another recipe in order to measure different wafers in the same batch according to the recipes.
Rieker teaches generating a plurality of recipes for a plurality of wafers in a same batch (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; batch recipes 232 with plurality of wafers 10 forming a batch), wherein the recipes are designated to measure different wafers in the same batch (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; measuring test and product wafer); automatically switch from one recipe to another recipe in order to measure different wafers in the same batch according to the recipes (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; switching between batch recipes 232 to test wafers 10 may be carried out automatically).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described by Shim with the batch recipe testing of wafers as described by Rieker for the purpose of improving reliable monitoring of batch systems with reduced financial, logistic and fabrication-based expenditure (para [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Shim and Rieker teach the method of claim 1, Rieker further teaches wherein the step of controlling the at least one measurement device to automatically measure the wafers according to the recipes further comprises: controlling the at least one measurement device (Fig. 1; measuring device 15), by executing the measurement program, to automatically measure the wafers according to the recipes sequentially (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; sequential testing on batch recipe 232 ordering), such that different wafers in the same batch are automatically measured by the at least one measurement device in a sequential manner according to the recipes (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; measuring test wafers and product wafers based on recipe sequentially).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim, in view of Rieker and further in view of Cheung US2017/0089950 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Shim and Rieker teach the method of claim 1, Rieker further teaches wherein the at least one measurement device includes a measurement device (Fig. 1; measuring device 15), and the step of controlling the at least one measurement device to automatically measure the wafers according to the plurality of recipes (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; batch recipes 232 testing wafers 10); controlling the measurement device, by executing the measurement program, to automatically measure the wafers according to the recipes (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]), such that different wafers in the same batch are automatically measured by the measurement device according to the recipes (Figs. 1 and 2B; para [0030]; measuring test wafers and product wafers based on recipe).
Shim and Rieker fail to teach wherein the at least one measurement device includes a plurality of measurement devices; controlling the measurement devices, by executing the measurement program, to automatically measure the wafers according to the recipes in parallel, such that different wafers in the same batch are automatically measured by the measurement devices in parallel according to the recipes (underlined portions are what Shim and Rieker fail to particularly teach).
Cheung teaches wherein the at least one measurement device includes a plurality of measurement devices (Figs. 1-3 and 5; plurality of test stations 106); controlling the plurality of measurement devices, by executing the measurement program, to automatically measure the plurality of wafers according to the plurality of recipes in parallel (Figs. 1-3 and 5; para [0047 and 0049]), such that different wafers in the same batch are automatically measured by the measurement devices in parallel according to the recipes (Figs. 1-3 and 5; para [0047 and 0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method as described by Shim and Rieker with the testing wafers in parallel as described by Cheung for the purpose of improving the accuracy of data collected from testing of wafers in various testing conditions and allowing testing of a large number of wafers independently (para [0045 and 0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 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:
Regarding claim 3, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein each recipe includes a designated temperature, such that the recipes include different designated temperatures for different wafers in the same batch.”
Claim 4 indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein each recipe includes a designated temperature, such that the recipes include different designated temperatures for different wafers in the same batch.”
Claim 7 is indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan et al. discloses “Techniques providing semiconductor wafer grouping in a feed forward process” (see US2013/0011939)
Ogawa et al. discloses “Quality control system, quality control method, and method of lot-to-lot wafer processing” (see US2006/0235560)
Eckert et al. discloses “Module testing utilizing wafer probe test equipment” (see US2016/0365268)
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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights