CTNF 18/926,341 CTNF 73002 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brigante et al (US 2001/0043734) . Brigante et al teaches a method as claimed. The method comprises: Detecting a defect (location) information of the surface of a wafer; Removing the defects according the information. See at least Figure 1 and the description at [0002], [0006], [0008], [0013], [0024], [0028], [0032], [0036], [0038]. As to claim 15: Brigante et al teaches detecting the size of the defect and removal based on the size of the defect. See at least [0008], [0012], [0016], [0024], [0027], [0032], [0036]. As to claim 16: Brigante et al teaches detection of the composition (specie) of the defect and removal based on the composition of the defect. See at least [0006], [0008], [0012], [0016], [0032-36], [0039]. As to claim 17: Brigante et al teaches that detecting comprises emitting and detecting light. See at least Figure 2, claim 32. As to claim 19: Brigante et al teaches the use of a flashing device 218 for the removal (at least Figure 2 and [0037]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7, 9-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigante et al (US 2001/0043734) in view of Ramani et al (US 7,659,975) . Brigante et al teaches a device comprising: a defect inspection module 202, located above a wafer 250; a defect remover 204, 218. See at least Figure 2 and the related description. Brigante et al does not specifically state that the device comprises a wafer stage. However, since the wafer has to be supported a stage supporting the wafer during inspection/processing is obviously present. Further, supporting wafers by wafer stages during inspection is known as evidenced by Ramani et al (at least Figure 2 and the related description). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Brigante et al with a wafer stage to support the wafer as suggested by Ramani et al in order to use a known device for its known purpose. As to claim 2: Brigante et al teaches that the inspection module is configured to detect the size of the defect and that the defect removal is configured to remove the defect based on the size of the defect. See at least [0008], [0012], [0016], [0024], [0027], [0032], [0036]. As to claim 3: Brigante et al teaches that the inspection module is configured to detect the composition (specie) of the defect and that the defect removal is configured to remove the defect based on the composition of the defect. See at least [0006], [0008], [0012], [0016], [0032-36], [0039]. As to claim 4: Brigante et al teaches that the inspection module comprises a light emitter and a light detector. See at least Figure 2, claim 32. As to claim 5: Brigante et al does not specifically teach the use of image capturing units(cameras). However, the use of cameras for inspection of wafers was known in the art, as evidenced by Ramani et al (at least column 15, lines 35-41). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a camera as suggested by Ramani et al in the device of Brigante et al in order to use a known device for its known purpose. As to claims 6 and 7: Brigante et al teaches the use of a flashing device 218 (at least Figure 2 and [0037]). The range recited by claim 7 is obvious from the distance between the device 218 and the particle 275a. As to claims 9 and 13: Brigante et al does not specifically describe that the inspection module is configured to move as claimed. However, such was known in the art as evidenced by Ramani et al (at least column 9, line 2-8). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to make the inspection module in the device of Brigante et al movable relative to the stage in order to use a known device for its known purpose. As to claim 10: Brigante et al teaches that the inspection module comprises a light emitter and a light detector. See at least Figure 2, claim 32. As to claim 11: Brigante et al does not specifically teach the use of image capturing units(cameras). However, the use of cameras for inspection of wafers was known in the art, as evidenced by Ramani et al (at least column 15, lines 35-41). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a camera as suggested by Ramani et al in the device of Brigante et al in order to use a known device for its known purpose. As to claim 12: Brigante et al teaches that the inspection module is configured to detect the size of the defect and that the defect removal is configured to remove the defect based on the size of the defect. See at least [0008], [0012], [0016], [0024], [0027], [0032], [0036]. As to claim 18: The discussion of the teaching of Brigante et al provided with respect to claim 14 is incorporated here. Brigante et al does not specifically teach the use of image capturing units(cameras). However, the use of cameras for inspection of wafers was known in the art, as evidenced by Ramani et al (at least column 15, lines 35-41). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the use of cameras as suggested by Ramani et al in the method of Brigante et al in order to use a known method for its known purpose . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigante et al (US 2001/0043734) in view of Robinson et al (US 2016/0263632) . Brigante et al as discussed above teaches a device as claimed except for the specific recitation of the picking particles. However, the use of particle picking to remove particles from the substrates including wafers was known in the art, as evidenced by Robinson et al (at least Figures 3, 4, 7-11 and the related description). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the particle removal unit in the device of Brigante et al to further remove particles in order to use a known device for its known purpose . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigante et al (US 2001/0043734) in view of Ramani et al (US 7,659,975) and further in view of Robinson et al (US 2016/0263632) . Modified Brigante et al as discussed above teaches a device as claimed except for the specific recitation of the particle picking unit. However, the use of particle picking units was known in the art for removal particles from the substrates including wafers, as evidenced by Robinson et al (at least Figures 3, 4, 7-11 and the related description). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the particle removal unit in the device of Brigante et al to further remove particles in order to use a known device for its known purpose . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to devices and methods for inspection wafers and removal particles and other defects . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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. /ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 2 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 3 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 4 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 5 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 6 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 7 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 8 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/926,341 Page 9 Art Unit: 1711
Prosecution Insights