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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: a communication interface 230, and a processor 238.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MULTI-CHANNEL WORKPIECE INSPECTION SYSTEM COMPRISING A FIRST IMAGING DEVICE AND A SECOND IMAGING DEVICE FOR INSPECTING SEMICONDUCTOR WORKPIECES.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0072], lines 10-11, “semiconductor workpiece 140” should be replaced by --first radiation source 104--.
Paragraph [0072], line 11, “light” before “at the first portion” should be replaced by --the first incident light 110--.
Paragraph [0073], line 7, --116-- should be inserted after “second detectable light”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification. The paragraph numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A semiconductor workpiece inspection system comprising:
a workpiece holder operable to hold a semiconductor workpiece;
a first channel comprising a first imaging device including a first radiation source (a positive limitation) configured to image the semiconductor workpiece on the workpiece holder
a second channel comprising a second imaging device including a second radiation source (a positive limitation) configured to image the semiconductor workpiece on the workpiece holder .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 4, wherein the photoluminescence imaging device is configured to detect photoluminescence light emitted from the semiconductor workpiece.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 4, wherein the photoluminescence imaging device comprises a photoluminescence detector configured to detect photoluminescence light emitted from the semiconductor workpiece (corresponding to claim 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 1, further comprising:
a confocal chromatic sensor configured to obtain data indicative of a distance to the semiconductor workpiece or a thickness of the semiconductor workpiece.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 8, wherein the confocal chromatic sensor is configured to be independently operable from the first imaging device and the second imaging device .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 11, wherein the birefringent contrast imaging device [[is]] comprises an optical detector (same as claim 7) configured to detect a light signal transmitted through the semiconductor workpiece.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 1, further comprising:
a fiducial structure comprising one or more fiducial markers detectable by the first imaging device and the second imaging device .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) The semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 1, further comprising:
control circuitry configured further to:
determine one or more workpiece characteristics of the semiconductor workpiece based at least in part on [[the]] a map (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the semiconductor workpiece.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19. (Proposed Amendments) A semiconductor workpiece inspection system comprising:
a photoluminescence imaging device configured to image a semiconductor workpiece by directing ultraviolet light at the semiconductor workpiece and detecting photoluminescence light emitted from the semiconductor workpiece; and
a birefringent contrast imaging device configured to image the semiconductor workpiece by directing polarized light at the semiconductor workpiece and detecting a light signal transmitted through the semiconductor workpiece.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites a limitation “the first channel is configured to be at least one of focused, tuned, or scanned without modifying the second channel” in lines 1-3. However, the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites a limitation “the first channel is configured to be adjusted independent of the second channel based on data received from the confocal chromatic sensor” in lines 1-3. However, the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 3 recites a functional limitation “the first channel is configured to be at least one of focused, tuned, or scanned without modifying the second channel” in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite because the claim does provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a workpiece holder, a first channel, and a second channel, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the semiconductor workpiece inspection system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the first channel is configured to be at least one of focused, tuned, or scanned without modifying the second channel”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a workpiece holder, a first channel, and a second channel, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the semiconductor workpiece inspection system in a certain manner.
Claim 10 recites a functional limitation “the first channel is configured to be adjusted independent of the second channel based on data received from the confocal chromatic sensor” in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite because the claim does provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the first channel is configured to be adjusted independent of the second channel based on data received from the confocal chromatic sensor”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a workpiece holder, a first channel, a second channel, and a confocal chromatic sensor, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the semiconductor workpiece inspection system in a certain manner.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 fails to recite a further limitation of the semiconductor workpiece inspection system. An inclusion of a material or an article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,006,657 B2) in view of Rao et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,630,996 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Okabe et al. disclosed a semiconductor workpiece inspection system comprising:
a first channel comprising a first imaging device (100) including a first radiation source (10) configured to image a semiconductor workpiece (W); and
a second channel comprising a second imaging device (200) including a second radiation source (110) configured to image a semiconductor workpiece (W).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the semiconductor workpiece inspection system further comprising:
a workpiece holder operable to hold a semiconductor workpiece.
Rao et al. disclosed a semiconductor workpiece inspection system comprising:
a workpiece holder (300, 408) operable to hold a semiconductor workpiece.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a workpiece holder to hold a semiconductor workpiece, since a person would be motivated to position a semiconductor workpiece at a proper position automatically for imaging the semiconductor workpiece without having to manually handling the semiconductor workpiece.
With respect to claim 2, Okabe et al. and Rao et al. disclosed the semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 1, wherein the first channel is configured to be independently adjustable from the second channel (Okabe et al.: column 4, line 63 - column 5, line 18).
With respect to claim 17, Okabe et al. and Rao et al. disclosed the semiconductor workpiece inspection system of claim 1. Since claim 17 fails to recite an additional structural limitation, claim 17 is rejected with claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, Okabe et al. disclosed a method comprising:
receiving, using a first imaging device (100), first image data of a semiconductor workpiece (W); and
receiving, using a second imaging device (200), second image data of the semiconductor workpiece; and
adjusting one or more imaging parameters (50 and 60) of the first imaging device independently of the second imaging device (column 4, line 63 - column 5, line 18).
However, Okabe et al. did not disclose that the method further comprising:
a workpiece holder operable to hold the semiconductor workpiece.
Rao et al. disclosed a semiconductor workpiece inspection system comprising:
a workpiece holder (300, 408) operable to hold a semiconductor workpiece.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a workpiece holder to hold a semiconductor workpiece, since a person would be motivated to position a semiconductor workpiece at a proper position automatically for imaging the semiconductor workpiece without having to manually handling the semiconductor workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11-16, and 18 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:
With respect to claim 19, Okabe et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,006,657 B2) disclosed a semiconductor workpiece inspection system comprising:
a photoluminescence imaging device (200) configured to image a semiconductor workpiece by directing ultraviolet light at the semiconductor workpiece and detecting photoluminescence light emitted from the semiconductor workpiece (column 6, lines 39 -59).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the semiconductor workpiece inspection system further comprising:
a birefringent contrast imaging device configured to image the semiconductor workpiece by directing polarized light at the semiconductor workpiece and detecting a light signal transmitted through the semiconductor workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leonard et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,040,355 B2) disclosed a nondestructive characterization of crystalline wafers.
Alvis et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,513,079 B2) disclosed a method and a system for an inspection of defects in wafers.
Kleinert et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,077,526 B2) disclosed a laser-processing apparatus and methods of laser-processing workpieces.
Liu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,864,599 B2) disclosed a location of an image plane in a laser-processing system.
Amanullah et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,161,881 B2) disclosed a system and a method for inspecting a wafer.
Griffiths et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,383,732 B2) disclosed a method and a system for adaptively controlling a laser-based material-processing process, and a method and a system for qualifying.
Okabe et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,006,657 B2) disclosed an optical measuring device.
Unrath (U. S. Patent No. 8,680,430 B2) disclosed controlling dynamic and thermal loads on a positioning system of a laser beam to achieve a high-throughput laser processing of features on workpieces.
Baird (U. S. Patent No. 8,198,566 B2) disclosed laser processing of workpieces containing a low-k dielectric material.
Clasen (U. S. Patent No. 7,667,834 B2) disclosed a method and a configuration for detecting material defects in workpieces.
Hummel et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,504,642 B2) disclosed photoluminescence imaging with a preferential detection of photoluminescence signals emitted from a specified material layer of a wafer or other workpieces.
Laurent et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,446,321 B2) disclosed a differential wavelength photoluminescence for non-contact measuring of contaminants and defects located below a surface of a wafer or other workpieces.
Rao et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,630,996 B2) disclosed an optical method and an apparatus for inspecting planar objects having a large area.
Seelig et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,986,753 A) disclosed a fixture for holding and orienting a wafer for optical profilometry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov