DETAILED ACTION
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the response filed for the
current application that is submitted on 08/17/2026. The United States Patent & Trademark
Office reviewed the following documents submitted and has made the following comments
below.
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 08/17/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JAPAN 2023-141686 dated 08/31/2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 08/28/2024 and 05/30/2025 have been considered and placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 1- 21 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments:
In regards to the argument on Argument 1, Applicant/s state/s “Regarding the controller, Applicant submits that that the term should not be interpreted under 112(f). As stated in MPEP 2181, "If persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks")" As also noted in MPEP 2181, examples of terms found not to invoke 112(f) include "circuit", "digital detector". In this case, "controller" is a well-known, established class of electronic control hardware in the lithographic arts. One having ordinary skill in the art would understood the structure encompassed by a controller when used in the context of the specification.” therefore, the 112(f) interpretation should be removed (See remarks, Pg 7, Paragraph 6).
In regards to the argument on Argument 2, Applicant/s state/s “regarding "supply unit," Applicant submits that that the term should not be interpreted under 112(f). In the field of nanoimprint lithography, a "supply unit for a curable composition" is not an generic abstraction. One having ordinary skill this art would have understood this term to describe a concrete structural fluid-dispensing assembly including relevant components such as a reservoir, fluid conduits, and a dispensing head, etc. One having ordinary skill in the art would understood the structure encompassed by a supply unit when used in the context of the specification.” therefore the 112(f) interpretation should be removed (See remarks, Pg 7, Paragraph 7).
In regards the argument on Argument 3, Applicant/s state/s “Applicant has amended claim 11 to remove the term "substantially." In view of the amendment, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.” therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) should be removed (See remarks, Pg 8, Paragraph 4).
In regards to the argument on Argument 4, Applicant/s state/s “claim 1 has been amended to clarify that 1) the image is obtained while the first and second surface are in contact, and 2) that second substrate is specifically one of three types of wafers.” therefore, the rejection 35 U.S.C. § l 03 should be withdrawn (See remarks, Pg 9, paragraph 3).
In regards to the argument on Argument 5, Applicant/s state/s “That is, the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 is inconsistent with the Examiner's reasoning in claim 1. The second substrate cannot be both imprint material and a silicon wafer at the same time.” therefore, the rejection 35 U.S.C. § l 03 should be withdrawn (See remarks, Pg 10, paragraph 1).
In regards to the argument on Argument 6, Applicant/s state/s “both Yabuki and Tsurumi is detecting the intensity of scattered light reflecting off an exposed, single surface. Yabuki does not capture optical images, nor does it bring two substrates into contact for inspection. Instead, Yabuki utilizes a rotating polygon mirror to scan a point laser beam across a single, open substrate surface to measure raw scattered light intensity using a photomultiplier tube.” therefore, the rejection 35 U.S.C. § l 03 should be withdrawn (See remarks, Pg 10, paragraph 3-4).
In regards to the argument on Argument 7, Applicant/s state/s “both Yabuki and Tsurumi is detecting the intensity of scattered light reflecting off an exposed, Marumo does not disclose wafer-bonding or "joining" substrates at all. It is a temporary dust-check utility for a lithography machine's chuck or a wafer's backside.” therefore, the rejection 35 U.S.C. § l 03 should be withdrawn (See remarks, Pg 11, paragraph 7).
Examiner’s Responses:
In response to Argument 1, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/17/2026, have been considered and are persuasive, therefore the 112(f) interpretation for controller has been withdrawn.
In response to Argument 2, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/17/2026, have been considered and are persuasive, therefore the 112(f) interpretation for supply unit has been withdrawn.
In response to Argument 3, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/17/2026, have been considered and are persuasive, therefore the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to amendment.
In response to Argument 4-7, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments. Therefore, the original rejection of Claims 1-20 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, a new grounds of rejection is issued for Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Yabuki (US Patent Publication US 2020/0141880 A1) in view of Suzuki (JP Patent Publication JP 2016050869 A (using espace.net for translation and google translate for figures)). An additional new ground of rejection is issued for dependent claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Marumo et al (JP Patent Publication JPH1070069A (using espace.net for translation) hereafter referred to as Marumo). An additional new ground of rejection is issued for dependent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Yabuki in view of Suzuki in view of Marumo in further view of Tsurumi (JP Patent Publication JP 2022029829 A (using espace.net for translation)). An additional new ground of rejection is issued for dependent claims 7-8, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Tsurumi (JP Patent Publication JP 2022029829 A (using espace.net for translation)).
The Examiner finds that Yabuki, Tsurumi, and Marumo teach on the amended claim language. Yabuki teaches that the substrate material can be a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, or a quartz glass wafer in ¶0023 and ¶0055. Tsurumi teaches the target substrates and their size constraints in ¶0030-¶00358 and ¶0082. Marumo teaches the non contact region in ¶0022 and ¶0028. Applicant argues “claim 1 has been amended to clarify that 1) the image is obtained while the first and second surface are in contact, and 2) that second substrate is specifically one of three types of wafers”, this amendment effects the scope of all of the dependent claims referenced in the succeeding arguments. The Examiner interprets that Yabuki, Tsurumi, and Marumo teach the main concept of detecting defects in images of semiconductor layers consisting of different layers and materials, while the newly introduced art, Suzuki, teaches the new limitations in the amended claim language. The Examiner will maintain prior art Yabuki, Tsurumi, and Marumo and details of the rejection are below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 1 and 17 recite “the second substrate is” then listing “a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, or a quartz glass wafer.”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim 1 recite “determining” then listing “the presence of a foreign substance, or the absence of a foreign substance, or the position of a foreign substance”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim 16 recite “determined to have” then listing “a foreign substance having a predetermined size or more or a predetermined number or more of foreign substances”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim 17 recite “determine” then listing “the presence of a foreign substance, or the absence of a foreign substance, or the position of a foreign substance”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yabuki (US Patent Publication US 2020/0141880 A1) in view of Suzuki (JP Patent Publication JP 2016050869 A (using espace.net for translation and google translate for figures)).
Regarding Claim 1, Yabuki teaches a foreign substance inspection method for inspecting for a foreign substance (Yabuki Fig 3, and ¶0027 discloses a method for foreign substance inspection), the method comprising:
of reflected light from the first and second surfaces (Yabuki ¶0002, ¶0018, Fig 1. 20 discloses applying light to the substrates and then receiving the light scattered by a light receiver, the examiner is interpreting scatted light to be equivalent with reflected light)
the presence of a foreign substance, or the absence of a foreign substance (Yabuki ¶0044 and Fig 5 disclose determining the presence or absence of the foreign substance based on a threshold), or the position of a foreign substance (Yabuki ¶0042 discloses determining the position of the foreign substance),
wherein the second substrate is a silicon wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate includes a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, quartz glass, or the like), a compound semiconductor wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate includes a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, quartz glass, or the like), or a quartz glass wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate can be made of quartz glass).
Yabuki does not explicitly disclose bringing a first surface of a first substrate into contact with a second surface of a second substrate to cause the first and second surfaces to face each other, while the first and second surfaces are in contact with each other, obtaining an image, determining, based on the obtained image.
Suzuki is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Suzuki teaches bringing a first surface of a first substrate into contact with a second surface of a second substrate to cause the first and second surfaces to face each other (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses the first and second substrate surfaces where the first and second surface are in contact with each other, with 101 being referred to as the other substrate surface, therefore the examiner is interpreting this as the second substrate area See reproduced Fig 1 below with annotations);
obtaining an image (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses irradiating light through the first and second substrate surfaces to obtain an optical image)
while the first and second surfaces are in contact with each other (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses irradiating light through the first and second substrate surfaces where the first and second surface are in contact as seen in Fig 1 and Fig 3 and Fig 4); and
determining, based on the obtained image (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses irradiating light through the first and second substrate surfaces to obtain an optical image).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki by including the image capture of the first and second substrate in contact with each other to determine the presence of a foreign substance, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the contact between the two substrates as taught by Suzuki; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to reduce the load on the production line by confirming an abnormality on the substrate during the manufacturing process, if the abnormality can be repaired, it is possible to repair the abnormality by adding a repair process or the like. In addition, if the abnormality cannot be repaired, it is possible to prevent extra steps from being performed by lot-out at that time as disclosed in Suzuki in ¶0002.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the first substrate comprises a light-transmissive material (Yabuki ¶0023 discloses the substrate can be made of glass which is a light transmissive material). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 2, further comprising:
applying light to the first and second surfaces (Yabuki ¶0002, ¶0018, Fig 1. 20 discloses applying light to the substrates and then receiving the light scattered by a light receiver, the examiner is interpreting scatted light to be equivalent with reflected light) through the first substrate (Yabuki ¶0056 discloses light being applied through a surface). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 3, wherein the second substrate comprises a material that is opaque to the light (Yabuki ¶0019, ¶0056 discloses that the imprint material is cured by the light, therefore the material absorbs the light and the light does not move through it). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 2, wherein the first substrate is a quartz glass wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate can be made of quartz glass). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 6, wherein the second substrate is a silicon wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate includes a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, quartz glass, or the like). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 3, wherein the light is monochromatic light (Yabuki ¶0019 discloses the wavelength of the light emitted from the light source 4 is 400 nm which is a constant wavelength and therefore a monochromatic light). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Yabuki teaches a foreign substance inspection apparatus for inspecting for a foreign substance (Yabuki Fig 1, and abstract discloses an apparatus for foreign substance inspection), the apparatus comprising:
a first holding unit configured to hold a first substrate (Yabuki ¶0021 and Fig 2, 2 discloses a substrate holding unit);
a second holding unit configured to hold a second substrate (Yabuki ¶0002, ¶0047, ¶0048 discloses the substrate contacting the imprint material, which the examiner is interpreting as the second substrate which is held by the mold as disclosed in ¶0046 which the examiner is interpreting as the second holding unit);
a driving mechanism (Yabuki ¶0021 and Fig 2, 17 discloses a driving mechanism that moves the substrate holder)
of reflected light from the first and second surfaces (Yabuki ¶0002, ¶0018, Fig 1. 20 discloses applying light to the substrates and then receiving the light scattered by a light receiver, the examiner is interpreting scatted light to be equivalent with reflected light)
a controller configured to determine (Yabuki ¶0006 discloses a control unit configured to perform foreign substance detection)
the presence of a foreign substance, or the absence of a foreign substance (Yabuki ¶0044 and Fig 5 disclose determining the presence or absence of the foreign substance based on a threshold), or the position of a foreign substance (Yabuki ¶0042 discloses determining the position of the foreign substance),
wherein the second substrate is a silicon wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate includes a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, quartz glass, or the like), a compound semiconductor wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate includes a silicon wafer, a compound semiconductor wafer, quartz glass, or the like), or a quartz glass wafer (Yabuki ¶0023, ¶0055 discloses the substrate can be made of quartz glass).
Yabuki does not explicitly disclose configured to bring a first surface of the first substrate into contact with a second surface of the second substrate to cause the first and second surfaces to face each other, an image pickup unit, configured to obtain an image, while the first and second surfaces are in contact with each other, based on the obtained image.
Suzuki is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Suzuki teaches configured to bring a first surface of the first substrate into contact with a second surface of the second substrate to cause the first and second surfaces to face each other (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses the first and second substrate surfaces where the first and second surface are in contact with each other, with 101 being referred to as the other substrate surface, therefore the examiner is interpreting this as the second substrate area See reproduced Fig 1 below with annotations);
an image pickup unit (Suzuki ¶0041 discloses the light receiving unit that generates an optical image based on the received light) configured to obtain an image (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses irradiating light through the first and second substrate surfaces to obtain an optical image)
while the first and second surfaces are in contact with each other (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses irradiating light through the first and second substrate surfaces where the first and second surface are in contact as seen in Fig 1 and Fig 3 and Fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki by including the image capture of the first and second substrate in contact with each other to determine the presence of a foreign substance, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the contact between the two substrates as taught by Suzuki; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to reduce the load on the production line by confirming an abnormality on the substrate during the manufacturing process, if the abnormality can be repaired, it is possible to repair the abnormality by adding a repair process or the like. In addition, if the abnormality cannot be repaired, it is possible to prevent extra steps from being performed by lot-out at that time as disclosed in Suzuki in ¶0002.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 21, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein an imprint material is absent between the first surface and the second surface (Suzuki ¶0006, ¶0034, and Fig 1, 102 and 101 discloses irradiating light through the first and second substrate surfaces where the first and second surface are in contact as seen in Fig 3 and Fig 4, with no imprint material present as shown in the reproduced image below). See Claim 1 for rationale, its parent claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
643
963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Marumo et al (JP Patent Publication JPH1070069A (using espace.net for translation) hereafter referred to as Marumo).
Regarding Claim 4, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the bringing method step includes bringing the first surface of the first substrate into contact with the second surface of the second substrate (Yabuki ¶0002, ¶0047, ¶0048 discloses the substrate contacting the imprint material, which the examiner is interpreting as the second substrate) to form a contact region where the first and second surfaces are in contact with each other (Yabuki ¶0047, ¶0056 discloses the composition and the substrate being in complete contact with one another).
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose and a non-contact region where the first and second surfaces are not in contact with each other due to a foreign substance.
Marumo is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Marumo teaches and a non-contact region where the first and second surfaces are not in contact with each other due to a foreign substance (Marumo ¶0022 and ¶0028 discloses an incomplete plane between the joining due to a warp caused by the foreign object interrupting the contact of the substrates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including image capture of the gap and substrate warp due to the foreign object and the size difference between the substrates as taught by Marumo, to make an invention that can identify and address the gap and size difference automatically; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to be able to determine the location and position of the foreign substance with the interference being affected by the vacuum grooves normally found in the substrate as disclosed in Marumo ¶0028.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Marumo teaches the method according to Claim 4, wherein the obtaining method step includes obtaining an image of the non-contact region expanding around the foreign substance (Marumo ¶0022 and ¶0028 discloses an incomplete plane between the joining and capturing an image of the interference caused by the gap) bending at least one of the first surface and the second surface (Marumo ¶0022 and ¶0028 discloses an incomplete plane between the joining due to a warp caused by the foreign object interrupting the contact of the substrates) . See Claim 4 for rationale, its parent claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yabuki in view of Suzuki in view of Marumo in further view of Tsurumi (JP Patent Publication JP 2022029829 A (using espace.net for translation)).
Regarding Claim 12, Yabuki in view of Suzuki in view of Marumo teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the first surface of the first substrate has a smaller size than the second surface of the second substrate (Marumo Fig 7 discloses that one substrate 105 is smaller than another substrate 106) of the second surface while the position of contact between the first and second surfaces is being shifted (Yabuki ¶0047 discloses the transfer of the pattern of the i8mprint material onto the substrate by moving the two to a point of contact).
Yabuki in view of Suzuki in view of Marumo does not explicitly disclose and inspection is repeatedly performed on a plurality of regions.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches, and inspection is repeatedly performed on a plurality of regions (Tsurumi ¶0078 discloses the plurality of substrates being continuously inspected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki in view of Marumo by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-8, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Tsurumi (JP Patent Publication JP 2022029829 A (using espace.net for translation)).
Regarding Claim 7, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 6.
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the first substrate is an inspection target substrate.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches wherein the first substrate is an inspection target substrate (Tsurumi ¶0030, ¶0034, ¶0035 discloses a substrate inspection device that inspects only the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 6.
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the second substrate is an inspection target substrate.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches wherein the second substrate is an inspection target substrate (Tsurumi ¶0044 discloses a board inspection device that inspects substrate 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not disclose wherein the first surface of the first substrate and the second surface of the second substrate have the same size.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches wherein the first surface of the first substrate, and the second surface of the second substrate have the same size (Tsurumi ¶0082 and Fig 10 A disclose a first substrate 1z and a second substrate 2z being the same size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 14, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches a molding method (Yabuki ¶0047, ¶0055 discloses using a mold including a pattern to mold the composition (imprint material) on the substrate) comprising:
by using the foreign substance inspection method according to Claim 8 (Yabuki Fig 3, and ¶0027 discloses a method for foreign substance inspection); and
controlling an apparatus (Yabuki ¶0038 discloses a control unit that control the detection process and the determination process of the foreign process identification) to perform a molding process only on a region determined to have no foreign substance on the second substrate (Yabuki ¶0042 discloses that a substrate without adhesion of a foreign substance is basically carried into the forming apparatus, therefore the process continues).
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose inspecting the second substrate.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches inspecting the second substrate (Tsurumi ¶0044 discloses a board inspection device that inspects substrate 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 15, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches a molding method (Yabuki ¶0047, ¶0055 discloses using a mold including a pattern to mold the composition (imprint material) on the substrate) comprising:
by using the foreign substance inspection method according to Claim 8 (Yabuki Fig 3, and ¶0027 discloses a method for foreign substance inspection); and
controlling an apparatus (Yabuki ¶0038 discloses a control unit that control the detection process and the determination process of the foreign process identification) to keep the apparatus from performing a molding process on a region (Yabuki ¶0042 discloses as a result of the substrate determination, a substrate for which it is determined that the surface state of the substrate is unsuitable for the lithography because of presence of the foreign substance, can be previously rejected ( excluded from target of imprint processing)) where the position of a foreign substance on the second substrate is determined (Yabuki ¶0042 discloses determining the position of the foreign substance).
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose inspecting the second substrate.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches inspecting the second substrate (Tsurumi ¶0044 discloses a board inspection device that inspects substrate 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches a molding method (Yabuki ¶0047, ¶0055 discloses using a mold including a pattern to mold the composition (imprint material) on the substrate) comprising:
by using the foreign substance inspection method according to Claim 8 (Yabuki Fig 3, and ¶0027 discloses a method for foreign substance inspection); and
cleaning the second substrate (Yabuki ¶0040 discloses the substrate may be subjected to processing to remove the foreign substance adhering to the substrate) determined to have a foreign substance having a predetermined size or more or a predetermined number or more of foreign substances (Yabuki ¶0038-¶0040 discloses determining if the size of the foreign substance does or does not exceed a threshold and if so how to proceed).
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose inspecting the second substrate.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches inspecting the second substrate (Tsurumi ¶0044 discloses a board inspection device that inspects substrate 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, Yabuki in view of Suzuki teaches the apparatus according to Claim 17, further comprising:
configured to apply light to the first and second surfaces (Yabuki ¶0002, ¶0018, Fig 1. 20 discloses applying light to the substrates and then receiving the light scattered by a light receiver, the examiner is interpreting scatted light to be equivalent with reflected light).
Yabuki in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a light irradiation unit.
Tsurumi is in the same field of foreign object detection in semiconductor applications. Further, Tsurumi teaches a light irradiation unit (Tsurumi ¶0014 and Fig 1 3 disclose an illumination unit also known as an irradiation unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yabuki in view of Suzuki by including the image capture of the foreign object on both substrates repeatedly as taught by Tsurumi, to make an invention that can automatically detect the foreign object based on the image on either substrate; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to provide an inspection device capable of improving the detection accuracy of foreign matter as disclosed in Tsurumi ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19, Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Tsurumi teaches a molding apparatus (Yabuki ¶0047 discloses an forming apparatus that may configured to perform forming processing to mold a composition on the substrate) comprising:
the foreign substance inspection apparatus according to Claim 18 (Tsurumi ¶0014 and Fig 1 3 disclose an illumination unit also known as an irradiation unit) (Yabuki Fig 1, and abstract discloses an apparatus for foreign substance inspection); and
a supply unit configured to supply a curable composition to the second substrate (Yabuki ¶0049 discloses an auxiliary apparatus that is an apparatus that disposes the composition on the substrate. The auxiliary apparatus 106 may supply the substrate), wherein the first holding unit is capable of holding a template (Yabuki ¶0047 discloses the empty mold as a template ¶0021 and Fig 2, 17 discloses a driving mechanism that moves the substrate holder, the examiner interprets that it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the substrate holder could also hold the mold), and
wherein the curable composition supplied to the second substrate is brought into contact with the template (Yabuki ¶0056 discloses the substrate provided with the imprint material 3y and the mold 4y are brought into contact with each other, and pressure is applied thereto) by the driving mechanism (Yabuki ¶0021 and Fig 2, 17 discloses a driving mechanism that moves the substrate holder, the examiner interprets that it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the substrate holder could also hold the mold), and the curable composition is cured by the light irradiation unit (Yabuki ¶0056 discloses the substrate provided with the imprint material 3y and the mold 4y are brought into contact with each other, and pressure is applied thereto. A gap between the mold and the substrate is filled with the imprint material 3y. When light is applied through the mold in this state, the imprint material is cured.) See Claim 18 for rationale, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Yabuki in view of Suzuki in further view of Tsurumi teaches an article manufacturing method (Yabuki ¶0053, ¶0054 discloses an method to manufacture the article) comprising:
molding a composition on a substrate by using the molding apparatus according to Claim 19 (Yabuki ¶0047 discloses an forming apparatus that may configured to perform forming processing to mold a composition on the substrate);
processing the substrate subjected to the molding (Tsurumi ¶0085 discloses the processing process after the mold is complete) ; and
manufacturing an article from the substrate subjected to the processing (Yabuki ¶0053-¶0057 discloses the manufacturing of an article after the molding process has been performed). See Claim 18 for rationale, its parent claim.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
JP Patent Publication JP-2017139480-A to ARITSUKA et al. discloses an a foreign matter inspection method, an imprint method, and a foreign matter inspection device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am- 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, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/RACHEL L ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights