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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, It is not clear what light radiating in a “two-dimensional grid” mean since, the term is not used in the specification.
In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that the “two-dimensional grid” refers to the arrangements show in Fig. 5C and 5D, which is less of a grid but a polygon since a grid implies lines cross each other to form a series of rectangles or polygons.
Regarding claim 16, the correspondence between the elements in the claims and the elements disclosed in the specification is unclear. It seems in Fig. 6B, the primary beam is 116, the secondary beam is 606 and the tertiary beam is 618, which mean the claimed illumination optics includes the beam splitter system 106 and the plurality of beam splitters 620. However, the claim language is further directed to separate beam splitters to transmit the tertiary beams of light.
In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that the beam splitters 620 are a part of the illumination optics since it is more consistent with the disclosure although it contradicts the language of the claim.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 16 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,571. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 15 of the patent is directed to a system comprising: illumination optics to emit a plurality of beams of light (claim 15, “one or more illumination sources”), a plurality of beam splitters each configured to pass a beam of light toward a substrate and configured to receive and direct the reflected beam (“split the first beam of light and to generate two or more second beams of light, wherein the beam splitter system is configured to transmit the two or more second beams of light to impinge onto two or more first locations on top of a semiconductor substrate”), a plurality of light detection system to receive reflected light and to generate signals (“two or more beam splitters and two or more light detection systems, wherein each one of the two or more beam splitters is optically coupled to a separate light detection system, wherein each one of the two or more light detection systems is configured to receive, through a corresponding beam splitter, a separate reflected beam of light”) and a module to analyze the signals for defect on the substrate (“the analyzer module is configured to determine if a defect exists at the two or more first locations based on the two or more detected signals).
Regarding claim 2, claim 20 of the patent is directed to wherein the illumination optics comprise one or more laser sources (claim 20, “the first beam of light is a laser beam”).
Regarding claim 3, claim 20 of the patent is directed to a beam splitting system configured to split a laser beam emitted from the one or more laser sources into at least a first laser beam and a second laser beam parallel to the first laser beam (claim 20, “beams of light are parallel laser beams”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 16 of the patent is directed to an optical amplifier disposed between the one or more laser sources and the beam splitting system, wherein the optical amplifier is configured to increase an intensity of the laser beam emitted from the one or more laser sources (claim 16, “an optical amplifier coupled between the one or more illumination sources of the illumination system and the beam splitter system and configured to amplify an amplitude of a light beam of each one of the one or more illumination sources”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of the patent is directed to a system comprising: illumination optics (claim 15, “a beam splitter system”) configured to split at least one primary beam of light (claim 15, “one or more illumination sources”) into secondary beams of light (“two or more second beams of light”), and split each secondary beam of light into tertiary beams of light (“two or more beam splitters”); beam splitters positioned to transmit the tertiary beams of light toward a semiconductor substrate (“impinge onto two or more first locations on top of a semiconductor substrate”) and direct reflected beams of light resulting from impingement of the tertiary beams of light on the semiconductor substrate (“each one of the two or more light detection systems is configured to receive, through a corresponding beam splitter, a separate reflected beam of light”); illumination detectors configured to receive the reflected beams of light from the beam splitters and process the reflected beams of light into signals (“light detection systems are configured to generate a detected signal based on the received reflected beam of light”); and a control system configured to analyze the signals (“ the analyzer module is configured to determine if a defect exists at the two or more first locations based on the two or more detected signals”).
Regarding claim 17, claim 15 of the patent is directed to wherein the signals comprise images of areas of the semiconductor substrate from which the reflected beams of light are reflected (“the two or more detected signals are two or more detected images of the two or more first locations”).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,273. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 17 of the patent is directed to a system comprising: illumination optics to emit a plurality of beams of light (claim 17, “one or more illumination sources”), a plurality of beam splitters each configured to pass a beam of light toward a substrate (“impinge onto two or more first locations on top of a semiconductor substrate”, “two or more beam splitters”) and configured to receive and direct the reflected beam, a plurality of light detection system to receive reflected light (“two or more beam splitters is optically coupled to one of the two or more light detection systems, wherein each one of the two or more light detection systems is configured to receive, through a corresponding beam splitter of the two or more beam splitters”) and to generate signals (“light detection systems are configured to generate a detected signal based on the received reflected beam of light”) and a module to analyze the signals for defect on the substrate (“the analyzer module is configured to determine if a defect exists at the two or more first locations”).
Regarding claim 2, although claim 20 of the patent is not explicitly directed to wherein the illumination optics comprise one or more laser sources, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a laser source to direct the illumination beam to the substrate since a laser source for inspection is well known in the art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known type of light source on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 6, claim 19 of the patent is directed to an optical amplifier disposed between the one or more laser sources and the beam splitting system, wherein the optical amplifier is configured to increase an intensity of the laser beam emitted from the one or more laser sources (“the optical amplifier is configured to amplify an amplitude of a light beam of each one of the one or more illumination sources”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of the patent is directed to a system comprising: illumination optics configured to split at least one primary beam (“first illumnation source”) of light into secondary beams of light (“generate two or more second beams of light”), and split each secondary beam of light into tertiary beams of light (“two or more beam splitters”); beam splitters positioned to transmit the tertiary beams of light toward a semiconductor substrate (“impinging onto the two or more first locations”) and direct reflected beams of light resulting from impingement of the tertiary beams of light on the semiconductor substrate (“wherein each one of the two or more light detection systems is configured to receive, through a corresponding beam splitter of the two or more beam splitters, a reflected beam of light from one of the two or more first locations”); illumination detectors configured to receive the reflected beams of light from the beam splitters and process the reflected beams of light into signals (“one of the two or more light detection systems are configured to generate a detected signal based on the received reflected beam of light”); and a control system configured to analyze the signals (“the analyzer module is configured to determine if a defect exists at the two or more first locations”).
Regarding claim 17, claim 18 of the patent is directed to wherein the signals comprise images of areas of the semiconductor substrate from which the reflected beams of light are reflected (“beams of light to acquire two or more images of the two or more first locations, wherein the two or more detected signals are the two or more images of the two or more first locations”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections above are overcome.
Regarding claim 1, Romanovsky discloses illumination optics (110, Fig. 1) configured to emit a plurality of beams of light; a plurality of beam splitters (400, Fig. 4, para 0062, 0067, only one of the beam splitter is shown), the plurality of beam splitters being further configured to receive and direct reflected beams of light resulting from impingement of the plurality of beams of light on the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 4, para 0062, 0067); a plurality of light detection systems (130, 132, 408) configured to receive the reflected beams of light from the plurality of beam splitters and generate signals from the reflected beams of light; and a module configured to analyze the generated signals for defects on the semiconductor substrate (para 0051, 0052, 0054, 0058). Romanovsky does not disclose that the plurality of beam splitters are configured to permit at least a beam of light of the plurality of beams of light to pass therethrough during transmission of the plurality of beams of light toward a semiconductor substrate, in addition to being configured to receive and direct reflected beams of light resulting from impingement of the plurality of beams of light on the semiconductor substrate.
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 11, Romanovsky discloses a system (Fig. 1, 4) for inspection of semiconductor substrates (114) comprising: illumination optics (110) configured to split at least one beam of light into a plurality of beams of light each radiating in a first direction from separate positions in a two-dimensional grid (para 0040, “generates two or more (e.g., three) light beams 112 from that single light beam”, three beams would make a two-dimensional polygon); imaging optics (122, 124) configured to focus reflected beams of light resulting from impingement of the plurality of beams of light on the semiconductor substrate; illumination detectors (130, 132) configured to generate images of the semiconductor substrate based on the reflected beams of light focused by the imaging optics (para 0053); and a control system configured to analyze the images of the semiconductor substrate (para 0054, 0058). However, Romanovsky does not disclose beam splitters positioned to transmit the plurality of beams of light from the illumination optics toward a semiconductor substrate. The claim language recites beam splitters to transmit the plurality of beams of light from the illumination optics toward a semiconductor substrate that are additional to the illumination optics configured to split at least one beam of light into a plurality of beams of light. Romanovsky discloses illumination optics (110) to split the beam of light and to transmit the plurality of beams towards the substrate.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections above and the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above are both overcome.
Regarding claim 16, Romanovsky discloses illumination optics (110) configured to split at least one primary beam of light into secondary beams of light (112), and splitting each of the secondary beam of light into tertiary light (Fig. 4, beam splitter 400 splits reflected secondary light into tertiary light), but does not disclose beam splitters positioned to transmit the tertiary beams of light toward a semiconductor substrate and direct reflected beams of light resulting from impingement of the tertiary beams of light on the semiconductor substrate.
Wang et al. (Wang) (WO 2021/083044 and using US 2024/0264534 as translation) discloses a system (Fig. 1) for inspection of semiconductor substrates (11) comprising: illumination optics (17) configured to split at least one primary beam (1) of light into secondary beams of light (para 0039), and split secondary beam of light into tertiary beams of light (para 0040); beam splitters positioned to transmit the tertiary beams of light toward a semiconductor substrate (para 0040). However, Wang does not disclose that each of the secondary beam of light is split into tertiary beams of light. Wang discloses that only the zero-order diffracted secondary beam of light is split into tertiary beam of light by a grating beam splitter 3.
Claims 4, 5, 7-10 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the claims of the parent patents are not directed to mirror from which the second laser beam is oriented parallel to the first laser beam and a motor to move the mirror.
Regarding claim 7, the claims of the parent patents are not directed to the plurality of light detection systems comprising illumination detectors configured to determine amplitude and phase of the reflected beams of light.
Regarding claim 8, the claims of the parent patents are not directed to a plurality of test devices through which the plurality of beams of light pass before passing through the plurality of beam splitters.
Matsui et al. (Matsui) (2008/0013084) discloses a system (Fig. 1 and 2) to inspecting substrate (100) comprising a light source (11), a beam splitter (12) to split the beam and directing the separate beams to two different regions (3, 4, Fig. 2) on the substrate (para 0042, 0044, 0045). However, Matsui does not disclose a plurality of beam splitter or the beam splitter configured to receive and direct light reflected from the substrate. Matsui discloses the light reflected from the substrate and directed directly to a detection system (7, Fig. 1, 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 January 8, 2026