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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a merger that divides the basic image data into . . . . in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007194262 A to KAZUHITO et al (hereinafter ‘Kazuhito’) (Please refer to the attached USPTO translation version) in view of US 20250027886 A1 to Chiu et al (hereinafter ‘Chiu’).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuhito discloses a substrate inspecting apparatus (Page 6, Para 1, a substrate inspection device 6 and a substrate inspection result management unit 7) comprising: an image sensor (Page 19, Para 7, wherein a line sensor camera 405 as an imaging unit and a filter 404 are arranged at a position facing the illumination unit 401) that captures an image of a substrate to generate basic image data Page 11, Para 5, wherein FIG. 8 shows a state in which defects are extracted from an image generated when the wafer substrate of FIG. 7 is inspected); and a device that divides the basic image data into first image data including a first stain area and a first non-stain area and second image data including a second stain area and a second non-stain area, (Page 11, Para 5, wherein eight defects are extracted in the inspection wafer substrate 41b. The defect information at that time includes the contents shown in the defect information lists 45a and 45b (shot number, chip number, defect centroid position, area, ferret diameter (X direction, Y direction), peripheral length, true length in relation to the defect number. Circularity is presented). When the defect generated in the central shot area 42, as one of the extracted divided images, is viewed in detail, the defect is a black defect extending over the pattern areas 43 a, 43 d, and 43 e like the chip 43. What is noticed when looking at the wafer image 41 is that defects of almost the same size are always present at the same position of the shot when viewed in units of shots. Considering this, the periodicity of defects is examined on a single substrate basis for each shot). Kazuhito does not specifically disclose a merger, merging the first image data and the second image data to generate merged image data including a merged stain area that represents the first stain area and the second stain area and a merged non-stain area that represents the first non-stain area and the second non-stain area. Chiu discloses merger, (Fig. 1, inspection device 110) merging the first image data (Fig. 2A, image 101a) and the second image data (Fig. 2A, image 101b) to generate merged image data including a merged stain area that represents the first stain area and the second stain area and a merged non-stain area that represents the first non-stain area and the second non-stain area (Para [0072], wherein the processor is electrically coupled to the plurality of first detector and configured to: merge the plurality of inspection images to generate a merged image). Kazuhito and Chiu are combinable because they both disclose a substrate defect detection. Therefore, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the merging of the inspection images of Chiu’s apparatus with Kazuhito’s in order to increase defect detection efficiency by each inspection image contributing to clarity of the merged image by a given rate (para [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Chiu discloses wherein the merger determines whether the substrate is defective based on the merged image data (Para [0072], wherein merge the plurality of inspection images to generate a merged image; enhance quality of the merged image to generate a processed image; determine whether the processed image is qualified using a reference image; and find defects of a qualified image in response to determining that the processed image is qualified).
Regarding claim 6, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Kazuhito discloses wherein the image sensor includes: an imager that captures the image of the substrate to generate a plurality of captured image data of the substrate (Page 19, Para 7); an inspector that determines whether the substrate is defective based on each of the plurality of captured image data (Page 10, Para 6, wherein based on the integrated inspection information ww generated by the substrate inspection apparatus 6, the defect cycle estimation unit 32 within the single target estimates the periodicity of the defect in units of shots, as each image); and a generator that generates the basic image data based on the plurality of captured image data (Page 11, Para 5, wherein eight defects are extracted in the inspection wafer substrate 41b. The defect information at that time includes the contents shown in the defect information lists 45a and 45b (shot number, chip number, defect centroid position, area, ferret diameter (X direction, Y direction), peripheral length, true length in relation to the defect number. Circularity is presented). When the defect generated in the central shot area 42, as one extracted divided image as basic image).
Regarding the method claims 7 and 8, please refer to the corresponding apparatus claims 1 and 2 above for further teachings.
Regarding claim 12, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Kazuhito discloses wherein the generating of the basic image data by capturing the image of the substrate includes: generating first basic image data by capturing an image of a first substrate; and generating second basic image data by capturing an image of a second substrate (Page 13, Para 7, wherein in FIG. 11, it is expected that the upper right black defect is seen every other wafer and the lower left thin defect is seen every two wafers, inherently as captured images of first and the second substrate).
Regarding claim 13, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Kazuhito discloses wherein the dividing of the basic image data into the first image data and the second image data includes: dividing the first basic image data into first first image data including a first first stain area and first second image data including a first second stain area, wherein the first second stain area has a position in the first second image data that is the same as the position of the first first stain area in the first first image data; and dividing the second basic image data into second first image data including a second first stain area and second second image data including a second second stain area, wherein the second second stain area has a position in the second second image data that is the same as to the position of the second first stain area in the second first image data (Page 13, Para 7, wherein in FIG. 11, black defects 52b, 53a, 55a, and 56b are present in the upper right, and thin defects 52a, 54a, and 56a are present in the lower left, as first and the second stain areas within each first and other substrates. However, depending on the inspection wafer, both exist, either one exists, both it can be seen that both do not exist.).
Regarding claim 16, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Kazuhito discloses wherein the generating of the basic image data by capturing the image of the substrate includes: generating first basic image data including a first first stain area and a first second stain area by capturing an image of a first substrate; and generating second basic image data including a second first stain area and a second second stain area by capturing an image of a second substrate, wherein the second first stain area has a position in the second basic image data that is same as the position of the first first stain area in the first basic image data, and the second second stain area has a position in the second basic image data that is same as the position of the first second stain area in the second basic image data (Page 13, Para 7, wherein in FIG. 11, black defects 52b, 53a, 55a, and 56b are present in the upper right, as the same defects in the first and second substrates 51-a1 and 51-a3, and thin defects 52a, 54a, and 56a are present in the lower left. However, depending on the inspection wafer, both exist, either one exists, both It can be seen that both do not exist.).
Regarding claim 18, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Kazuhito discloses wherein the generating of the basic image data includes: generating a plurality of captured image data of multiple exposure areas of the substrate; and generating the basic image data through the plurality of captured image data (Page 10, Para 6, wherein aased on the integrated inspection information ww generated by the substrate inspection apparatus 6, the defect cycle estimation unit 32 within the single target estimates the periodicity of the defect in units of shots, inherently as multiple images of a give exposure and each as the corresponding basic image, and the single substrate periodicity estimation information ddd is abnormal in the manufacturing process).
Regarding claim 19, in the combination of Kazuhito and Chiu, Kazuhito discloses wherein the generating of the basic image data further includes: determining whether the substrate is defective based on each of the plurality of captured image data (Page 11, Para 1, wherein receiving the single-substrate periodicity estimation information ddd, the manufacturing process abnormality determining unit 35 checks whether or not the defect periodicity can be seen in shot units, as the plurality of captured images, for the purpose of checking the periodicity in the wafer (step S22)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 14, 15, 17 and 20 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: the prior art or the prior art of record specifically, Kazuhito and Chiu, does not disclose:
. . . . . wherein the merger generates the merged image data by calculating a first normal value by normalizing a sum of a brightness of the first stain area and a brightness of the second stain area and a second normal value by normalizing a sum of a brightness of the first non-stain area and a brightness of the second non-stain area, of claim 3 combined with other features and elements of the claim;
Claims 4-5 and 9-11 depend from an allowable base claim and are thus allowable themselves;
. . . . wherein the generating of the merged image data by merging the first image data and the second image data includes: generating first merged image data including a first merged stain area representing the first first stain area and the first second stain area by merging the first first image data and the first second image data; and generating second merged image data including a second merged stain area representing the second first stain area and the second second stain area by merging the second first image data and the second second image data, of claim 14 combined with other features and elements of the claim;
Claim 15 depends from an allowable base claim and is thus allowable itself;
. . . . wherein the generating of the basic image data by capturing the image of the substrate further includes: generating the basic image data including the first stain area representing the first first stain area and the second first stain area and the second stain area representing the first second stain area and the second second stain area by merging the first basic image data and the second basic image data, of claim 17 combined with other features and elements of the claim;
. . . . wherein the first image data includes first information about the first stain area and the first non-stain area, the second image data includes second information about the second stain area and the second non-stain area, the first information includes a position of the first stain area, a size of the first stain area, a shape of the first stain area, a brightness of the first stain area, a position of the first non-stain area, and a brightness of the first non-stain area, and the second information includes a position of the second stain area, a size of the second stain area, a shape of the second stain area, a brightness of the second stain area, a position of the second non-stain area, and a brightness of the second non-stain area, of claim 20 combined with other features and elements of the claim.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-05:00 PST.
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, Sue 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights