DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-6, 10-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected, claim 7-9 and 14-16 is/are objected to. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-20 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “comparing the at least one first image with at least one second image; and determining, based on the comparing, whether installation of the components in the device is defective” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of defect detection, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
V. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 10-16 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 17-20 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) as being anticipated by Kikuchi (US 6801650).
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi discloses a method, comprising:
positioning, on a platform, a device including a plurality of components (see figure 2, 16 is the stage, column 6, lines 62-67, θ stage 16 is a so-called rotating stage and is adapted for rotating the semiconductor wafer, where semiconductor wafer inspection, the semiconductor wafer is rotated by the θ stage 16 so that a device pattern on the semiconductor wafer will be horizontal or vertical);
capturing at least one first image of the device from one or more view-points predetermined relative to the platform (see figure 21, column 17, lines 25-32, that detection and classification of defects is carried out by photographing an image of an area where the defect exists, defect image);
PNG
media_image1.png
173
951
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comparing the at least one first image with at least one second image (column 17, lines 25-32, an image of the remaining area, reference image, and by comparing the images, also see column 19, lines 27-30, next, at step S1-17, the defect image retrieved at step S1-13 is compared to the reference image retrieved at step S1-16, by the image-processing computer 30); and
determining, based on the comparing, whether installation of the components in the device is defective (column 17, lines 25-32, semiconductor wafer to be inspected is installed on the inspection stage 11, it is assumed that a large number of similar device patterns are formed on the semiconductor wafer, and that detection and classification of defects is carried out by photographing an image of an area where the defect exists, defect image, and an image of the remaining area, reference image, and by comparing the images).
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: capturing the at least one second image of a model device (see figure 21, acquisition of defect image, where this image is read as first image); and storing the at least one second image to facilitate the comparing (see column 19, lines 41-45, information indicating the effect of failure in classifying the defects is saved e.g., in a storage device connected to the control computer 31 or the image-processing computer 30, this defect is part of the second image).
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the model device is configured to demonstrate a configuration of installation of the components (see column 17, 24-26, the operational sequence as from the time the semiconductor wafer to be inspected is installed on the inspection stage 11).
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the comparing includes: matching images of the components as in the at least one first image with corresponding component images as in the at least one second image (column 17, lines 25-32, an image of the remaining area, reference image, and by comparing the images, column 19, lines 27-30, next, at step S1-17, the defect image retrieved at step S1-13 is compared to the reference image retrieved at step S1-16, by the image-processing computer 30):
PNG
media_image2.png
212
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the platform is configured to hold the device to have a predetermined orientation with respect to the platform (see column 6, lines 10-14, there are mounted, in the clean unit 2, a support base 9, an anti-vibration base 10, an inspection stage 11, mounted on the anti-vibration base 10, and an optical unit 12, mounted on the anti-vibration base 10, also see figure 2, the platform is place flat, 17).
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the capturing of the at least one first image is performed using one or more cameras having respectively the one or more view points predetermined relative to the platform (see figure 2, 12 is the optical unit which captures image of the inspection unit).
Regarding claims 10 and 17 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1. In addition, see column 5, lines 60-62, includes a computer with processor and memory.
Regarding claims 11 and 18 see the rationale and rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 12 see the rationale and rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 13 see the rationale and rejection for claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US 6801650) in view of Miyazaki (US 6031607).
Regarding claim 19, Kikuchi discloses all the limitations of claim 18, but is silent in disclosing the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 18, wherein the comparing includes: determining matching scores between images of the components as in the at least one first image and corresponding component images as in the at least one second image.
Miyazaki discloses determining matching scores between images of the components as in the at least one first image and corresponding component images as in the at least one second image (see column 11, lines 60-63, the reference image having the highest correlation with a detection image can be selected from a plurality of reference images previously stored in the image storing means).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining matching scores between component images allows automated identification, verification, and tracking of objects. Also By comparing the features in a first image against a second image systems which confirm parts are correctly placed in manufacturing.
Regarding claim 20, Miyazaki discloses the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 19, wherein the matching scores include a correlation coefficient score (see column 11, lines 60-63, the reference image having the highest correlation with a detection image can be selected from a plurality of reference images previously stored in the image storing means). See the motivation for claim 19. Also calculating the correlation for two images allows system to detect the highest of the correlation curve for confirming a match between said first and second image.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7-9 and 14-16 is/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.
With regards to claim 7, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the method of claim 6, further comprising: detecting presence of the device on the platform; wherein the capturing of the at least one first image is responsive to the presence of the device on the platform; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Ohmart (US 20160141251) discloses detecting presence of the device on the platform (see figure 21, 2112 is the die present); but does not disclose wherein the capturing of the at least one first image is responsive to the presence of the device on the platform (see figure 21, a good die selected after the die presence is detected).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are objected as well because it is dependent on a claim with allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 14-16 see the rationale for claims 7-9.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, 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 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.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 7/21/26
Prosecution Insights