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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-8, 14-20, and new claims 21-25, in the reply filed on 03/05/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-13 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/25, 03/10/25, has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 08/02/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 14-17, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Vaez-Iravani teaches a surface scanning tool (figure 1; [0019]), comprising:
a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on a bottom surface (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface, laser 14, 16; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contains a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of element 204, [0057]);
a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface (figure 1, CCD 32 detect reflected light from surface 18; Abstract, lines 14-17; [0021], lines 7-9; [0035]; [0070], lines 7-12; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]); and
a signal analysis module configured to receive the set of reflected light and determine a surface shape of the bottom surface (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. Detecting anomalies of sample surfaces having patterns is not different from determining a surface shape).
However, Vaez-Iravani does not teach bottom surface of the tool. Cheng teaches the bottom surface of the tool, (figure 1, the bottom surface inspection 22 inspects the bottom surface of turntable 12, the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of the tool; Abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25; Column 4, lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having surface of the tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect the second surface of the tool, (Cheng, abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim 3, selection of wavelength range for a detection light beam between about 300nm to about 950nm or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate wavelength range for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 5, Vaez-Iravani teaches the signal analysis module determines the surface shape is normal/abnormal in response to determining that the set of light reflected off the tool includes major reflected light signals (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312; [0058], [0068], lines 4-8. Detecting anomalies of sample surfaces having patterns is not different from determining a surface shape. The sample surface without anomalies is normal, and sample surface with anomalies is abnormal).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Vaez-Iravani teaches the signal analysis module is further configured to trigger an action (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. To prevent the scattering from the patterns may overwhelm signals from anomalies or to inspect the entire surface or to determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from to trigger an action).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Vaez-Iravani teaches the laser is further configured to irradiate the bottom surface of the element (figure 1, surface 18, laser 14, 16. It is inherent that the backside inspection system 206 in Vaez-Iravani’s figure 10 must contains a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of the element 204 and to determine a surface shape of the bottom surface of the element 204, [0057]).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Vaez-Iravani teaches a method for scanning a bottom surface ([0012]), comprising:
providing the bottom surface (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface; Figure 10, Present system for backside inspection 206 to inspect the bottom surface of element 204);
scanning the bottom surface with a surface scanning (Figure 10, Present system for backside inspection 206 to scan the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]), wherein the surface scanning includes a scanning and a signal analysis module (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]);
determining, by the signal analysis module, a surface shape of the bottom surface (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. Detecting anomalies of sample surfaces having patterns is not different from determining a surface shape); and
performing an action based on the determined surface shape (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. To prevent the scattering from the patterns may overwhelm signals from anomalies or to inspect the entire surface or to determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from performing an action).
However, Vaez-Iravani does not teach bottom surface of the tool. Cheng teaches the bottom surface of the tool, (figure 1, the bottom surface inspection 22 inspects the bottom surface of turntable 12, the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of the tool; Abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25; Column 4, lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having surface of the tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect the second surface of the tool, (Cheng, abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Vaez-Iravani teaches the scanning tool includes a laser and a detector and scanning the bottom surface further comprises: illuminating the bottom surface with a narrow beam of light from the laser (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface, narrow laser 16, 20; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contains a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of element 204, [0057]); receiving at the detector a set of reflected light from the bottom surface (figure 1, CCD 32 detect reflected light from surface 18; Abstract, lines 14-17; [0021], lines 7-9; [0035]; [0070], lines 7-12; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]); and transmitting the set of reflected light to the signal analysis module (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Vaez-Iravani teaches the surface shape is determined to be normal in response to determining that the set of reflected light includes major reflected light and wherein the surface shape is determined to be abnormal in response to determining that the set of reflected light includes scattered light ([0058, 0068]. To determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from the surface shape being determined to be normal or abnormal).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Vaez-Iravani teaches a camera and scanning the bottom surface further comprises: taking an image of the bottom surface; and sending the image to the signal analysis module (figures 1, 12, CCD 32 is not different from a camera taking an image of the bottom surface and sending the image to computer 312).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Vaez-Iravani teaches detecting a feature to be placed on a wafer surface (figure 10, wafer 204).
6. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Bills et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0186362). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Bills”.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a display device configured to display a visual representation of the bottom surface of the tool, wherein the visual representation is generated by the signal analysis module. Bills teaches a display device configured to display a visual representation of the surface of the tool, wherein the visual representation is generated by the signal analysis module, ([0503], lines 1-11; [0605]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani and Cheng by having a display device in order to show the surface of the inspected element.
7. Claim(s) 7, 18, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0246974). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Choi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 19, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 6, or 14 as stated above except for in response to determining that the surface shape is normal the action includes: continuing use of the tool; in response to determining that the surface shape is abnormal the action includes at least one of: transmitting a warning signal; stopping use of the tool; initiating a cleaning cycle of the tool; or rescanning the bottom surface. Choi teaches to trigger an action in response to determining that the surface shape is normal the action includes: continuing use of the tool; in response to determining that the surface shape is abnormal the action includes at least one of: transmitting a warning signal; stopping use of the tool; initiating a cleaning cycle of the tool; or rescanning the bottom surface, ([0046, 0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani and Cheng by to triggering an action, transmitting a warning signal in order to improve detection ([0046, 0054]).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teach all the limitations of claims 14, 17 as stated above except for to determining that a similarity value between the image and a baseline image meets a threshold value and wherein the surface shape is determined to be abnormal in response to determining that the similarity value between the image and the baseline image is below the threshold value. Choi teaches to determining that a similarity value between the image and a baseline image meets a threshold value and wherein the surface shape is determined to be abnormal in response to determining that the similarity value between the image and the baseline image is below the threshold value, ([0040, 0133, 0140]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani and Cheng by having a threshold value in order to analyze to find a defect (Choi, [0040, 0103, 0133, 0140]).
8. Claim(s) 21-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Freifeld (U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,489). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Freifeld”.
Regarding Claim(s) 21, Vaez-Iravani teaches a method for detecting a defect on a bottom surface ([0012]), comprising:
illuminating the bottom surface with a laser (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface, laser 14, 16; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contains a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of element 204, [0057]);
receiving, at a detector, reflected light signals and scattered light signals from the bottom surface (figure 1, CCD 32 detect reflected scattered light from surface 18; Abstract, lines 14-17; [0021], lines 7-9; [0035]; [0070], lines 7-12; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]);
analyzing, by a signal analysis module, the reflected light signals and the scattered light signals to determine whether the bottom surface includes the defect (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]); and
triggering a mitigation action in response to determining that the bottom surface includes the defect, (figures 12, 13, 14; [0058, 0068]. To prevent the scattering from the patterns may overwhelm signals from anomalies or to inspect the entire surface or to determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from triggering a mitigation action).
However, Vaez-Iravani does not teach bottom surface of a pick-and-place tool. Cheng teaches the bottom surface of the tool, (figure 1, the bottom surface inspection 22 inspects the bottom surface of turntable 12, the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of the tool; Abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25; Column 4, lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having bottom surface of the tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect the second surface of the tool, (Cheng, abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25). Freifeld teaches a pick-and-place tool (figure 7; Column 9, lines 14-27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having a pick-and-place tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect surface of a specific tool.
Regarding Claim 22, selection of a photodetector sensitive to wavelengths in a range of about 300 nm to about 950 nm or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate a photodetector sensitive for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
9. Claim(s) 23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Freifeld (U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,489), further in view of Prakapenka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0102577). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Freifeld”, “Prakapenka”.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for stopping the pick- and-place tool from picking and placing electrical component. Prakapenka teaches stopping the pick- and-place tool from picking and placing electrical component ([0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld by stopping the pick- and-place tool in order to elaborately construct inspection facilities the lateral surfaces of the component, (Prakapenka, [0004]).
10. Claim(s) 24, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Freifeld (U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,489), further in view of Bills et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0186362). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Freifeld”, “Bills”.
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for generating a visual representation of the bottom surface on a display device, wherein the visual representation includes an indicator to identify a location of the defect. Bill teaches generating a visual representation of the bottom surface on a display device, wherein the visual representation includes an indicator to identify a location of the defect ([0482, 0484, 0492]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld by having display device in order to indicate the location of the defect, (Bill, [0482, 0484, 0492]).
Regarding Claim(s) 25, Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the defect comprises a protrusion or a contamination on the bottom surface. Bill teaches the defect comprises a protrusion or a contamination on the bottom surface ([0550, 0586]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld by having the defect comprising a protrusion or a contamination on the bottom surface in order to identify the extent of the contribution of surface roughness, (Bill, [0550, 0586]).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
April 2, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights