DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to claims 6 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to claims 6 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §112(b) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to claims 1, 10, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §102/103 rejections of claims 1-14 and 17-20 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly-found prior art.
Hayashi et al. (US 2010/0066998) disclose a semiconductor manufacturing system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
an optical inspection system (12/14/16/17/18/21/26) comprising:
a camera (21) [0066];
a first light source (16) positioned to direct light (via mirrors 12/14) at a bevel of the wafer (100) such that light from the first light source (16) reflects off the bevel of the wafer (100) into the camera (21) (“to enable a plurality of surfaces of the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100 facing different directions to be caught by a single camera 21, a mirror 12 (first optical member) and a mirror 14 (second optical member) are provided near the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100 ” [0066]); and
a second light source (16) positioned to direct light perpendicularly at an edge of the wafer (100) such that light from the second light source (16) reflects off the edge of the wafer (100) into the camera (21) (“The illumination light guide lamp part 18 is set so that light transmitted over the plurality of optical fibers 17 is projected onto the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100” [0066]).
The Examiner placed a call and left a message for James Bergstrom on 31 July 2026 to expedite prosecution, but failed to receive a return call.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-14 and 17 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first light source comprises a ring light around the camera or a dome light”. It is unclear if there is a ring light around either of the camera or a dome light, or if the first light source comprises either a ring light or a dome light. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner adopts the second interpretation, that the first light source comprises either a ring light or a dome light. For clarity, the Examiner suggests amending the language to recite “wherein the first light source comprises either a ring light around the camera or a dome light.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2010/0066998), hereinafter Hayashi.
Claim 1: Hayashi discloses a semiconductor manufacturing system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
an aligner (“rotational mechanism”) configured to:
impart a rotational motion to a wafer (100) (“the semiconductor wafer 100 is supported in a rotatable manner by a rotational mechanism (not shown) set on a guide rail 30” [0066]); and
identify, using the rotational motion of the wafer (100), a position of a reference feature of the wafer (100) (“The semiconductor wafer inspection apparatus 10 shown in FIG. 1 captures an image of an outer circumference edge part of a plate-shaped member constituted by a semiconductor wafer 100 and inspects the damage, projections, and other conditions at the outer circumference edge part” [0066]); and
an optical inspection system (12/14/16/17/18/21/26) configured to collect, during the rotational motion imparted by the aligner to the wafer (100), imaging data for a portion of the wafer (100) [0066], wherein the optical inspection system (12/14/16/17/18/21/26) comprises:
a camera (21) [0066];
a first light source (16) positioned to direct light (via mirrors 12/14) at a bevel of the wafer (100) such that light from the first light source (16) reflects off the bevel of the wafer (100) into the camera (21) (“to enable a plurality of surfaces of the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100 facing different directions to be caught by a single camera 21, a mirror 12 (first optical member) and a mirror 14 (second optical member) are provided near the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100” [0066]); and
the first light source (16) positioned to direct light perpendicularly at an edge of the wafer (100) such that light from the second light source (16) reflects off the edge of the wafer (100) into the camera (21) (“The illumination light guide lamp part 18 is set so that light transmitted over the plurality of optical fibers 17 is projected onto the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100” [0066]).
Hayashi discloses the first light source (16) illuminating both the bevel and the edge of the wafer (100) [0066], but is silent with respect to two separate light sources.
However, Hayashi does disclose making the bevel surfaces (101b,101c) brighter than the edge surface (101a) (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s first light source by making it into two separate light sources for the purpose of ensuring that each of the bevel and edge surfaces are irradiated with the desired intensity. Furthermore, the court has held that a “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Claim 2: Hayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the first light source and the portion of the wafer is less than a distance between the second light source and the portion of the wafer.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for this claimed configuration, disclosing only that “[t]he first light source may be closer to the portion of the wafer than the second light source” (Spec. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s optical system by placing the first light source closer to the wafer than the second light source is for the purpose of ensuring a compact configuration without crosstalk.
Claim 3: Hayashi is silent with respect to the relative brightness of the first and second light sources.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for the first light source to be at least 10% brighter than the second light source. Applicant discloses only that the first light source “may be” at least 10% brighter than the second light source (Spec. [0056]), but does not require it to be so. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s optical inspection system so that the first and second light sources are distinct and the brightness of Hayashi’s first light source is greater than the brightness of the second light source, such as by at least 10%, for the purpose of achieving a desired level of contrast between bevel and edge, for improved characterization of the surface (Fig. 2A: “compared with the outer circumference end face 101a, the first outer circumference bevel surface 101b and second outer circumference bevel surface 101c become brighter”, Abstract).
Claim 6: Hayashi is silent with respect to the frequency of the rotational motion of the wafer.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for the rotational motion of the wafer to occur with a frequency between 30 rpm and 250 rpm. Applicant discloses that the rotation frequency may be “between 30 rpm and 250 rpm” (Spec. [0006]), may be “50-200 rpm” (Spec. [0038]), and that “the rotation frequency may be below 50 rpm (e.g., 10 rpm or even lower) or above 200 rpm (e.g., 250 rpm)” (Spec. [0038]). “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s aligner to impart a rotational motion of a desired frequency, such as 30-250rpm, for the purpose of ensuring that all portions of the wafer are equally characterized.
Claim 9: Hayashi is silent with respect to the distances of the camera, the first light source, and the second light source from the wafer.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for the camera, the first light source, and the second light source to be positioned between about 5 mm and about 100 mm from the wafer. Applicant discloses only how the camera and the first and second light sources may be positioned (Spec. [0057]). “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s optical inspection system so that the camera and the first and second light sources are a desired distance, such as 5-100 mm, from the wafer for the purpose of optimizing the use of available space in the semiconductor manufacturing system.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tagawa et al. (US 2013/0100441), hereinafter Tagawa.
Claim 4: Hayashi is silent with respect to identifying a defect in the wafer.
Tagawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection apparatus, discloses:
a processing device (730) programmed to identify, using the imaging data, a defect in the wafer (100) [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s semiconductor manufacturing system with a processor to identify a wafer defect for the purpose of ensuring that high-quality wafers are manufactured and output.
Claim 5: Hayashi is silent with respect to a factory interface.
Tagawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection apparatus, discloses wherein the aligner (210) and the optical inspection system (500) are located in a factory interface (Fig. 1) coupled to at least one of a load lock chamber, a transfer chamber, or a processing chamber [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s semiconductor manufacturing system by locating the aligner and the optical inspection system in a factory interface for the purpose of ensuring that high-quality wafers are manufactured and output.
Claim 7: Hayashi is silent with respect to the portion of the wafer for which the imaging data is collected.
Tagawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection apparatus, discloses wherein the imaging data is collected for the portion of the wafer (100) located within a distance d/10 from an edge of the wafer (100), wherein d is a diameter of the wafer (100) (implicit, since the camera is part of the edge inspection device 500 [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s semiconductor manufacturing system by collecting the imaging data for a certain portion of the wafer for the purpose of ensuring that high-quality wafers are manufactured and output.
Claim 8: Hayashi is silent with respect to a deposition chamber and a transfer robot.
Tagawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection apparatus, discloses a deposition chamber (300) and a transfer robot (transfer arm 220) (Fig. 1), wherein the transfer robot (220) is configured to move the wafer (100) from the aligner (210, at 500) to the deposition chamber (300) (following the “Wafer Transfer” path) after capturing the imaging data [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s semiconductor manufacturing system with a deposition chamber and a transfer robot for the purpose of automating the inspection to reduce errors, such as from misalignment or introduction of dust.
Claims 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, in view of Tagawa.
Claim 18: Hayashi discloses a method (using system 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
imparting a rotational motion to a wafer (100) (“the semiconductor wafer 100 is supported in a rotatable manner by a rotational mechanism (not shown) set on a guide rail 30” [0066]);
directing first light (via mirrors 12/14) from a first light source (16) at a bevel of the wafer (100) such that the first light is reflected off of the bevel of the wafer (100) into a camera (21) (“to enable a plurality of surfaces of the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100 facing different directions to be caught by a single camera 21, a mirror 12 (first optical member) and a mirror 14 (second optical member) are provided near the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100” [0066]);
directing second light from the first light source (16) perpendicularly at an edge of the wafer (100) such that the second light is reflected off of the edge of the wafer (100) into the camera (21) (“The illumination light guide lamp part 18 is set so that light transmitted over the plurality of optical fibers 17 is projected onto the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100” [0066]); and
collecting, using the camera (21), imaging data for the bevel of the wafer (100) and the edge of the wafer (100), wherein the imaging data is collected during the rotational motion imparted to the wafer (100) (“a plurality of surfaces of the outer circumference edge part of the semiconductor wafer 100 facing different directions to be caught by a single camera 21” [0066]).
Hayashi is silent with respect to identifying a defect in the wafer.
Tagawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses identifying, using the imaging data, a defect in the wafer (100) [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s method by identifying a wafer defect for the purpose of ensuring that high-quality wafers are manufactured and output.
Claim 20: Hayashi is silent with respect to adjusting a brightness of the light to adjust a quality of the imaging data.
However, adjusting a quality of the imaging data amounts to mere optimization of the method. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s method by adjusting a brightness of the light for the purpose of optimizing the clarity of the imaging data for identifying surface defects.
Claim 21: Hayashi further disclose generating a single image from the camera that captures views of the edge (101a) of the wafer (100), a top bevel (101b) of the wafer (100), and a bottom bevel (101c) of the wafer (100) simultaneously by lighting each of the edge (101a) of the wafer (100), the top bevel (101b) of the wafer (100), and the bottom bevel (101c) of the wafer (100) individually (evident from Figs. 1 and 2A) [0067].
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, in view of Tagawa as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chou et al. (US 2020/0264111), hereinafter Chou.
Claim 19: Hayashi is silent with respect to the specific defect.
Chou, however, in the same field of endeavor of inspection methods, discloses wherein the defect comprises a chipping defect, a pitting defect, a film delamination defect, a bevel-edge defect, or a staining defect (“In some embodiments, the inspection results includes[sic] images of the front side WF, the back side WB, and the edge E of the wafer W. For example, the computer system 500 can determine whether the counted number or sizes of defects, which present on the wafer W, exceed a threshold value” [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s method to identify a specific type of defect for the purpose of properly sorting the wafers to ensure that only those wafers whose defects can be ameliorated are output.
Claim 22: Hayashi is silent with respect to using a trained defect classifier.
Chou, however, in the same field of endeavor of inspection methods, discloses analyzing light intensity data from the single image using a trained defect classifier to determine a class, a size, and a location of a defect in at least one of the edge of the wafer, the top bevel of the wafer, and the bottom bevel of the wafer (“In some embodiments, the inspection results includes[sic] images of the front side WF, the back side WB, and the edge E of the wafer W. For example, the computer system 500 can determine whether the counted number or sizes of defects, which present on the wafer W, exceed a threshold value” [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hayashi’s method to identify a specific type of defect for the purpose of properly sorting the wafers to ensure that only those wafers whose defects can be ameliorated are output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights