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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 22 June 2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending in the instant application where claims 1 and 7-9 have been amended, claim 5 has been cancelled, and claims 11-14 are newly added. Applicant’s amendment to the title has overcome the objection to the specification and amendments to the claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 17 April 2026. Examiner notes that applicant indicated that a correction was made to claim 6 to address a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), however, the correction does not appear in the instant claim. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 5 full size paragraphs 1-3) that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to replace Tamura’s “single, simple geometric target mark” with the asymmetric pattern of dots seen within Urano and that doing so would “completely destroy the basic principle of operation of Tamura’s alignment method”, examiner disagrees. Firstly, examiner notes that Tamura discloses multiple examples within [0058] for the form of the target pattern, which may alternatively be a through-hole, including “a geometric pattern, e.g. a circle, quadrangle, cross, concentric circle, radiation pattern, or the like” – Tamura is silent as to any requirements of size for the pattern being projected, so long as the upper and lower cameras are optically conjugate with one another, and the center of the target mark is projected on the optical axes of the lower and upper cameras (Tamura [0100]). Applicant argues that it would be “physically impossible” to complete this alignment using the asymmetric pattern of microscopic dots of Urano, and points to M (number of dots in the x direction) being about 2000 to 10000 (Urano [0059]). Examiner notes that while the entirety of the L&S pattern region 613 possesses this dimension, the patterned region 613 is made up of a minimum repeating unit region 1902 (see fig. 8), as disclosed in the previous rejection of claim 5, now incorporated into amended claim 1. Fig. 8 and [0058] disclose that the minimum repeating unit region is far smaller than the entirety of the patterned region 613 [i.e. the minimum repeating unit 1902 is not comprised of 2000 to 10000 dots in the x-direction], and therefore the incorporation of this minimum repeating unit 1902 of Urano into the probe apparatus of Tamura would not destroy the basic principle of operation of Tamura’s alignment method. The minimum repeating unit 1902 of fig. 8 also possesses a symmetry about one of the axes, further aiding in the alignment process of Tamura. Given this showing and given Tamura’s silence as to size limitations of the target pattern, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find the basic principle of operation of Tamura to be completely destroyed, as argued by applicant. For these reasons, the arguments are found unpersuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments (remarks page 7 “New Claims”), applicant’s arguments have been considered. The newly added claims 11-13 are addressed in the rejection below. With respect to claim 14, applicant argues that Urano cannot be relied upon to teach the added limitation. Examiner notes that the asymmetric arrangement of optical dots in both the x-axis and y-axis is addressed below by a revised interpretation of Urano.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 9 have rendered moot the previous interpretations of “light receiver” and “adjuster” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) set forth in the previous office action.
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 6-8 and 12 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 6, the claim recites the limitation “according to positional variations of the optical dots included in the measurement images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a plurality of measurement images in the claim. There is no recitation that more than one measurement image is obtained or obtainable, though a plurality of images (i.e. a standard image and a measurement image) is disclosed. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the stated positional variations of the optical dots are included between the standard image and the measurement image, in accordance with the language of “images” vs “image”.
Regarding claim 12, the term “ideal” within “ideal image height” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ideal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, no qualification is provided in the claim that would enable one of ordinary skill to grasp what qualifying features an “ideal image height” would possess. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that positions of the optical dots at any image height will read on the claim.
Claims 7-8 are rejected due to its dependence on the deficiency of at least claim 6, and the appearance of “measurement images” within claims 7 and 8 are treated consistently with the interpretation of the limitation in claim 6.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0161553 A1 by Muneaki Tamura et al. (herein after “Tamura”) in view of US 2020/0182804 A1 by Yuta Urano et al. (herein after “Urano”).
Regarding claim 1, Tamura discloses an adjustment method for an inspection apparatus configured to inspect an inspection object by bringing a tip of a probe disposed on a probe card into contact with an electrode disposed on the inspection object (Tamura title recites a “probe apparatus and probe method” [method]; abstract recites a probe apparatus including a probe needle [tip of a probe disposed on a probe card] which is made to contact an electrode of a device formed on a surface of the substrate [tip of probe in contact with electrode on inspection object]), comprising:
projecting, by a projector, an optical dot pattern in which optical dots are arranged (Tamura [0060] and at least fig. 3 discloses a projection optical unit 67 used to generate an optical target mark which is an image of target 65 generated by projection light source 81 [light source 81 and target 65 are considered the “projector”]; [0058] discloses the pattern may be a geometric pattern including a circle, cross, quadrangle, radiation pattern, or the like; under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, given the disclosure of radiation patterns and geometric patterns including circles, an optical dot pattern is disclosed by Tamura);
receiving the optical dots by a light receiver (Tamura [0060] and fig. 3 discloses a concave reflecting mirror 83 [light receiver] arranged opposite the projection light source 81);
capturing a standard image including the optical dots projected by the projector (Tamura [0060] discloses that an image of the target mark is obtained by at least lower camera 61 [image captured by lower camera 61 considered the “standard image”] projected by the light source 81 and target 65 [projected by projector]);
capturing a measurement image including at least two of the optical dots of the optical dot pattern received by the light receiver (Tamura [0060] discloses that an image of the target mark is obtained by the upper camera 91 [image captured by the upper camera 91 is considered the “measurement image”]; the lower camera 61 and upper camera 91 obtain an image of the same target mark [i.e. both lower and upper cameras obtain images of the optical dots (including at least two optical dots of the pattern received by the light receiver)]); and
adjusting a stage on which the inspection object is disposed, according to the standard image and the measurement image (Tamura [0101] discloses that position alignment of the lower imaging unit 35 [housing lower camera 61] mounted to a stage 7 (seen in fig. 8) where wafer W is mounted ([0028] discloses stage 7 accommodates a wafer W where the wafer is the inspection object) is performed based on the images obtained by the lower camera 61 compared with that of the upper camera 91 [adjusted according to standard and measurement images]; [0038] discloses the stage 7 is moved by Z-direction moving unit 25 on which stage is mounted, [0043] discloses that the lower imaging unit 35 is fixed to the stage 7 and moves in X, Y, and Z directions with the stage 7 – i.e. positional alignment of the lower imaging unit 35 described in [0101] is performed through adjustment of the stage itself via at least Z-direction moving unit 25).
Tamura is silent to the optical dot pattern in which optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to a predetermined axis.
However, Urano does address this limitation. Tamura and Urano are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of optical inspection devices for semiconducting wafers.
Urano discloses “projecting, by a projector, an optical dot pattern in which the optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to a predetermined axis” (Urano fig. 5 discloses an optical dot pattern which is projected onto a substrate; [0057] and fig. 8 disclose a minimum repeating unit region 1902 elongated in the Y direction; the pattern shown in repeating unit region 1902 is asymmetric in some predetermined axis [specifics regarding the predetermined axis are unspecified by the claim, such that any axis with respect to which the optical dots are asymmetrically arranged fulfills the claim]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate projecting, by a projector, an optical dot pattern in which the optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to a predetermined axis as suggested by Urano for the advantage of avoiding detection of overlapping signals of a plurality of dots via the geometry of the minimum repeating region 1902 (Urano [0062]), ensuring proper alignment for the inspection apparatus for inspecting semiconducting wafers via probe cards.
Regarding claim 2, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method according to claim 1, and further teaches the method wherein the measurement image is captured at a positional relationship in which the projector faces the light receiver (Tamura fig. 3 shows the light source 81 and target 65 [projector] facing the concave reflecting mirror 83 [light receiver]).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method according to claim 1, and further teaches the method wherein during the adjusting, a position of the stage is adjusted according to a relative position of the measurement image with respect to the standard image (Tamura [0101] discloses the positional movement of the lower imaging unit 35 [comprising the lower camera 61] and that [0043] the lower imaging unit 35 is fixed to the stage 7 and moves together with the stage [see claim 1]; the adjustment of the stage shifts the relative position of the lower imaging unit 35 [comprising lower camera 61] and upper imaging unit 43 [comprising the upper camera 91] (see figs. 3 and 8), and therefore the stage is adjusted according to the relative position of the measurement image [upper camera 91] with respect to the standard image [lower camera 61]).
Regarding claim 9, Tamura discloses an inspection apparatus for inspecting an inspection object by bringing a needle tip of a probe electrode disposed on the inspection object (Tamura title recites a “probe apparatus and probe method” [apparatus]; abstract recites a probe apparatus including a probe needle [tip of a probe disposed on a probe card] which is made to contact an electrode of a device formed on a surface of the substrate [tip of probe in contact with electrode on inspection object]), comprising:
a projector configured to project an optical dot pattern where optical dots are arranged (Tamura [0060] and at least fig. 3 discloses a projection optical unit 67 used to generate an optical target mark which is an image of target 65 generated by projection light source 81 [light source 81 and target 65 are considered the “projector”; [0058] discloses the pattern may be a geometric pattern including a circle, cross, quadrangle, radiation pattern, or the like; under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, given the disclosure of radiation patterns and geometric patterns including circles, an optical dot pattern is disclosed by Tamura; one of ordinary skill would recognize the target as being equivalent to the “diffractive optical element” of the specification given the disclosure of [0058] - “pattern corresponding to target mark [on the target 65] formed on one surface of transparent acryl plate, glass plate, or the like by a method such as deposition, coating, or the like”);
a mirror configured to receive the optical dot pattern (Tamura [0060] and fig. 3 discloses a concave reflecting mirror 83 [mirror] arranged opposite the projection light source 81);
a first camera configured to capture a standard image including the optical dot pattern projected by the projector (Tamura [0060] discloses that an image of the target mark is obtained by at least lower camera 61 [image captured by lower camera 61 considered the “standard image”] projected by the light source 81 and target 65 [projected by projector]);
a second camera configured to capture a measurement image including at least two of the optical dots of the optical dot patterns received by the mirror (Tamura [0060] discloses that an image of the target mark is obtained by the upper camera 91 [image captured by the upper camera 91 is considered the “measurement image”]; the lower camera 61 and upper camera 91 obtain an image of the same target mark [i.e. both lower and upper cameras obtain images of the optical dots (including at least two optical dots of the pattern received by the light receiver)]); and
an configured to adjust a stage on which the inspection object is disposed, according to the standard image and the measurement image (Tamura [0101] discloses that position alignment of the lower imaging unit 35 [housing lower camera 61] mounted to a stage 7 (seen in fig. 8) where wafer W is mounted ([0028] discloses stage 7 accommodates a wafer W where the wafer is the inspection object) is performed based on the images obtained by the lower camera 61 compared with that of the upper camera 91 [adjusted according to standard and measurement images]; [0038] discloses the stage 7 is moved by Z-direction moving unit 25 [adjuster] which has a motor [equivalent to the actuator, consistent with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)] on which stage is mounted, [0043] discloses that the lower imaging unit 35 is fixed to the stage 7 and moves in X, Y, and Z directions with the stage 7 – i.e. positional alignment of the lower imaging unit 35 described in [0101] is performed through adjustment of the stage itself via at least Z-direction moving unit 25),
Tamura is silent to a projector configured to project an optical dot pattern where optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to a predetermined axis.
However, Urano does address this limitation. Tamura and Urano are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of optical inspection devices for semiconducting wafers.
Urano discloses “a projector configured to project an optical dot pattern where optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to a predetermined axis” (Urano fig. 5 discloses an optical dot pattern which is projected onto a substrate; [0057] and fig. 8 disclose a minimum repeating unit region 1902 elongated in the Y direction; the pattern shown in repeating unit region 1902 is asymmetric in some predetermined axis [specifics regarding the predetermined axis are unspecified by the claim, such that any axis with respect to which the optical dots are asymmetrically arranged fulfills the claim]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate a projector configured to project an optical dot pattern where optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to a predetermined axis as suggested by Urano for the advantage of avoiding detection of overlapping signals of a plurality of dots via the geometry of the minimum repeating region 1902 (Urano [0062]), ensuring proper alignment for the inspection apparatus for inspecting semiconducting wafers via probe cards.
Regarding claim 10, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 9, and further teaches the apparatus wherein the second camera captures the measurement image with higher magnification than a magnification with which the first camera captures the standard image (under MPEP §2114 II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art – in this case, the magnification at which the measurement and standard images are obtained is a limitation drawn to what the device does, as opposed to what the device is; as Tamura is capable of capturing standard and measurement images with the first and second cameras, a recitation related to the magnification at which those images are obtained does not differentiate the limitation from the prior art).
Regarding claim 14, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method according to claim 1. Tamura is silent to the method according to claim 1, wherein the optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to an x-axis and a y-axis in an image coordinate system.
However, Urano does address this limitation.
Urano discloses the method according to claim 1, “wherein the optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to an x-axis and a y-axis in an image coordinate system” (Urano [0116]-[0117] and fig. 17 discloses the requirement of the dot pattern wherein the intervals dx and dy are set depending on the spatial resolution of the detection system, however once the minimum intervals are satisfied, the arrangement in of dots within the minimum repeating unit region 1902 are random, having no specific directionality or specific correlation distance; the arrangement shown in fig. 17 along with the disclosure of [0117] provides at least one example where the optical dots are asymmetric with respect to an x-axis and a y-axis within the image coordinate system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate wherein the optical dots are arranged asymmetrically with respect to an x-axis and a y-axis in an image coordinate system as suggested by Urano for the advantage of avoiding detection of overlapping signals of a plurality of dots via the geometry of the minimum repeating region 1902 (Urano [0062]), ensuring proper alignment for the inspection apparatus for inspecting semiconducting wafers via probe cards.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Urano and further in view of US 2020/0174040 A1 by Muneaki Tamura (herein after “Muneaki”).
Regarding claim 3, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method according to claim 1 but is silent to the method wherein the measurement image is captured with higher magnification than the standard image.
However, Muneaki does address this limitation. Tamura, Urano, and Muneaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of optical inspection devices for semiconducting wafers and/or inspection methods related to probe cards.
Muneaki discloses the method according to claim 1, “wherein the measurement image is captured with higher magnification than the standard image” (Muneaki [0027] discloses a wafer alignment unit 100 which comprises an upper camera 1A [analogous to upper camera of Tamura] which comprises low and high magnification lenses; [0036] discloses a lower camera 2A within the alignment unit 100 [analogous to the lower camera of Tamura] which also comprises low and high magnification lenses; fig. 1 shows the upper camera 1A and lower camera 2A facing each other, and a stage 2 [0035] on which lower camera is mounted and movable relative to the upper camera; [0053], [0058] discloses an image capturing method step where the stage is at a position and the lower and upper cameras obtain images where the lower camera 2A is at a high magnification mode and the upper camera 1A is not at a high magnification mode; while Tamura has disclosed obtaining the measurement image with the upper camera and not the lower camera, regardless of the nomenclature within Muneaki one image is obtained at a higher magnification than the other image – no proper distinction has been drawn between the measurement image and the standard image in this manner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura and Urano to incorporate wherein the measurement image is captured with higher magnification than the standard image as suggested by Muneaki for the advantage of enabling both high and low magnification modes when aligning an apparatus for inspecting semiconducting wafers via probe cards.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Urano, and further in view of US 2022/0034959 A1 by Osamu Arai et al. (herein after “Arai”).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the inspection method according to claim 1, and Tamura further teaches wherein during the adjusting, the stage is adjusted according to positional variations of the optical dots included in the measurement images (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; as disclosed in claim 1 above, Tamura discloses that the position alignment [adjustment of the stage] is done according to the standard image and the measurement image; [0100] discloses that the position alignment is performed such that the image obtained by lower and upper cameras 61 and 91 are optically conjugate with each other – for patterns projected via the target, a positional variation within the pattern would be seen between the two cameras when the two cameras are misaligned and not optically conjugate with each other, therefore, the stage is adjusted according to positional variations of the optical dots included in the images).
Tamura is silent to the inspection method according to claim 1, wherein during the adjusting, an inclination of the stage is adjusted.
However, Arai does address this limitation. Tamura, Urano, and Arai are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of optical inspection devices for semiconducting wafers and/or inspection methods related to probe cards.
Arai discloses the inspection method according to claim 1, wherein during the adjusting, an inclination of the stage is adjusted” (Arai [0030] and fig. 2 discloses a stage 21 on which an inspection object 100 is mounted; the stage has an adjustment mechanism 22 which adjusts a position and an inclined angle of the stage [an inclination of the stage is adjusted]; Tamura has disclosed above the adjusting related to positional variation within the images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura in view of Urano to incorporate wherein during the adjusting, an inclination of the stage is adjusted as suggested by Arai for the advantage of ensuring proper alignment of the inspection object with the probe card, therefore enabling proper connection between connector groups between the probe card 10 and the optical device 110 within inspection object 100 (Arai [0030]), an objective consistent between both Tamura and the current invention (bringing a tip of a probe disposed on a probe card into contact with an electrode [optical device 110] disposed on the inspection object, as claimed).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Urano, in view of Arai, and further in view of Muneaki.
Regarding claim 7, Tamura when modified by Urano and Arai discloses the method according to claim 6, and Tamura further teaches the method wherein the projector is fixed to the stage (Tamura fig. 3 and fig. 8 show lower imaging unit 35 within which the projection light source 81 and target 65 [taken together as the projector] are found; [0043] discloses that the lower imaging unit 35 [comprising the projector] is fixed to the stage [projector is fixed to the stage]).
Tamura when modified by Urano and Arai is silent to the method of claim 6, wherein when a vertical position of the stage varies, the measurement images are captured for respective vertical positions.
However, Muneaki does address this limitation. Tamura, Urano, Arai, and Muneaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of optical inspection devices for semiconducting wafers and/or inspection methods related to probe cards.
Muneaki discloses the method of claim 6, “wherein when a vertical position of the stage varies, the measurement images are captured for respective vertical positions” (Muneaki [0063] and fig. 1 discloses the moving mechanism Tra for the stage 2, moving the stage 2 to at least two positions and the capture of an image of the target mark [analogous to the optical pattern generated by projector of Tamura] at each position; [0041] discloses that the moving mechanism Tra moves the stage in the X, Y, and Z directions [i.e. a vertical position varying by the moving mechanism Tra]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura in view of Urano and Arai to incorporate wherein when a vertical position of the stage varies, the measurement images are captured for respective vertical positions as suggested by Muneaki for the advantage of ensuring proper alignment of the stage, wafer alignment unit, and target mark as the relative position of these features are varied, ensuring sufficient alignment for inspecting semiconducting wafers via probe cards.
Regarding claim 8, Tamura when modified by Urano, Arai, and Muneaki discloses the method according to claim 7. Tamura when modified by Urano and Arai is silent to the method according to claim 7, wherein the projector changes brightness of the optical dot pattern according to an amount of change in the vertical position of the stage.
However, Muneaki does address this limitation.
Muneaki discloses the method according to claim 7, “wherein the projector changes brightness of the optical dot pattern according to an amount of change in the vertical position of the stage” (Muneaki [0018] discloses the correspondence in brightness seen in images captured by the upper camera and lower camera, and the brightness of a lighting member [lighting member analogous to the light source in projector of Tamura]; fig. 4 discloses a method wherein images are obtained at a first and second position of the stage, and the brightness is adjusted iteratively until the output setting of the lighting member exceeds its highest value starting from the lowest output setting of the lighting member after the position change from the first position to the second position; therefore, the brightness is adjust at least based on a change in position, where change in vertical position has been demonstrated within Muneaki in the preceding claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura in view of Urano and Arai to incorporate wherein the projector changes brightness of the optical dot pattern according to an amount of change in the vertical position of the stage as suggested by Muneaki for the advantage of ensuring a high output setting of the lighting member for a camera while ensuring that the brightness of the captured image is not saturated (Muneaki [0054]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Urano, and further in view of US 2013/0002849 A1 by Kaoru Sakai et al. (herein after “Sakai”).
Regarding claim 11, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method of claim 1 but is silent to the method wherein the adjusting the stage comprises estimating a relative position of the measurement image in the standard image by template matching, and detecting a distance between a center of the standard image and the estimated relative position as a position difference.
However, Sakai does address this limitation. Tamura, Urano, and Sakai are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of optical inspection devices for semiconducting wafers.
Sakai discloses the method according to claim 1, “wherein the adjusting the stage comprises estimating a relative position of the measurement image in the standard image by template matching, and detecting a distance between a center of the standard image and the estimated relative position as a position difference” (Sakai is drawn generally to the optical inspection of semiconducting wafers; fig. 1 shows the wafer inspection apparatus, including [0085] stage 12 which supports a wafer 11 [inspection object]; it is disclosed that the stage moves while both a detected image and a reference image are obtained; [0105] discloses an image comparator 15 following methods of fig. 12 and 13 where a position shift difference is calculated [detecting distance between a center of the standard image and relative position of the measurement image]; [0006], [0008], fig. 4A-C discloses the position shift distance is obtained between a reference image and inspection image [relative position of the measurement image in the standard image by template matching (see fig. 4)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura in view of Urano to incorporate wherein the adjusting the stage comprises estimating a relative position of the measurement image in the standard image by template matching, and detecting a distance between a center of the standard image and the estimated relative position as a position difference as suggested by Sakai for the advantage of increasing the speed and sensitivity of detection by the detection means through synchronous movement of the stage (Sakai [0081]).
Regarding claim 12, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method according to claim 1 but is silent to the method further comprising compensating an optical distortion of the measurement image according to a difference between positions of the respective optical dots included in the measurement image and positions of the optical dots at an ideal image height.
However, Sakai does address this limitation.
Sakai discloses the method according to claim 1, “further comprising compensating an optical distortion of the measurement image according to a difference between positions of the respective optical dots included in the measurement image and positions of the optical dots at an ideal image height” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Sakai [0102]-[0103] discloses that a correction value is obtained related to adjusting for uneven brightness within at least two obtained images that are aligned [compensating an optical distortion of the measurement image]; as “ideal image height” may correspond to any image height in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), this described correction for uneven brightness comprises compensating an optical distortion according to the positions of features within the measurement image compared with a reference image [image obtained at an “ideal height”]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura in view of Urano to incorporate compensating an optical distortion of the measurement image according to a difference between positions of the respective optical dots included in the measurement image and positions of the optical dots at an ideal image height as suggested by Sakai for the advantage of increasing the speed and sensitivity of detection by the detection means through synchronous movement of the stage (Sakai [0081]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Urano, and further in view of US 2018/0020146 A1 by Hiroshi Yoshikawa et al. (herein after “Yoshikawa”).
Regarding claim 13, Tamura when modified by Urano discloses the method according to claim 1 but is silent to the method further comprising adjusting a brightness of the optical dot pattern according to a variation of a height of the stage to compensate for a decrease in contrast of the measurement image.
However, Yoshikawa does address this limitation. Tamura, Urano, and Yoshikawa are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems within image capturing or inspection devices.
Yoshikawa discloses the method according to claim 1, “further comprising adjusting a brightness of the optical dot pattern according to a variation of a height of the stage to compensate for a decrease in contrast of the measurement image” (Yoshikawa fig. 1 and [0058] discloses an image capturing apparatus, wherein a pattern is projected onto a target object 5 by projection unit 30 [projecting optical dot pattern of Tamura in view of Urano] and is captured by image capturing unit 20; brightness of pattern is controlled by pattern unit brightness control unit 45; [0011] discloses that as the distance to a target object change, the brightness of a captured image of the object changes proportionally to the square of the distance, so that [0014] brightness adjustment is made as distance or position of target object within the frame changes [adjusting brightness of optical dot pattern according to variation of distance, i.e. height/position of the stage/object relative to the projector]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamura in view of Urano to incorporate adjusting a brightness of the optical dot pattern according to a variation of a height of the stage to compensate for a decrease in contrast of the measurement image as suggested by Yoshikawa for the advantage of ensuring measurements obtained by the inspection apparatus are done so with high accuracy regardless of the distance or position of the target object (Yoshikawa [0014]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights