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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/24 has been entered. 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
3. The drawings filed on 10/09/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 07/07/26 is acknowledged.
5. Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 4, 9-10, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Claims 4, 9-10, disclose the following limitations “line integral data”, “trend lines”. These limitations are rejected to because the meanings of wordings are not clear. The limitations merely state the names of a line without providing any indication about the structure/explanation/definition of that line in the claims. The claims do not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available, and the claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. In the other words, the claim languages need to improve the clarity or precision of the language used.
For the purpose of examination, the claims 4, 9-10, are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow: line integral data: any line data, trend line: any line.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choice et al. (KR 20200070509). Hereafter “Choice”. (Please see attached files for Choice’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 13, Choice discloses a substrate inspection method (page 5, lines 37-41; Page 9, lines 12-13), comprising:
selecting an optimum inspection value using a test/target substrate (page 6, lines 35-38; Page 4, lines 22-23; Page 5, lines 22-27. OPED value or peak value of the intensity of the scattering beam is not different from optimum inspection value); and
determining at least one of crystallization degree and abnormal crystallization of a target substrate using the optimum inspection value, (page 4, lines 22-26; Page 5, lines 32-36; Page 6, lines 18-24; Page 9, lines 36-38. Defective is not different from abnormal crystallization of a target substrate),
wherein the selecting of the optimum inspection value comprises:
capturing a focus region located in at least a portion of the test substrate (the following figure 1, region around the point A1 is not different from a focus region, test/target substrate 10);
quantifying at least one of the crystallization degree and the abnormal crystallization of the test substrate (page 4, lines 22-26; Page 5, lines 32-36; Page 6, lines 18-24; Page 9, lines 36-38); and
selecting at least one of an optimum process energy density value (OPED) and an optimum abnormal crystallization determination value (OACD) as the optimum inspection value (page 5, lines 19-36; Page 6, lines 18-38; Page 8, lines 12-17. Defective is not different from abnormal crystallization value).
[AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
222
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claim(s) 2-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choice et al. (KR 20200070509) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 2022008546). Hereafter “Choice” and “Ryu’ 546”. (Please see attached files for Choice’s reference and for Ruy’ 546).
Regarding Claim 2, Choice teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the quantifying of the at least one of the crystallization degree and the abnormal crystallization of the test substrate comprises quantifying the abnormal crystallization, and the quantifying of the abnormal crystallization comprises extracting a color table value and calculating a statistical value using the color table value. Choice further teaches the quantifying of the at least one of the crystallization degree and the abnormal crystallization of the test substrate comprises quantifying the abnormal crystallization, (page 4, lines 22-26; Page 6, lines 18-24. If scatter is outside predetermined range is defective and abnormal). Ryu’ 546 teaches quantifying of the abnormal crystallization comprises extracting a color table value and calculating a statistical value using the color table value (page 1, abstract; Page 4, lines 24-35; Page 5, lines 5-19; Page 7, lines 12-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choice by extracting a color table value and calculating a statistical value using the color table value in order to quantify the product (Ryu’ 546, page 7, lines 34-38).
Regarding Claim 3, Choice teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a color table used in the extracting of the color table value is at least one of an RGB color table, a gray color table, a YCbCr color table, and an HSV color table. Ryu’ 546 teaches a color table used in the extracting of the color table value is at least one of an RGB color table, a gray color table, a YCbCr color table, and an HSV color table (page 7, lines 23-33; Page 8, lines 7-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choice by having a color table used in the extracting of the color table value is at least one of an RGB color table, a gray color table, a YCbCr color table, and an HSV color table in order to quantify the product (Ryu’ 546, page 7, lines 34-38).
14. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choice et al. (KR 20200070509) in view of JP4024657 (JP 4024657). Hereafter “Choice” and “JP4024657”. (Please see attached files for Choice’s reference and for JP4024657).
Regarding Claim 4, Choice teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for extracting line integral data for each angle in the focus region; extracting two or more trend lines of the line integral data for each angle; and calculating a statistical value of the two or more trend lines. JP4024657 teaches extracting line integral data for each angle in the focus region; extracting two or more trend lines of the line integral data for each angle; and calculating a statistical value of the two or more trend lines ([0037-0043, 70], figures 1-4, 9-10. Graphs in figures 3, 9 are not different from line integral data and trend lines). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choice by having line integral data table and trend lines in order to extract an optimum energy density for the inspection ([0005, 0037-0043, 70]).
15. Claim(s) 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choice et al. (KR 20200070509) in view of Ryu et al. (CN 114649192). Hereafter “Choice” and “Ryu’ 192”. (Please see attached files for Choice’s reference and for Ruy’ 192).
Regarding Claim 11-12, Choice teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the selecting of the optimum inspection value further comprises manufacturing the test substrate, the determining of the at least any of the crystallization degree and abnormal crystallization of the target substrate comprises manufacturing the target substrate, and the test substrate and the target substrate comprise polysilicon formed by a laser annealer, crystallization energy of the laser annealer uses the OPED. Choice further teaches the selecting of the optimum inspection value further comprises manufacturing the test substrate, (page 5, lines 37-46; Page 6, lines 35-38; Page 9, lines 12-13), the determining of the at least any of the crystallization degree and abnormal crystallization of the target substrate comprises manufacturing the target substrate, (page 4, lines 22-26; Page 5, lines 32-36; Page 6, lines 18-24; Page 9, lines 36-38). Ruy’ 192 teaches the test substrate and the target substrate comprise polysilicon formed by a laser annealer, crystallization energy of the laser annealer uses the OPED (Abstract; Page 2, lines 31-44; Page 3, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choice by having polysilicon formed by a laser annealer, crystallization energy of the laser annealer uses the OPED in order to manufacture polycrystalline silicon substrate efficiently (Abstract; Page 2, lines 31-44; Page 3, lines 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 5-10 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 and if overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
17. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 5-10.
18. As claim 5, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a substrate inspection method comprising determining at least one of crystallization degree and abnormal crystallization of a target substrate using the optimum inspection value, quantifying at least one of the crystallization degree and the abnormal crystallization of the test substrate; and selecting at least one of an optimum process energy density value (OPED) and an optimum abnormal crystallization determination value (OACD) as the optimum inspection value; extracting line integral data for each angle in the focus region; extracting two or more trend lines of the line integral data for each angle; and calculating a statistical value of the two or more trend lines; wherein the line integral data comprises data obtained by adding color table values of pixels located at a same position in extension lines, and the extension lines extend at a same angle in the focus region and are arranged side by side with each other in a direction different from the angle; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 and 5.
19. As claim 9, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a substrate inspection method comprising determining at least one of crystallization degree and abnormal crystallization of a target substrate using the optimum inspection value, quantifying at least one of the crystallization degree and the abnormal crystallization of the test substrate; and selecting at least one of an optimum process energy density value (OPED) and an optimum abnormal crystallization determination value (OACD) as the optimum inspection value; extracting line integral data for each angle in the focus region; extracting two or more trend lines of the line integral data for each angle; and calculating a statistical value of the two or more trend lines; wherein the statistical value is calculated using the squares of deviations between the two or more trend lines; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 and 9.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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.
August 3, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights