Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the 9/17/2024 communication(s). As per the claims filed 8/09/2024:
Claims 1-41 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 36, 40, 41 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
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: “an end effector module configured to”, “a pluck module configured to”, “an alignment module configured to”, “a chuck module configured to”, “ a stage module configured to” in claim 1.
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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 18-22, 24, 31, 32, 35-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randolph Griffith et al (US PG Pub No. US2019/0257741; Published: 08/22/2019)(hereinafter: Griffith).
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Griffith discloses an apparatus for positioning a wafer, the apparatus comprising:
an end effector module configured to retrieve the wafer from an indexer, [[0042]end effector 150 can transfer the wafer from the cassette storage to pre-aligner 130 for alignment,] wherein the wafer comprises an alignment feature; a pluck module configured to (i) receive the wafer from the end effector module and (ii) rotate the wafer to a predetermined orientation [[0035]Pre-aligner 130 can be used for orienting and/or centering a wafer or other suitable specimen so that the specimen is properly oriented and centered when it is placed on chuck 200 for examination. In some embodiments, pre-aligner 130 can use an indicator, for example a notch (e.g., on wafers 200 MM or greater) or a flat (e.g., on wafers less than 200 MM) to orient the wafer so that the wafer is placed on the stage with a specific orientation];
an alignment module configured to use the alignment feature to determine a virtual center of the wafer during rotation of the wafer by the pluck module [[0035] Pre-aligner 130 can rotate the wafer up to 360 degrees to find the indicator];
a chuck module configured to releasably hold the wafer after retrieval from the pluck module at the predetermined orientation of the wafer [[0035] Pre-aligner 130 can be used for orienting and/or centering a wafer or other suitable specimen so that the specimen is properly oriented and centered when it is placed on chuck 200 for examination…[0042] end effector 150 can transfer the wafer from the cassette storage to pre-aligner 130 for alignment, from pre-aligner 130 to chuck 200 for examination,];
a stage module operatively coupled to at least the chuck module, wherein the stage module is configured to move the chuck module proximate to an inspection station based at least on using the virtual center of the wafer [[0032] an XY translation stage can be used for stage 115. The XY translation stage can be driven by stepper, servo, linear motor, and/or any other suitable mechanism. [0033] as shown in FIG. 1A, stage 115 and chuck 200 of automated microscopic examination station 110 can be mounted to isolation platform 135 located above a base platform 157 of the cabinet housing.]; and
a controller module configured to control at least the end effector module, the pluck module, the chuck module, and the stage module for positioning the wafer [[0041] all settings, communications, and operations of the robotic wafer handling system can be controlled by software, hardware and/or firmware.].
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses wherein the chuck module comprises:a chuck configured to releasably hold the wafer using a pattern of independently addressable vacuum grooves operatively coupled to a vacuum source; and a controller module configured to collectively operate the chuck and the vacuum source. [[0057] removable wafer insert 205 and chuck 200 can include multiple vacuum channels (e.g., vacuum ring 305 and outer vacuum channel 310 as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B) for providing vacuum pressure at various locations on chuck 200 to hold a specimen firmly in place during examination. The vacuum configuration for chuck 200 can provide any suitable vacuum pressure for the type of specimen being examined. [0058] he vacuum can be supplied via vacuum valves 315 and 316, which, in some embodiments, can be located along the outer edge of chuck 200 so as not to interfere with the vacuum supply when removable wafer insert 205 is removed from chuck 200. Vacuum valves 315 and 316 can be coupled (e.g., via a hose) with a vacuum source, which can be located in some embodiments within inspection system 100. In some embodiments, both vacuum valves 315 and 316 can be open when a wafer is placed on chuck 200 and provide vacuum flow to both vacuum ring 305 and outer vacuum channel 310].
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, which depends on claim 18, Griffith discloses wherein a vacuum module is configured to control the vacuum source to adjust a vacuum pressure to each pattern of the pattern of independently addressable vacuum grooves based at least on a size of the wafer [[0057] In some embodiments, removable wafer insert 205 and chuck 200 can include multiple vacuum channels (e.g., vacuum ring 305 and outer vacuum channel 310 as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B) for providing vacuum pressure at various locations on chuck 200 to hold a specimen firmly in place during examination. The vacuum configuration for chuck 200 can provide any suitable vacuum pressure for the type of specimen being examined.].
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, which depends on claim 18, Griffith discloses wherein a diameter of the chuck is equal to or greater than a diameter of the wafer [[0058] vacuum ring 305 can be located on removable wafer insert 205 and outer vacuum channel 310 can be located in outer wafer support surface 206. The vacuum can be supplied via vacuum valves 315 and 316, which, in some embodiments, can be located along the outer edge of chuck 200 so as not to interfere with the vacuum supply when removable wafer insert 205 is removed from chuck 200. Vacuum valves 315 and 316 can be coupled (e.g., via a hose) with a vacuum source, which can be located in some embodiments within inspection system 100. In some embodiments, both vacuum valves 315 and 316 can be open when a wafer is placed on chuck 200 and provide vacuum flow to both vacuum ring 305 and outer vacuum channel 310. In some embodiments, when a photomask, which can have a smaller surface area than a wafer, is placed on chuck 200, then only vacuum valve 316 can be opened to provide sufficient vacuum support to vacuum cups 240 for providing vacuum support to a photomask.]. Vacuum ring 305 and 310 are of a diameter equal or greater than that of a wafer or a smaller photomask.
Claim 21:
As per claim 21, which depends on claim 18, Griffith discloses wherein the chuck is (i) rotationally fixed relative to a vertical axis of the stage module, (ii) translationally fixed relative to a plane of the stage module, or both (i) and (ii) [[0029] a stage 115 and a chuck 200 coupled to the stage 115. From fig 1 the chuck is fixed relative toa a vertical axis of the stage 115].
Claim 22:
As per claim 22, which depends on claim 18, Griffith discloses wherein the chuck module is configured to be interchangeable with another chuck module of the same type [[0007] chicks are available in different configurations].
Claim 24:
As per claim 24, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses further comprising a power module configured to power the apparatus [[0009] fig 1a-1b shows the apparatus, a power module is implicit].
Claim 31:
As per claim 31, which depends on claim 30, Griffith discloses wherein aligning the wafer comprises aligning the wafer to an orientation of the structures. Griffith, [[0035] Pre-aligner 130 can be used for orienting and/or centering a wafer or other suitable specimen so that the specimen is properly oriented and centered when it is placed on chuck 200 for examination].
Claim 32:
As per claim 32, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses wherein the alignment feature comprises a flat of the wafer or a notch of the wafer [[0035] pre-aligner 130 can use an indicator, for example a notch (e.g., on wafers 200 MM or greater) or a flat (e.g., on wafers less than 200 MM) to orient the wafer so that the wafer is placed on the stage with a specific orientation.].
Claim 35:
As per claim 35, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to fit inside a portion of the inspection station. [0065] FIG. 5, with further reference to FIGS. 1-4, shows at a high level, a wafer loading operation 500 of inspection system 100, in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. The wafer loading process 500 can use inspection system 100
Claim 36:
As per claim 36, as per independent claim 36, it recites a system broader in scope to that of claim 1, therefore Griffith anticipates all limitations of the system of claim 36 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 37:
As per claim 37, Griffith discloses further comprising an alignment module configured to determine a virtual center of the wafer [[0035] Pre-aligner 130 can be used for orienting and/or centering a wafer or other suitable specimen so that the specimen is properly oriented and centered when it is placed on chuck 200 for examination].
Claim 38:
As per claim 38, Griffith discloses further comprising a stage module configured to move at least the chuck module proximate to an inspection station based at least on using the virtual center of the wafer. [[0032] an XY translation stage can be used for stage 115. The XY translation stage can be driven by stepper, servo, linear motor, and/or any other suitable mechanism. [0033] as shown in FIG. 1A, stage 115 and chuck 200 of automated microscopic examination station 110 can be mounted to isolation platform 135 located above a base platform 157 of the cabinet housing].
Claim 39:
As per claim 39, Griffith discloses further comprising a controller module configured to control at least the end effector module, the chuck module, the pluck module, and the stage module [[0041] all settings, communications, and operations of the robotic wafer handling system can be controlled by software, hardware and/or firmware.]..
Claim 40:
As per claim 40, it recites the method executed by the system of claim 36, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 36 above.
Claim 41:
As per claim 41, it recites a computer program product for positioning a wafer, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising the steps executed by the system of claim 36, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 36 above
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Yiteng Wang (US PG Pub No. 2023/0036587; Published: 02/02/2023)(hereinafter: Wang).
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses an optical sensor for sensing a wafer insert but failed to specifically disclose where the alignment module comprises: an optical sensor configured to detect the alignment feature; and a controller module configured to use at least the alignment feature for determining the virtual center of the wafer, wherein at least the virtual center of the wafer is used to align the wafer to the inspection station.
Wang, in the same field of wafer centering discloses these limitations in that [[0020] When a center of the wafer 3 coincides with a central position of the vacuum suction tube 2, at this point, a position of the wafer 3 is not offset relative to the vacuum suction tube 2, and therefore is not required to be adjusted [0022] the detector includes a plurality of photoelectric sensor groups 41, which are disposed in a circumferential array around the center of the vacuum suction tube 2, and a connecting line between the two photoelectric sensor groups 41 passes through the center of the vacuum suction tube 2 and is arranged centrosymmetrically. Each photoelectric sensor group 41 includes a plurality of photoelectric sensors 411 with different distances from the center of the vacuum suction tube 2. The photoelectric sensors 411 of each photoelectric sensor group 41 are located in a range with the center of the vacuum suction tube 2 as a circle center and a radius of the wafer 3 as a radius].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s centering method to include an optical sensor configured to detect the alignment feature; and a controller module configured to use at least the alignment feature for determining the virtual center of the wafer, wherein at least the virtual center of the wafer is used to align the wafer to the inspection station as disclosed by Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a wafer alignment device to solve the problem that conventional devices are unable to perform adjustment according to a wafer offset, so as to prevent a collision when a manipulator is grabbing a wafer (0006).
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, which depends on claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15 above. Additionally, Griffith and Wang disclose wherein the optical sensor comprises a photoelectric sensor. Wang. [0022 sensor is photoelectric].
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, which depends on claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15 above. Additionally, Griffith and Wang disclose wherein the alignment module is configured to be interchangeable with another alignment module of the same type. Wang [[0022-0023] there are a plurality of photoelectric sensor groups of the same type].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Masaki Hasegawa et al (US Patent No: 8502141; Date of Patent: 08/06/2013)(hereinafter: Hasegawa).
Claim 25:
As per claim 25, which depends on claim 1, Griffith failed to specifically disclose comprising a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to allow a user to (i) train the apparatus to move along one or more motion paths between one or more positions or (ii) manually control the apparatus to move along the one or more motion paths between the one or more positions.
Hasegawa in the same field of wafer inspection discloses this limitation in that [[col 8-9 lines 67-8] Conditions for inspection operations inputted by the user through the user interface device 118 are sent to the inspection apparatus controller 117. In this embodiment, the inspection apparatus controller 117 is provided with a condition conversion part 801. Conditions inputted through the user interface device with a monitor 118 are values of the pixel size D, inspection speed S, TDI camera image acquisition cycle P, and size of the field of view L. The moving speed Vs of the wafer stage 108 is calculated on the basis of those values.]. Motion path speed is calculated based on values inputted by the user on the user interface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s inspection apparatus to include a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to allow a user to manually control the apparatus to move along the one or more motion paths between the one or more positions as disclosed by Hasegawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an interface to allow a user quickly and reliably change values, thus increasing efficiency.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Lin, US PG Pub No. US2021/0249298 Published: 08/12/2021
Claim 26:
As per claim 26, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses wafer inspection but failed to specifically disclose wherein the inspection station is configured to perform metrology comprising thin film measurements or critical dimension measurements.
Lin, in the same field of semiconductor wafer fabrication discloses this limitation in that [[0025] the semiconductor fabrication equipment 102 facilitates one or more of optical metrology, e-beam metrology, spectroscopic metrology, image processing, imaging inspection, etc. According to some embodiments, the semiconductor fabrication equipment 102 facilitates one or more of patterned wafer inspection, unpatterned wafer inspection, reticle inspection, photomask inspection, film analysis, surface measurement yield analysis].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s inspection apparatus to configure it to perform metrology comprising thin film measurements or critical dimension measurements as disclosed by Lin. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an apparatus capable of performing more than basic inspection and manufacturing, thus increasing efficiency.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Shuhel Nemoto et al (US PG Pub No. US20240071793; Published: 02/29/2024)(hereinafter: Nemoto).
Claim 27:
As per claim 27, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses [0042] end effector 150 can transfer the wafer from the cassette storage to pre-aligner 130 for alignment, from pre-aligner 130 to chuck 200 for examination, and from chuck 200 back to the cassette storage when examination of the wafer is complete. However, Griffith does not disclose the storage(indexer) comprises a standard mechanical interface (SMIF) indexer.
Nemoto, in the same field of wafer processing discloses this limitation in that [[0029] The indexer station 120 includes a container holder 121 capable of holding a plurality of containers C for housing the substrates W (FOUPs (Front Opening Unified Pods), SMIF (Standard Mechanical Interface) pods, OCs (Open Cassettes) for housing a plurality of the substrates W in a sealed state), and an indexer robot 122 for taking out an unprocessed substrate W from the container C by accessing the container C held by the container holder 121 and housing a processed substrate W in the container C. A plurality of the substrates W are housed substantially in a horizontal posture in each container C.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s cassette to replace it with a standard mechanical interface (SMIF) indexer as disclosed by Nemoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an indexer based on a well-known standard in order to protect the wafers to be inspected and processed.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Martin Weiss et al (US PG Pub No. US2009/0002706; Published: 01/01/2009)(hereinafter: Weiss).
Claim 28:
As per claim 28, which depends on claim 1, Griffith failed to specifically disclose wherein the wafer comprises a fabricated pattern of grating arrays having more than one orientation of the arrays.
Weiss, in the same field if a wafer alignment system discloses this limitation in that [[claim 10] detect alignment of a wafer, comprising: forming a first grating pattern in a region of the wafer during a fabrication process, the first pattern including a plurality of gratings oriented in a first direction; forming a second grating pattern in a region of the wafer during a fabrication process, the second pattern including a plurality of gratings oriented in a second direction, different from the first direction; directing radiation onto a surface of a wafer…detecting an orientation of the wafer using a characteristic of radiation reflected from the first region and the second region.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s alignment system such that the wafer comprises a fabricated pattern of grating arrays having more than one orientation of the arrays as disclosed by Weiss. The motivation for doing so would have been to use grating as an alignment method to generate more accurate alignment of the wafer.
Claim 29:
As per claim 29, which depends on claim 28, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 28 above. Additionally, Griffith and Weiss disclose wherein aligning the wafer comprises aligning the wafer to an orientation of the arrays[[claim 10] detect alignment of a wafer, comprising: forming a first grating pattern in a region of the wafer during a fabrication process, the first pattern including a plurality of gratings oriented in a first direction; forming a second grating pattern in a region of the wafer during a fabrication process, the second pattern including a plurality of gratings oriented in a second direction, different from the first direction; directing radiation onto a surface of a wafer…detecting an orientation of the wafer using a characteristic of radiation reflected from the first region and the second region.].
Claim 30:
As per claim 30, which depends on claim 1, Griffith failed to specifically disclose wherein the wafer comprises a fabricated pattern of waveguide structures having more than one orientation of the structures.
Weiss, in the same field if a wafer alignment system discloses this limitation in that [[0028] Referring to FIG. 5, at operations 510, a first grating pattern is formed on the surface of the wafer. For example, the first grating pattern may be formed using a first lithographic etching process. The first grating pattern includes a plurality of gratings oriented in a first direction. At operation 515 a second grating pattern is formed on the surface of the wafer. For example, the second grating pattern may be formed using a second lithographic etching process. The second grating pattern includes a plurality of gratings oriented in a second direction. In some embodiments the first direction and the second direction are substantially orthogonal. In other embodiments, the first direction and the second direction need not be perfectly orthogonal; rather, minor deviations from orthogonal may be implemented. In some embodiments, the first grating pattern has a pitch that is less than the wavelength of the radiation generated by radiation source 132.]
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Akira Nishioka et al (US PG Pub No. 2024/0385539; Priority: 05/16/2023)(hereinafter: Nishioka).
Claim 33:
As per claim 33, which depends on claim 1, Griffith discloses wafers having a 200mm diameter but failed to specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to align the wafer having a thickness of at most about 2.0 millimeters (mm), 1.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.5 mm, or less.
Nishioka, in the same field of wafer inspection, discloses [[0030] thickness of such wafers is typically less than 1 mm.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s apparatus to configure it to align the wafer having a thickness of at most about 2.0 millimeters (mm), 1.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.5 mm, or less as disclosed by Nushioka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a wafer alignment device that works with standard wafers, thus simplifying the inspection process.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Carsten Von Koblinski et al (US PG Pub No. 2016/0315154; Published: 10/27/2016)(hereinafter: Von Koblinski).
Claim 34:
As per claim 34, which depends on claim 1, Griffith failed to specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to align the wafer having a variation in thickness across a surface of the wafer of at most about 200 micrometers (pm), 150 pm, 100 pm, 50 pm, or less.
Von Koblinski, in the same field of wafer processing discloses this limitation in that [[0054] In particular, the TTV may be below 2 micrometer, e.g. between 1 and 2 micrometer or even between 0.5 micrometer and 2 micrometer. For example, the term “total thickness variation” or TTV may be defined to be the thickness difference of a given region, in particular the total area or surface, of the planarized semiconductor wafer].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Griffith’s apparatus to configure it to align the wafer having a variation in thickness across a surface of the wafer of at most about 200 micrometers (pm), 150 pm, 100 pm, 50 pm, or less as disclosed by Von Koblinski. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a wafer alignment device that works with standard wafers, thus simplifying the inspection process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 5, 23 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: The prior art of record alone or in any reasonable combination failed to disclose the limitation of dependent claims 2, 5, 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights