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 Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “step of” in claim 22
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1,6-7,14,19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHECKA et al. US 20220309637(hereinafter Checka),in view of YOON et al. US 20230080612(hereinafter Yoon)
Regarding claim 1, Checka provides for a processor ( Fig.1,[0029], see image processing state 102), wherein the processor acquires first information including information on severity of a discontinuity obtained by analyzing an image obtained by imaging an object ( see [0029], see “ The image processing stage 102 can receive an input substrate image 108 as well as a reference substrate image 110 and can compare the two images to determine differences. These differences can be further processed to identify potential defects”), calculates a distribution of the severity of the discontinuity based on the first information, acquires information on a threshold value of a defect ( see [0052], see “Once the autoencoder is trained, the autoencoder can be used to detect whether an input image has a defect or does not have a defect based on the value of the reconstruction error being above or below a threshold value (which can be selected based on the implementation)”), generates second information in which the distribution of the severity of the discontinuity and the threshold value are displayed, and displays the second information ( see Fig.13, see “[0069] The region detector 1310 can display visual indications of the presence of defects in regions of interest in the substrate. The region detector 310 includes a Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324, a region masking stage 1326, and a binarization and morphology stage 1328. The Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324 aligns the images of the defects with the image of the substrate. In particular, the database 128 provides not only the images of the defects, but also the size and locations of those defects in the reference substrate image 110. The Gerber file of the reference substrate image 110 can include information of various layers and their locations on the substrate”).
Checka does not provide for calculates a distribution of the severity of the discontinuity based on the first information. Yoon teaches the above missing limitation of Checka, see [0087] of Yoon, see “In particular, by inputting a plurality of photographed images to the defect detection model as a set, the defect detection model may additionally determine the type, depth, distribution, and the like of a defect by comprehensively analyzing the plurality of photographed images”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Yoon with the system and method of Checka , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via the defect detection model of Yoon, a finding that one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Checka provides for, wherein the processor acquires the first information of a plurality of the objects, receives designation of the object of which the second information is to be displayed, and displays the second information of the designated object ( see Fig.13, see “[0069] The region detector 1310 can display visual indications of the presence of defects in regions of interest in the substrate. The region detector 310 includes a Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324, a region masking stage 1326, and a binarization and morphology stage 1328. The Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324 aligns the images of the defects with the image of the substrate. In particular, the database 128 provides not only the images of the defects, but also the size and locations of those defects in the reference substrate image 110. The Gerber file of the reference substrate image 110 can include information of various layers and their locations on the substrate”).
Regarding claim 7, Checka does not provide for , wherein the processor receives designation of the plurality of objects, and generates the second information in which the distributions of the severity of the discontinuity of the designated plurality of objects are displayed. Yoon teaches the above missing limitation of Checka see [0087] of Yoon, see “In particular, by inputting a plurality of photographed images to the defect detection model as a set, the defect detection model may additionally determine the type, depth, distribution, and the like of a defect by comprehensively analyzing the plurality of photographed images”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Yoon with the system and method of Checka , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via the defect detection model of Yoon, a finding that one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, Checka provide for, wherein the first information includes the image, and the processor generates the second information in which the image is further displayed. ( See Fig.13, see “[0069] The region detector 1310 can display visual indications of the presence of defects in regions of interest in the substrate. The region detector 310 includes a Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324, a region masking stage 1326, and a binarization and morphology stage 1328. The Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324 aligns the images of the defects with the image of the substrate. In particular, the database 128 provides not only the images of the defects, but also the size and locations of those defects in the reference substrate image 110. The Gerber file of the reference substrate image 110 can include information of various layers and their locations on the substrate”).
Regarding claim 19, Checka provide for, wherein the severity of the discontinuity is any of a length, an area, a degree of distortion, a sharpness of a shape, or a density of the discontinuity. ( See Fig.13, see “[0069] The region detector 1310 can display visual indications of the presence of defects in regions of interest in the substrate. The region detector 310 includes a Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324, a region masking stage 1326, and a binarization and morphology stage 1328. The Gerber-PCB registration stage 1324 aligns the images of the defects with the image of the substrate. In particular, the database 128 provides not only the images of the defects, but also the size and locations of those defects in the reference substrate image 110. The Gerber file of the reference substrate image 110 can include information of various layers and their locations on the substrate”).
Regarding claim 22, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 22. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Regarding claim 23, Checka provide for, a computer-readable tangible recording medium on which a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the information processing method (see [0075], see “one or more components of computer program instructions, encoded on computer storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHECKA et al. US 20220309637(hereinafter Checka),in view of YOON et al. US 20230080612(hereinafter Yoon), further in view of Safai et al. US 20060055400.
Regarding claim 17, Checka as modified by Yoon does not provide for, wherein the image is a radiation transmission image. Safai teaches the above missing limitation of Checka as modified by Yoon,
See [0016], of Safai, see “One of the probes may include a display communicably coupled to the x-ray detector for presenting x-ray inspection images captured by the x-ray detector. A probe may also include a wireless transmitter communicably coupled to the x-ray detector for transmitting x-ray inspection data captured by the x-ray detector”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Safai, with the system and method of Checka as modified by Yoon , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via “one of the probes may include a display communicably coupled to the x-ray detector for presenting x-ray inspection images captured by the x-ray detector”, a finding that one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHECKA et al. US 20220309637(hereinafter Checka),in view of YOON et al. US 20230080612(hereinafter Yoon), further in view of Flores-Lira US 6520018.
Regarding claim 18, Checka as modified by Yoon does not provide for , wherein a type of the discontinuity is any of a gas hole, a porosity, an FMLD, or an FMMD. Flores-Lira teaches the above missing limitation of Checka as modified by Yoon, see col.5 Lines 25-29 of Flores-Lira. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Flores-Lira with the system and method of Checka as modified by Yoon , in order to obtain the claimed invention, via detecting defects such as pores, flaws, porosity and cracks, a finding that one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,8-13,15-16 and 20-21 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of CHECKA et al. US 20220309637(hereinafter Checka),in view of YOON et al. US 20230080612(hereinafter Yoon), further in view of Flores-Lira US 6520018 and Safai et al. US 20060055400, either alone or combined failed to teach or suggest for features/limitations of claims 2-5,8-13,15-16 and 20-21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richter US 20120053723, is cited because the reference teaches “[0003] Semiconductor manufacturing steps may be tested using a variety of test processes and procedures at many stages of the semiconductor manufacturing process. An e-beam defect density inspection device is designed to detect randomly distributed defects on one structured wafer”.
Yamashita et al. US 20090161943, is cited because the reference teaches “ claim 4. The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display unit can display a graph having an axis which indicates a characteristic quantity of the defect candidate group and another axis which indicates frequency”.
Honda et al. US 20040234120, is cited because the reference teaches “for example. A reference numeral 802 shows the time-series change of the number of the defects detected per wafer described in the monitoring rule (1). Reference numerals 803 and 804 both show the number of defects as a result of detection where any characteristic patterns are observed in the defect position distribution detected per wafer”. In [0052].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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 Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights