DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications: Preliminary-Amendment filed December 18, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claim 11 has been newly amended. Claims 16-20 have been newly added. No claims have been cancelled. This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 18, 2024 was filed on the filing date of the application on December 18, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 18, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot et al. (US 11,022,566)(cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed December 18, 2024) in view of SATO (US 2019/0026881).
As to claim 1, Alumot et al. disclose an apparatus (Figure 1A, recipe generation system 100 with examination system 130 of Figure 1B) for generating a simulated inspection image (e.g. generating a simulated image), comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform (e.g. processor and memory circuitry (PMC) 102 w/storage unit 122 and processor and memory circuitry (PMC) 132 w/storage unit 142)(column 8, lines 56-67 notes processor of PMC 102 configured to execute several functional modules in accordance with computer-readable instructions implemented on a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprised in the PMC, where column 9, lines 66 thru column 10, lines 12 notes storage unit 122 configured to store any data necessary for operating system 100, e.g. data related to input and output of system 100, as well as intermediate processing results generated by the system 100; column 11, lines 54-65 notes processor of PMC 132 configured to execute several functional modules in accordance with computer-readable instructions implemented on a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprised in the PMC, where column 12, lines 43-56 notes storage unit 142 configured to store any data necessary for operating system 130, e.g. data related to input and output of system 130, as well as intermediate processing results generated by the system 130): acquiring design data including a first pattern (e.g. via design server 110 and/or storage unit 122/142, where column 8, lines 46-55 notes design data server 110 configured to store and provide design data characterizing the specimen, the design data of the specimen can be of any formats, e.g. physical design layout (e.g. CAD clip) of the specimen, a raster image, and a simulated image derived from the design layout, column 10, lines 6-8 notes storage unit 122 configured to store design data characterizing the specimen and/or derivatives thereof, and column 12, lines 50-52 notes storage unit 142 configured to store design data characterizing the specimen and/or derivatives thereof, where Figure 3, step 302 notes obtaining a first image captured by an examination tool, step 304 notes obtaining a second image generated based on design data, where column 16, lines 49-64 notes the second image can comprise one or more layers corresponding to the design layers in design data, where column 17, lines 1-16 further notes a structural element used can refer to any original object on the image data or design data that has a geometrical shape or geometrical structure with a contour, and can also refer to a plurality of combined objects forming a pattern); generating a first gray level profile corresponding to the design data (column 19, lines 57 thru column 20, lines 14 notes a gray level (GL) profile for each design-based structural element can be calculated along a specific direction at a location in the first image that corresponds to the location of the design-based structural element in the second image, and once the GL profile is obtained for each design-based structural element, a baseline GL profile can be calculated for each family of design-based structural elements among the validly registered design-based structural elements, see Figure 8, column 20, lines 15-48 for further details); and rendering an image using the generated first gray level profile (column 16, lines 49-64 notes the second image can be a simulated image generated by performing simulation on the design data, such as, e.g. a CAD simulated image, the simulation can take into consideration the difference between the design-based structural element and the corresponding image-based structural element, and generate a simulated image including the structural element with a simulated shape as it would have appeared in the image, the second image can comprise one or more layers corresponding to the design layers in design data and the second image can be informative of one or more design-based structural elements presented in the design data, and a respective layer associated with each design-based structural element, where each layer can be regarded as a binary image in which the design-based structural elements are separated from the background).
As noted above, Alumot et al. describe generating a second image, e.g. a simulated image by performing simulation on the design data, and further calculating a gray level (GL) profile and a baseline GL profile. However, Alumot et al. do not explicitly describe rendering an image “using the generated first gray level profile,” but explicitly disclose the second image can be informative of one or more design-based structural elements presented in the design data, where the GL profile is calculated for each design-based structural element and the baseline GL profile is calculated for each family of design-based structural elements.
SATO further discloses an apparatus for generating a simulated inspection image (e.g. Figure 1, image generation system, [0035], implementing computer 150 of Figure 12), comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions (e.g. memory 162, [0060]-[0063] notes memory 162 stores program and data, which may be obtained from a storage medium via storage-medium reading device 1132 via a storage-medium port 1134 of input device 163); and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus (e.g. processing device 1120, [0060] notes processing device 1120, such as a central processing unit (CPU), for performing arithmetic operations according to the program stored in the memory 162) to perform (e.g. method of Figure 8): acquiring design data including a first pattern (e.g. step 1, [0049] notes generating at least one wafer image; step 2, [0049] notes performing a die-to-database inspection to detect pattern edges; step 3, [0050] notes extracting an image showing a pattern of the same shape from the wafer image; step 4, [0050] notes superimposing a plurality of pattern images while aligning the positions of patterns in the plurality of pattern images); generating a first gray level profile corresponding to the design data (e.g. step 6, [0051] notes calculating the variance of gray level over the plurality of pattern images for each of the plurality of inspection areas on the patterns, the gray level in each inspection area on each pattern image is an average of the gray levels of pixels constituting that inspection area); and rendering an image using the generated first gray level profile (e.g. step 7, [0051] notes creating a false-color image by color-coding the plurality of inspection areas according to the magnitude of the variance (e.g. variance of gray level); and step 8, [0051] notes displaying the false-color image on the display device 164, see also Figure 5 and associated text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Alumot et al.’s method of generating a simulated image with SATO’s method of converting a grayscale image into a false-color image for detecting minute defects in images with a wide range of accuracy (see at least Summary, [0007]-[0014], and Description of Embodiments [0028]-[0032], of SATO).
As to claim 2, Alumot et al. modified with SATO disclose the first gray level profile is developed from a non-simulation inspection image, from a simulation image generated by a physical model-based simulator, or from a user defined gray level profile (e.g. Alumot, as noted in claim 1, a gray level (GL) profile for each design-based structural element can be calculated along a specific direction at a location in the first image that corresponds to the location of the design-based structural element in the second image, where column 16, lines 40-51 notes the first image can be captured by an examination tool and representative of at least a portion of a specimen (e.g. a non-simulated inspection image), and the second image can be a simulated image generated based on the design data characterizing the at least portion of the specimen (e.g. a simulation image generated by a physical model-based simulator); modified with SATO, e.g. as noted in claim 1, the variance of gray level is calculated over the plurality of pattern images for each of the plurality of inspection areas on the patterns, e.g. patterns superimposed over from the wafer image (e.g. a non-simulated inspection image)).
As to claim 8, Alumot et al. modified with SATO disclose in generating the first gray level profile, the at least one processor is configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to further perform: generating a second gray level profile corresponding to a second pattern; generating the first gray level profile by modifying the second gray level profile based on a difference between the first pattern and the second pattern (e.g. Alumot, as noted in claim 1, calculating a gray level (GL) profile for each design-based structural element, then calculating a baseline GL profile for each family of design-based structural elements among the validly registered design-based structural elements, thus considered may be to include a second GL profile for a second design-based structural element, e.g. second pattern, where column 20, lines 11-14 further notes calculating a profile attribute for each design-based structural element, indicative of a difference between the gray level profile thereof and the baseline gray level profile; modified with SATO, e.g. as noted in claim 1, calculating the variance of gray level over the plurality of pattern images for each of the plurality of inspection areas on the patterns, where [0042], [0043] notes example of six inspection areas, thus a variance gray level calculated for each, where [0051] further notes the gray level in each inspection area on each pattern image is an average of the gray levels constituting that inspection area).
As to claim 9, Alumot et al. modified with SATO disclose the at least one processor is configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to further perform: incorporating a user defined parameter into the image (Alumot, e.g. via graphical user interface (GUI) 124/144, where column 10, lines 13-23 notes system 100 comprises a computer-based graphical user interface (GUI) 124 which is configured to enable user-specified inputs related to system 100, e.g. defining certain operation parameters; column 12, lines 57 thru column 13, lines 4 notes system 130 comprises a computer-based graphical user interface (GUI) 144 which is configured to enable user-specified inputs related to system 130, e.g. defining certain operation parameters).
As to claim 10, Alumot et al. modified with SATO disclose in incorporating the user defined parameter (Alumot, e.g. defining certain operation parameters), the at least one processor is configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform: performing a corner rounding on the design data including the first pattern; applying an image distortion to the design data; or applying a charging effect on the rendered image (Alumot, Figure 6, column 17, lines 30 thru column 18, lines 10 notes generating a second image by modifying the first image, where the modification includes modifying the content of the first image, modifying a relative position between the first image and the second image, modifying the size and/or shape of one or more design-based structural elements in a certain layer, degrading the focus of the first image, e.g. by convolving the image with a Gaussian kernel, replacing a section of the first image with random noise, etc.).
As to claim 11, Alumot et al. modified with SATO disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium (Alumot, Figure 1A, recipe generation system 100 with examination system 130 of Figure 1B, e.g. processor and memory circuitry (PMC) 102 w/storage unit 122 and processor and memory circuitry (PMC) 132 w/storage unit 142; modified with SATO, e.g. Figure 1, image generation system, [0035], implementing computer 150 of Figure 12, e.g. memory 162 w/storage medium) that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to cause the computing device to perform a method for generating a simulated inspection image (Alumot, column 8, lines 56-67 notes processor of PMC 102 configured to execute several functional modules in accordance with computer-readable instructions implemented on a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprised in the PMC, where column 9, lines 66 thru column 10, lines 12 notes storage unit 122 configured to store any data necessary for operating system 100, e.g. data related to input and output of system 100, as well as intermediate processing results generated by the system 100; column 11, lines 54-65 notes processor of PMC 132 configured to execute several functional modules in accordance with computer-readable instructions implemented on a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprised in the PMC, where column 12, lines 43-56 notes storage unit 142 configured to store any data necessary for operating system 130, e.g. data related to input and output of system 130, as well as intermediate processing results generated by the system 130; modified with SATO, (e.g. processing device 1120, [0060]-[0063] notes memory 162 stores program and data, which may be obtained from a storage medium via storage-medium reading device 1132 via a storage-medium port 1134 of input device 163, where [0060] further notes processing device 1120, such as a central processing unit (CPU), for performing arithmetic operations according to the program stored in the memory 162), the method comprising the steps as performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 18 and 19 are similar in scope to claims 8 and 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 20, Alumot et al. modified with SATO disclose a method for generating a simulated inspection image, comprising the steps as performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 13-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 13, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, singly or combined, the limitations of the claims as recited.
Dependent claims 4-7 are indicated allowable for directly or indirectly depending upon indicated allowable claim 3.
Dependent claims 14-17 are indicated allowable for directly or indirectly depending upon indicated allowable claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitazawa et al. (US 2011/0129140) disclose a system and method of identifying defects in an inspection image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACINTA M CRAWFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1539. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m.
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, King Y. Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/JACINTA M CRAWFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights