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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN-10697981-A), in view of, Deemer (US-20090019937-A1).
Xu teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Xu teaches a scanning acoustic microscope system comprising: (abstract; 5 fig. 4, ‘cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe’)
one or more measurement assemblies, wherein a respective measurement assembly comprises a transducer and a receiver, wherein the receiver of the respective measurement assembly comprises a multipixel sensor to simultaneously generate sensor data for multiple locations associated with a sample; (claim 1; 5, 7 fig. 4, ‘cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe’, ‘delay block’; para(s) [0036-0044, 0050-0051, 0046-0055])
a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more measurement assemblies, wherein the controller includes one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to implement a metrology recipe by: (para(s) [0052-0054], ‘data processing module’; ‘2.4) The output shaft of the stepper motor rotates by an angle θ, and the cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe rotates to the next n-element scanning line, performing the same multi-point A-scan detection on the n-element scanning line’; ‘After all array elements have received the reflected echo signal from the internal structure, the system converts the signal into a digital quantity according to the set sampling rate. The industrial computer stores the digital signal, completing one multi-point A-scan detection on an n-element line.’)
generating one or more measurements for the sample based on the sensor data. (para(s) [0046-0055])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Xu to provide a scanning acoustic microphone inspection device with multipixel sensor to expedite the inspection of high-throughput manufacturing items such as wafers, substrates, rivets, and like
Xu does not teach:
a stage configured to scan the sample for measurement by the one or more measurement assemblies; and
receiving the sensor data from the one or more measurement assemblies while the sample is scanned by the stage; and
Deemer teaches:
a stage configured to scan the sample for measurement by the one or more measurement assemblies; and (112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
receiving the sensor data from the one or more measurement assemblies while the sample is scanned by the stage; and (112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Deemer to provide a stage for a scanning acoustic microphone inspection device with multipixel sensor to expedite the inspection of high-throughput manufacturing items such as wafers, substrates, rivets, and like
In regards to claim 2, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Xu teaches wherein the one or more measurements comprise inspection measurements. (Xu: para [0050]; claim 3; fig. 10; ‘the data processing module extracting features that reflect the weld’s fusion state.’)
In regards to claim 3, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 2, wherein the program instructions further cause the one or more processors to implement the metrology recipe by at least one of identifying or classifying defects on the sample based on the inspection measurements. (Xu: claim 3; para [0047])
In regards to claim 4, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, wherein the one or more measurements comprise metrology measurements. (Xu: claim 3; para(s) [0005, 0022-0023, 0048, 0054]; ‘generating the C scan image of the circular weld.’)
In regards to claim 5, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the multipixel sensor comprises: a one-dimensional line sensor. (Xu: para [0033], ‘the ultrasonic probe 5 composed of the linear array elements arranged linearly.’; fig(s) 1, 2)
In regards to claim 6, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the multipixel sensor comprises: a time-delayed-integration (TDI) sensor. (Xu: fig(s) 1-2, ‘ultrasonic probe’)
In regards to claim 7, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the multipixel sensor comprises: a two-dimensional array sensor. (Xu: fig(s) 1-2, ‘ultrasonic probe’; para [0003], ‘probe consists of N x N independent array elements arranged in a rectangular pattern along the X-Y directions.’)
In regards to claim 8, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the multipixel sensor comprises: a dual-sided sensor. (Xu: fig(s) 1-2, ‘ultrasonic probe’)
In regards to claim 9, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein a channel direction is aligned along a radial axis of the sample, wherein pixels of the multipixel sensor scanning along the channel comprise a radial length and a tangential length, wherein the radial length and the tangential length differ. (Xu: para [0008], the ultrasonic probe consists of the linear array elements that are linearly arranged radiating outward from center of the probe.,’; fig(s) 1-2)
In regards to claim 10, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 7, (see claim rejection 7) wherein the two-dimensional array sensor operates in a step-and-scan mode. (Xu: para(s) [0016-0018], ‘rotating the ultrasonic probe by a defined angle, halting for measurement at each step, and repeating until a full 360 rotation is completed, enabling high-resolution inspection and C-scan imaging of circular welds.’)
In regards to claim 11, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the one or more measurement assemblies comprise two or more measurement assemblies distributed along a channel direction. (Xu: para(s) [0037-0038], ‘the linear array elements are arranged radially into n straight array lines emanating from the center (i.e., the array elements radially arranged in four straight lines extending from the center))
In regards to claim 12, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 11, wherein the stage translates the sample in a scan direction orthogonal to the channel direction during the measurement. (Xu: para [0017], ‘the array elements of the ultrasonic probe rotate radially across the surface of the circular weld, ensuring scanning of the circular weld’s entire surface.’)
In regards to claim 13, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) Deemer teaches wherein the channel direction is aligned along a radial axis of the sample, (Xu: para [0017]; fig(s) 1-2, ‘the linear array elements of the ultrasonic probe 5 are linearly arranged outward from a center along the radial axis of the circular weld, and the linear array elements of the ultrasonic probe rotate radially across the surface of the circular solder joint.,’) wherein the stage rotates the sample during the measurement. (Deemer: 112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
In regards to claim 14, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 13, (Xu: para [0036], the linear array elements rotate, covering the entire circular weld’s surface.’) wherein the stage positions an outer radial edge of the sample under the one or more measurement assemblies for the measurement. (Deemer: 112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
In regards to claim 15, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein sizes of measurement fields along the channel direction of the two or more measurement assemblies are separated by gaps, wherein the stage is configured to translate the sample along two or more measurement swaths, wherein a first measurement swath of the two or more measurement swaths is at least partially interleaved with a second measurement swath of the two or more measurement swaths to provide that the measurement fields of the first measurement swath at least partially fill at least some of the gaps of the second measurement swath. (Xu: para(s) [0036-0038], fig. 8; ‘the linear array elements are radially arranged in four straight lines extending from the center of the ultrasonic probe and the ultrasonic probe rotates as its linear array elements perform scanning, ensuring the entire circular weld is covered.’)
In regards to claim 16, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein at least one of the one or more measurement assemblies or the stage are configured to provide different measurement conditions for two or more measurement zones on the sample. (Xu: para [0046], ‘the inspection precision of the circular weld is determined by the stepper motor’s step rotation angle θ, where a larger θ increases speed but reduces precision, while a smaller θ improves precision but slows down the inspection.’)
In regards to claim 17, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 16, (see claim rejection 17) wherein at least one of the one two or more measurement zones corresponds to an outer radial edge region of the sample. (Xu: fig(s) 1-2, 6-8; para [0046], ‘the inspection precision of the circular weld is determined by the stepper motor’s step rotation angle θ, where a larger θ increases speed but reduces precision, while a smaller θ improves precision but slows down the inspection.’)
In regards to claim 18, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 16, wherein the different measurement conditions comprises different scan speeds in the different measurement zones. (Xu: fig(s) 1-2, 6-8; para [0046], ‘the inspection precision of the circular weld is determined by the stepper motor’s step rotation angle θ, where a larger θ increases speed but reduces precision, while a smaller θ improves precision but slows down the inspection.’)
In regards to claim 23, Xu & Deemer teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein at least one of the one or more measurement assemblies or the stage are configured to provide multiple measurements of common locations of the sample under different measurement conditions, wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to implement the metrology recipe by generating one or more combined measurements based on the different measurement conditions. (Xu: fig(s) 1-2, 6-8; para [0046], ‘the inspection precision of the circular weld is determined by the stepper motor’s step rotation angle θ, where a larger θ increases speed but reduces precision, while a smaller θ improves precision but slows down the inspection.’)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN-10697981-A), in view of, Deemer (US-20090019937-A1), in further view of, Lee (KR-1020210077884-A)
Xu & Deemer teach:
In regards to claim 19, Xu & Deemer teach as canning acoustic microscope system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Xu & Deemer to provide a scanning acoustic microphone inspection device with multipixel sensor to expedite the inspection of high-throughput manufacturing items such as wafers, substrates, rivets, and like
Xu & Deemer don’t teach:
wherein the program instructions further cause the one or more processors to implement the metrology recipe by: receiving additional data associated with the sample; correlating the additional data with the one or more measurements; and adjusting the one or more measurements based on the additional data.
Lee teaches:
wherein the program instructions further cause the one or more processors to implement the metrology recipe by: receiving additional data associated with the sample; correlating the additional data with the one or more measurements; and adjusting the one or more measurements based on the additional data. (see paragraphs [0082-0088] and figure 5: ‘a control process for an ultrasonic inspection device, comprising: receiving thickness information of a target material via a main controller 40; selecting an appropriate ultrasonic frequency (5MHz or 2MHz) using a transducer on-off controller 41 based on the thickness; and emitting the selected frequency through a transducer, with an ultrasonic reflector 11 adjusting the reflection angle according to the material's thickness.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a method for a scanning acoustic microphone inspection device with multipixel sensor to expedite the inspection of high-throughput manufacturing items such as wafers, substrates, rivets, and like
In regards to claim 20, Xu, Deemer, & Lee teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 19, (see claim rejection 19) wherein the one or more measurements comprise one or more inspection measurements, wherein the additional data comprises additional metrology data. (Lee: para(s) [0082-0088]; fig. 5, ‘the thickness information of the target material.’)
In regards to claim 21, Xu, Deemer, & Lee teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 20, (see claim rejection 20) wherein adjusting the one or more measurements based on the additional data comprises adjusting one or more inspection algorithms based on the additional metrology data. (para(s) [0082-0088]; ‘selecting an appropriate ultrasonic frequency (5MHz or 2MHz) using the transducer on-off controller on the thickness.’)
In regards to claim 22, Xu, Deemer, & Lee teach a scanning acoustic microscope system of claim 20, (see claim rejection 20) wherein the additional metrology data comprises: at least one of layer thickness, feature shape, or nano topography data. (Lee: para(s) [0082-0088]; fig. 5, ‘the thickness information of the target material.’)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN-10697981-A), in view of, Deemer (US-20090019937-A1).
Xu teaches:
In regards to claim 24, Xu teaches a system comprising: (abstract; 5 fig. 4, ‘cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe’)
wherein a respective one of the one or more measurement assemblies comprises a transducer and a receiver, wherein the receiver of at least one of the one or more measurement assemblies comprises a multipixel sensor to simultaneously generate sensor data for multiple locations associated with a sample, (claim 1; 5, 7 fig. 4, ‘cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe’, ‘delay block’; para(s) [0036-0044, 0050-0051, 0046-0055])
wherein the controller includes one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to implement a metrology recipe by: : (para(s) [0052-0054], ‘data processing module’; ‘2.4) The output shaft of the stepper motor rotates by an angle θ, and the cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe rotates to the next n-element scanning line, performing the same multi-point A-scan detection on the n-element scanning line’; ‘After all array elements have received the reflected echo signal from the internal structure, the system converts the signal into a digital quantity according to the set sampling rate. The industrial computer stores the digital signal, completing one multi-point A-scan detection on an n-element line.’)
generating one or more measurements for the sample based on the sensor data. : (para(s) [0052-0054], ‘data processing module’; ‘2.4) The output shaft of the stepper motor rotates by an angle θ, and the cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe rotates to the next n-element scanning line, performing the same multi-point A-scan detection on the n-element scanning line’; ‘After all array elements have received the reflected echo signal from the internal structure, the system converts the signal into a digital quantity according to the set sampling rate. The industrial computer stores the digital signal, completing one multi-point A-scan detection on an n-element line.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Xu to provide a scanning acoustic microphone inspection device with multipixel sensor to expedite the inspection of high-throughput manufacturing items such as wafers, substrates, rivets, and like
Xu does not teach:
a controller communicatively coupled to one or more measurement assemblies and a stage,
wherein the stage is configured to scan the sample for measurement by the one or more measurement assemblies,
receiving the sensor data from the one or more measurement assemblies while the sample is scanned by the stage; and
Deemer teaches:
a controller communicatively coupled to one or more measurement assemblies and a stage, (112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
wherein the stage is configured to scan the sample for measurement by the one or more measurement assemblies, (112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
receiving the sensor data from the one or more measurement assemblies while the sample is scanned by the stage; and (112 fig. 1, ‘rotation stage’; para(s) [0028-0029])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Deemer to provide a stage for a scanning acoustic microphone inspection device with multipixel sensor to expedite the inspection of high-throughput manufacturing items such as wafers, substrates, rivets, and like
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu (CN-10697981-A),
In regards to claim 25, Xu teaches a method, comprising: (abstract; 5 fig. 4, ‘cross-shaped linear array ultrasonic probe’)
scanning multiple locations simultaneously within a sample relative to a measurement assembly, the measurement assembly comprising a transducer and a multipixel sensor; (para [0046-0055], ‘method’; fig(s) 1-10)
transmitting, with the transducer, an acoustic signal; (para [0046-0055], ‘method’; fig(s) 1-10)
acquiring, with the multipixel sensor, a reflected acoustic signal, wherein the reflected acoustic signal comprises sensor data; and (para [0046-0055], ‘method’; fig(s) 1-10)
generating one or more measurements for the sample based on the sensor data. (para [0046-0055], ‘method’; fig(s) 1-10)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Wolf (US-7372584-B2), Wihl (US-7126699-B1), Naka (US-20060038980-A1), and Tooma (US-20040118210-A1) references further describe an ultrasonic array sensor and inspection method as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights