CTNF 18/668,890 CTNF 84270 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions The applicant elects Species II and traverses the restriction requirement on the ground that “independent claims 1 and 18 are generic claims that are not limited to any single species identified by the examiner”. The examiner agrees that claim 1 is generic, however, respectfully disagrees that claim 18 is generic, because claim 18 includes subject matter pertaining to Species II (i.e., “obtaining a plurality of secondary images by changing at least one of a brightness, a color contrast, a pixel size, and a shape of the plurality of primary images” recites augmenting primary images first and classifying defect images later). However, this argument appears to address whether claims 1 and 18 are generic instead of whether the restriction requirement should be withdrawn, therefore, the restriction requirement is maintained and is made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 6-12, 18, and 20 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. The recited subject matter of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because: i) It is unclear and confusing what process the claimed “at least one unit of manufacturing process ” refers to. For example, wafer “manufacturing process” covers a broad spectrum of processes including: slicing a boule into wafers, polishing and depositing materials on the wafers, transferring circuit designs to the wafers, etching, testing, and dicing into chips, etc. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. ii) It is further unclear and confusing how “at least one unit of manufacturing process” is quantified. For example, is etching a single unit of manufacturing, or does the sub-steps of etching compose multiple units of manufacturing? Similar reasons apply to claim 18 that recites “at least one unit of manufacturing process”. Please amend the claims for clarification. The recited subject matter of claim 6 renders the claim indefinite because: iii) It is unclear and confusing what process the claimed “performing data augmentation ” refers to. For example, performing data augmentation covers a broad spectrum of processes including blurring image data, overlaying information like an avatar, cropping, etc. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Similar reasons apply to claim 20 that recites “performing data augmentation”. Please amend the claims for clarification. The recited subject matter of claim 9 renders the claim indefinite because: iv) It is inconsistent with the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon. Claim 9 recites that data augmentation comprises “changing a shape of a defect image” (i.e., a defect image is identified before performing data augmentation) . However, claim 1 recites that secondary images are obtained (via augmentation according to 6) prior to identifying defect images (i.e., defect images are identified after performing data augmentation to obtain the secondary images) . Please amend the claim for clarification. The recited subject matter of claim 10 renders the claim indefinite because: v) it is unclear and confusing what process the claimed “performing data processing ” refers to. For example, data processing covers a broad spectrum of processes including comparing of images, combining/mixing of images, cropping of images, changing the color of images, etc. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Similar reasons apply to claim 18 that recites “performing data processing”. Please amend the claims for clarification. The recited subject matter of claim 20 renders the claim indefinite because: vi) It is unclear and confusing whether the limitation “generating the plurality of secondary images by performing data augmentation on the plurality of primary images” of claim 20 is equivalent to or in addition to the limitation “obtaining a plurality of secondary images by changing at least one of a brightness, a color contrast, a pixel size, and a shape of the plurality of primary images ”. vii) If the data augmentation of claim 20 is indeed a separate step from the limitations of claim 18, it is further unclear and confusing when the data augmentation of claim 20 is performed with respect to the steps of claim 18. For example, if the data augmentation of claim 20 performed after such steps of claim 18, please specify that “generating the plurality of secondary images by further performing data augmentation on the changed plurality of primary images” or equivalent. Please amend the claim for clarification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 6-12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Riley et al. (US 2019/0294923) . Regarding claim 1 , Riley discloses: preparing a sample wafer that has undergone at least one unit of a manufacturing process (see para [5], [28], and [56], obtaining a wafer (i.e., “specimen”) during its manufacturing process) ; capturing, using an electronic device, a plurality of primary images of different locations of the sample wafer (see [6], [57]-[58], and fig 2, capturing, using a scanning election microscope (SEM), a plurality of images of the wafer as an initial training set; and see [88], the initial training set includes defect images and non-defect images of the wafer) ; obtaining a plurality of secondary images based on the capturing of the plurality of primary images (see [72], [82], [83], [85], and [88], obtaining synthetic defect images based on the initial training set, and including the synthetic defect images into the initial training set to generate a modified training set) ; detecting a plurality of defect images comprising a defect from among the plurality of primary images and the plurality of secondary images (see [83], training a classifier configured to detect/classify defects using the modified training set) ; classifying and labeling at least one of the plurality of defect images as defect data (see [58] and [61], the defect images and synthetic defect images are classified and labeled as including a defect) ; and generating an automatic defect classification model based on the defect data (see [26], improving automatic defect classification by using the trained classifier) . Regarding claim 6 , Riley further discloses: wherein the obtaining of the plurality of secondary images comprises generating the plurality of secondary images by performing data augmentation on the plurality of primary images (see [66], [68], and [70], the synthetic defect images are obtained by augmenting the defect images and non-defect images in the initial training set via varying brightness, blurring, scaling, adding known defects, rotation, etc.) . Regarding claim 7 , Riley further discloses: wherein the performing of the data augmentation comprises changing at least one of a brightness, a color contrast, and a spatial resolution of the plurality of primary images (see rejection of claim 6, varying brightness, blurring, and scaling) . Regarding claim 8 , Riley further discloses: wherein the performing of the data augmentation further comprises adding noise to the plurality of primary images (see rejection of claim 6, adding known defects as noise) . Regarding claim 9 , Riley further discloses: wherein the performing of the data augmentation further comprises changing a shape of a defect image of the plurality of primary images (see rejection of claim 6, rotation) . Regarding claim 10 , Riley further discloses: wherein the detecting of the plurality of defect images comprises detecting the plurality of defect images by performing data processing on the plurality of primary images and the plurality of secondary images (see rejection of claim 1, training the classifier configured to detect/classify defects using the modified training set, wherein the classifier provides data processing). Regarding claim 11 , Riley further discloses: wherein the generating of the automatic defect classification model comprises generating the automatic defect classification model by performing machine learning using the defect data as input of the automatic defect classification model (see rejection of claim 1, improving automatic defect classification by using the trained classifier, wherein the trained classifier is trained using the modified training set and corresponding labels ). Regarding claim 12 , Riley further discloses: wherein the electronic device comprises at least one of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a transmission electron microscope (TEM) (see rejection of claim 1, SEM) . Regarding claim 18 , Riley disclose: preparing a sample wafer that has undergone at least one unit of a manufacturing process (see rejection of claim 1, obtaining a wafer (i.e., “specimen”) during its manufacturing process) ; capturing, using an electronic microscope, a plurality of primary images of different locations of the sample wafer (see [6], [57]-[58], and fig 2, capturing, using a scanning election microscope (SEM), a plurality of images of the wafer as an initial training set; and see [88], the initial training set includes defect images and non-defect images of the wafer) ; obtaining a plurality of secondary images by changing at least one of a brightness, a color contrast, a pixel size, and a shape of the plurality of primary images (see rejection of claim 1, obtaining synthetic defect images based on the initial training set, and including the synthetic defect images into the initial training set to generate a modified training set; and see rejection of claim 6, the synthetic defect images are obtained by augmenting the defect images and non-defect images in the initial training set via varying brightness, blurring, scaling, adding known defects, rotation, etc.) . detecting a plurality of defect images by performing data processing on the plurality of primary images and the plurality of secondary images (see rejection of claim 1, training a classifier configured to detect/classify defects using the modified training set) ; classifying and labeling at least one of the plurality of defect images as defect data (see rejection of claim 1, the defect images and synthetic defect images are classified and labeled as including a defect) ; and generating an automatic defect classification model by performing machine learning based on the defect data (see rejection of claim 1, improving automatic defect classification by using the trained classifier) . Regarding claim 20 , Riley further discloses: wherein the obtaining of the plurality of secondary images comprises generating the plurality of secondary images by performing data augmentation on the plurality of primary images (see rejection of claim 18, augmenting) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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. /SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 2 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 3 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 4 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 5 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 6 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 7 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 8 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 9 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 10 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/668,890 Page 11 Art Unit: 2675
Prosecution Insights