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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 and 11/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Iwanaga et al, US PGPub 2010/0141755, hereinafter “Iwanaga.”
With regard to claim 1, Iwanaga discloses a state detection method, see abstract, comprising: a step of taking an image of at least one imaging target regarding processing of a substrate by an imaging part and outputting the image (see [0005]-[0007] and camera 1); a step of applying a filter previously prepared to the image in accordance with the imaging target (see [0048] - parameters for transforming coordinates “assigned beforehand”); and a step of detecting a state of the imaging target based on the image to which the filter is applied, wherein a filter coefficient of the filter applied to the image is corrected based on a positional relationship between the imaging target whose image is taken and the imaging part (see Fig 8 and [0053]-[0054] - third display area 46C “after correction” displays an image of the wafer corrected for distortion caused by the inclination of the camera 1 to the surface of the wafer).
With regard to claim 2, Iwanaga discloses the state detection method according to claim 1, wherein a direction as a reference in taking the image of the imaging target is a reference direction, an angle between an imaging direction as a direction in which the imaging part takes the image of the imaging target and the reference direction is an inclination angle, and the filter coefficient is corrected based on the inclination angle (see [0014] and [0049]).
With regard to claim 4, Iwanaga discloses the state detection method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging targets include a first imaging target and a second imaging target located in a position different from the first imaging target, and the step of applying the filter to the image is a step of switching the filter between the image of the first imaging target and the image of the second imaging target and applying the filter (see [0082] and the use of multiple wafers W2 for inspection as compared to a single reference wafer W3).
Claim 5 is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as that of claim 1 above.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP 2001319221, hereinafter “JP’221.” Note that all citations below to JP’221 are in relation to the supplied English translation of JP’221.
With regard to claim 1, JP’221 discloses a state detection method, comprising: a step of taking an image of at least one imaging regarding processing of a substrate by an imaging part and outputting the image target (see [0001]and [0008] - inspection of defects of a display screen and other components); a step of applying a filter previously prepared to the image in accordance with the imaging target (see [0020]); and a step of detecting a state of the imaging target based on the image to which the filter is applied, wherein a filter coefficient of the filter applied to the image is corrected based on a positional relationship between the imaging target whose image is taken and the imaging part (see 0019]-[0023]).
With regard to claim 2, JP’221 discloses the state detection method according to claim 1, wherein a direction as a reference in taking the image of the imaging target is a reference direction, an angle between an imaging direction as a direction in which the imaging part takes the image of the imaging target and the reference direction is an inclination angle, and the filter coefficient is corrected based on the inclination angle 9 (see [0019] and inclination angle theta).
With regard to claim 4, JP’221 discloses the state detection method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging targets include a first imaging target and a second imaging target located in a position different from the first imaging target, and the step of applying the filter to the image is a step of switching the filter between the image of the first imaging target and the image of the second imaging target and applying the filter (see [0009] and use of the same filter for multiple substrates being inspected).
Claim 5 is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as that of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’221.
With regard to claim 3, JP’221 discloses a two-dimensional filter for correcting distortion in an inspection image of a substrate that is imaged at an inclined angle, but however, JP’221 fails to disclose that the filter coefficient located at an end portion of the filter in a direction in which the imaging direction is inclined with respect to the reference direction is corrected to zero.
However, JP’221 does disclose at [0019] that the filter coefficients needs to be reduced from the center to the edges of the image - “filter size needs to be reduced from the center to the periphery.” Although not specifically stated by JP’221, gradual reduction of filter coefficients would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that coefficients approaching the edge of the image could be reduced to zero. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled the filter coefficients taught by JP’221 to reduce to zero at the edge of the image as doing so would enable the full range of correction coefficients to be employed - i.e. the largest at the center of the image and reducing to zero at the edge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is indicative of the general state of the art surrounding the inspection of substrates, for example semiconductor wafers, via use of an inspection camera processing images at an inclined angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights