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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1).
Regarding independent claim 14, Kumar Roy teaches a method for surface defect inspection, the method comprising: acquiring a first topographical image of a semiconductor surface (Fig. 1, 100; [0031], “As seen in FIG. 1, an image of a layer on a wafer is generated at 100.”), wherein acquiring the first topographical image comprises using an automated sample stage (Fig. 4, 204; [0046], “The stage 204 may be configured to move or rotate in one, two, or three axes.”); processing the first topographical image, wherein the processing comprises identifying a plurality of regions in the first topographical image ([0032], “The classifier can be created or generated based on defect attributes that are extracted on SEM review images across multiple layers and/or multiple wafers (and across multiple sites, using assorted equipment).”); determining one or more feature parameter values for the plurality of regions in the first topographical image ([0033], “Defect review and classification software, such as Impact XP from KLA-Tencor Corporation, is used to determine the range of attribute values for SNVs.”); and identifying a candidate defect indicator based on the one or more feature parameter values ([0052], “For example, the controller 205 may compare the output of the detectors to a threshold. Any output having values above the threshold may be identified as a potential defect…”).
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1), in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kumar Roy teaches a method for surface defect inspection, the method comprising: obtaining topographical data from one or more portions of a semiconductor element having a surface comprising a dielectric ([0049], “The electrons are used to produce signals that contain information about the surface topography and composition of the wafer 203.”, [0043], “A wafer may include one or more layers formed upon a substrate. For example, such layers may include, but are not limited to, a photoresist, a dielectric material…”), processing the topographical data of the one or more portions of the semiconductor element to determine at least a first property (Fig. 2, (X axis is Peak Height)), computing at least one variability value for the first property; and identifying candidate defects in the one or more portions of the semiconductor element based at least in part on the at least one variability value ([0052], “For example, the controller 205 may compare the output of the detectors to a threshold. Any output having values above the threshold may be identified as a potential defect…”).
However, Kumar Roy does not teach a surface comprising a plurality of metal pads, and to determine at least a first property of the plurality of metal pads.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches a surface comprising a plurality of metal pads (Fig. 1, 290, 300; [0022], “The first and second pad patterns 300 and 290 may include a low-resistance metal material…”), and to determine at least a first property of the plurality of metal pads ([0038], “…and thus the first pad pattern 300 and surface properties of the first pad pattern 300 may be analyzed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method of Kumar Roy with the metal pads of Chang for “electrically connecting the circuit patterns” (Chang, [0003]), and for “surface analysis” (Chang, [0019]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Chang, teaches the method of Claim 1, and further teaches further comprising determining the one or more portions of the semiconductor element comprising the candidate defects and analyzing the one or more portions of the semiconductor element for one or more actual defects ([0032], “The classifier can be created or generated based on defect attributes that are extracted on SEM review images across multiple layers and/or multiple wafers (and across multiple sites, using assorted equipment).”, [0033], “This defect review and classification software may include automatic defect classification.”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1), in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1) and Gallagher (US 20210389126 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Chang, teaches the method of Claim 1, and further teaches having an automated sample stage (Fig. 4, 204; [0046], “The stage 204 may be configured to move or rotate in one, two, or three axes.”). However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the obtaining topographical data comprises operating an optical profilometry apparatus having an automated sample stage and a processing system in electrical communication with the optical profilometry apparatus for capturing and processing the topographical data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gallagher teaches wherein the obtaining topographical data comprises operating an optical profilometry apparatus and a processing system in electrical communication with the optical profilometry apparatus for capturing and processing the topographical data (Fig. 8, 801; [0049], “As shown in FIG. 8, in a first step 801, the surface of a GaN wafer is scanned via optical profilometry and the surface height of the entire wafer is mapped.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Chang with the optical profilometry of Gallagher so that the method “more accurately identifies areas on the surface of a wafer having defects” (Gallagher, [0019]).
Claim(s) 5, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1), in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1) and Kladt (US 20230304941 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Chang, teaches the method of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the at least one variability value comprises a statistical value, wherein the statistical value comprises a measure of variability or a measure of central tendency.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kladt teaches wherein the at least one variability value comprises a statistical value, wherein the statistical value comprises a measure of variability or a measure of central tendency ([0076], “This height profile is then analyzed by statistical methods like the determination of the maximum peak value and the average value (third picture).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Chang with the statistical value of Kladt so as to be “representative of certain surface defects” (Kladt, [0076]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Chang and Kladt, teaches the method of Claim 5. Kladt further teaches further comprising comparing the statistical value with a predicted statistical value ([0118], “When a novel image is acquired, it is compared against the trained model (step S7), and likely defective areas and their likely types (as existing in the training set) are detected (middle part of FIG. 4).”).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Kumar Roy teaches the method of claim 14. However, Kumar Roy does not teach further comprising computing a statistical parameter value from the one or mor feature parameter values.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kladt teaches further comprising computing a statistical parameter value from the one or mor feature parameter values ([0076], “This height profile is then analyzed by statistical methods like the determination of the maximum peak value and the average value (third picture).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method of Kumar Roy with the statistical value of Kladt so as to be “representative of certain surface defects” (Kladt, [0076]).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt, teaches the method of claim 15. Kladt further teaches further comprising identifying the statistical parameter value as the candidate defect indicator ([0076], “From this analysis, statistical parameters can then be derived which are representative of certain surface defects (not shown).”).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt, teaches the method of Claim 16. However, as previously combined, they do not teach further comprising reviewing the first topographical image after identifying the statistical parameter value as the candidate defect indicator and determining an existence of a surface defect of the semiconductor surface.
However, Kladt further teaches further comprising reviewing the first topographical image after identifying the statistical parameter value as the candidate defect indicator and determining an existence of a surface defect of the semiconductor surface ([0082], “This height profile is then analyzed for detecting certain surface defects like pinholes, craters, or bubbles (blisters) using a machine learning algorithm which has been trained before with images of similar surface defects (fourth image). A final result of the assessment is a list of the different types of surface defects to be detected together with the number of occurrences of each of these types of surface defects on the analyzed coated surface (Defect Statistics).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Kladt with the determination of a defect of Kladt so as to “enable a semantic classification and quantification of different defect types observed” (Kladt, [0085]).
Regarding dependent claim 24, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt, teaches the method of Claim 15. Kladt further teaches wherein the statistical parameter value comprises at least one of a measure of central tendency or a measure of variability ([0076], “This height profile is then analyzed by statistical methods like the determination of the maximum peak value and the average value (third picture).”).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1), in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1), Kladt (US 20230304941 A1), and Eveson (US 20140008026 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Chang, teaches the method of Claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the first property comprises at least one of a recess depth, Rv, or Rt.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eveson teaches wherein the first property comprises at least one of a recess depth, Rv, or Rt ([0046], “…and the values of crater depth are expressed as the Rv parameter defined herein…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date ot combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Chang with the recess depth of Eveson so as to analyze “the intrinsic surface roughness” (Eveson, [0038]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Chang, teaches the method of claim 1. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the topographical data comprises phase shift interferometry data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eveson teaches wherein the topographical data comprises phase shift interferometry data ([0046], “…and measured by phase shift interferometry (PSI)…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date ot combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Chang with the phase shift interferometry of Eveson so as to use a method that is “generally appropriate for smoother surfaces” (Eveson, [0073]).
Regarding dependent claim 23, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt, teaches the method of Claim 15. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the one or more feature parameter values comprise at least one of a recess depth, Rv, or Rt.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eveson teaches wherein the one or more feature parameter values comprise at least one of a recess depth, Rv, or Rt ([0046], “…and the values of crater depth are expressed as the Rv parameter defined herein…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date ot combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Kladt with the recess depth of Eveson so as to analyze “the intrinsic surface roughness” (Eveson, [0038]).
Regarding dependent claim 26, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt, teaches the method of Claim 14. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the first topographical image comprises a phase shift interferometry image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eveson teaches wherein the first topographical image comprises a phase shift interferometry image ([0046], “…and measured by phase shift interferometry (PSI)…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Chang with the phase shift interferometry of Eveson so as to use a method that is “generally appropriate for smoother surfaces” (Eveson, [0073]).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1), in view of Kladt (US 20230304941 A1), and Uzoh (US 20200126906 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt, teaches the method of claim 14. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the semiconductor surface comprises a first material and a second material and the first material is different from the second material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Uzoh teaches wherein the semiconductor surface comprises a first material and a second material and the first material is different from the second material (Fig 1C, 114, 102; [0031], “…planarizing the exposed surfaces of embedded conductive interconnect structures 114 along with the insulating (e.g., dielectric, etc.) layer 102 of the die or wafer… of the conductive material 110 (e.g., metal, for example copper) of the interconnect structures 114…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Kumar Roy and Chang with the dielectric and metal materials of the surface of Uzoh so as to “provide the desired profile and topography of the exposed surfaces of the conductive interconnect structures” (Uzoh, [0031]).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Kumar Roy, as previously modified by Kladt and Uzoh, teaches the method of Claim 18. Uzoh further teaches wherein the first material comprises a dielectric, and wherein the second material comprises a metal (Fig 1C, 114, 102; [0031], “…planarizing the exposed surfaces of embedded conductive interconnect structures 114 along with the insulating (e.g., dielectric, etc.) layer 102 of the die or wafer… of the conductive material 110 (e.g., metal, for example copper) of the interconnect structures 114…”).
Claim(s) 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (US 20210389126 A1), in view of Kladt (US 20230304941 A1), and Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1).
Regarding independent claim 35, Gallagher teaches a method for surface defect inspection, the method comprising: acquiring a plurality of optical profilometry images of a wafer and processing the plurality of optical profilometry images (Fig. 8, 801; [0049], “As shown in FIG. 8, in a first step 801, the surface of a GaN wafer is scanned via optical profilometry and the surface height of the entire wafer is mapped.”).
However, Gallagher does not teach a wafer having a surface comprising a dielectric material and a conductive material, computing one or more statistical parameters from the plurality of optical profilometry images, wherein the one or more statistical parameters comprises a first statistical parameter; comparing the first statistical parameter against a predicted value of the first statistical parameter; and determining if the wafer comprises a candidate defect after comparing the first statistical parameter against the predicted value of the first statistical parameter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kladt teaches computing one or more statistical parameters from the plurality of images, wherein the one or more statistical parameters comprises a first statistical parameter ([0076], “This height profile is then analyzed by statistical methods like the determination of the maximum peak value and the average value (third picture).”); comparing the first statistical parameter against a predicted value of the first statistical parameter; and determining if the wafer comprises a candidate defect after comparing the first statistical parameter against the predicted value of the first statistical parameter ([0082], “This height profile is then analyzed for detecting certain surface defects like pinholes, craters, or bubbles (blisters) using a machine learning algorithm which has been trained before with images of similar surface defects (fourth image). A final result of the assessment is a list of the different types of surface defects to be detected together with the number of occurrences of each of these types of surface defects on the analyzed coated surface (Defect Statistics).”), and Kumar Roy teaches a wafer having a surface comprising a dielectric material and a conductive material ([0049], “A wafer may include one or more layers formed upon a substrate. For example, such layers may include, but are not limited to, a photoresist, a dielectric material, a conductive material, and a semiconductive material.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method of Gallagher with the statistical parameters of Kladt so as to be “representative of certain surface defects” (Kladt, [0076]), and the materials of Kumar Roy so as to include “all types of such layers” (Kumar Roy, [0043]).
Regarding dependent claim 36, Gallagher, as previously modified by Kladt and Kumar Roy, teaches the method of Claim 35, and further teaches further comprising concluding the wafer comprises the candidate defect ([0054], “FIGS. 9A-9C are optical profilometry maps showing a sample RMS scan of a low-quality GaN wafer (FIG. 9A), an RMS scan showing areas of the wafer having bumps and/or pits (FIG. 9B) and an RMS scan showing areas having excessive defects (“failures”) (FIG. 9C)…”).
Regarding dependent claim 37, Gallagher, as previously modified by Kladt and Kumar Roy, teaches the method of Claim 36, and further teaches further comprising identifying a first image of the plurality of optical profilometry images of the wafer comprising the candidate defect and evaluating the first image for an actual defect ([0054], “FIGS. 9A-9C are optical profilometry maps showing a sample RMS scan of a low-quality GaN wafer (FIG. 9A), an RMS scan showing areas of the wafer having bumps and/or pits (FIG. 9B) and an RMS scan showing areas having excessive defects (“failures”) (FIG. 9C)…”).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (US 20210389126 A1), in view of Kladt (US 20230304941 A1), and Kumar Roy (US 20170040142 A1), and Uzoh (US 20200126906 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 42, Gallagher, as previously modified by Kladt and Kumar Roy, teaches the method of Claim 35. However, as previously combined, they do not teach wherein the surface further comprises a plurality of recesses, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises copper.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Uzoh teaches wherein the surface further comprises a plurality of recesses, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises copper (Fig. 1B, 104; [0030], “As shown at FIG. 1B, the cavities 104 can be filled using an electroplating bath or other technique with a conductive material 110 such as copper, for example.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the surface inspection method as described by the combination of Gallagher, Kladt, and Kumar Roy with the copper recesses of Uzoh so as to form “conductive interconnect structures” (Uzoh, [0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10982947 B2, pertaining to a method for detecting surface defects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAMES MATTABONI whose telephone number is (571)270-0766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM - 5 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at 5712707996. 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.
/TIMOTHY JAMES MATTABONI/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights