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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in [0036] of the specification, the first coaxial light source 141c is recited to be an element of the upper back projection module 141 and the second coaxial light source 142c is recited to be an element of the lower back projection module 142. However, shown in Fig. 1, the lower back projection module 142 has the second coaxial light source labeled as element 141c and the upper back projection module 141 has the first coaxial light source labeled as element 142c. It appears that these two elements should be swapped.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“coaxial back projection imaging device” in claims 1 and 8.
“upper back projection module” in claim 1.
“lower back projection module” in claim 1.
“side-light imaging device” in claims 1 and 8.
“light splitting element’’ in claims 2-3.
“imaging element” in claim 2.
“image capturing element” in claim 7.
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.
Examples of a “coaxial back projection imaging device” is disclosed in paragraph [0032] of the specification which recites that the coaxial back projection imaging device includes an upper back projection module and a lower back projection module disposed on a second platform, wherein the upper back projection module includes a first imaging element, a first lens element, a first coaxial light source, and a first light splitting element, and the lower back projection module includes a second imaging element, a second lens element, a second coaxial light source, and a second light splitting element.
Examples of an “upper back projection module” is disclosed in paragraph [0032] of the specification which recites that the upper back projection module includes an imaging element, a lens element, a coaxial light source, and a light splitting element.
Examples of a “lower back projection module” is disclosed in paragraph [0032] of the specification which recites that the lower back projection module includes an imaging element, a lens element, a coaxial light source, and a light splitting element.
Examples of a “side-light imaging device” is disclosed in paragraph [0011] from the specification which recites that the side-light imaging device has a side light source and an image capturing element.
Examples of a “light splitting element’’ is disclosed in paragraph [0032] of the specification which recites that elements 141d and 142d in Fig. 1 shows a light splitting element which appears to be a beam splitter.
Regarding an “imaging element”, the specification does not provide examples for structure of an imaging element. Parts of the specification discloses what the imaging element is a part of ([0007], [0033-0037], [0044], and [0052]), however, the disclosure does not provide specific examples for structure of an imaging element.
Regarding an “image capturing element”, the specification does not provide examples for structure of an image capturing element. Parts of the specification discloses what the imaging element is a part of ([0011] and [0039]), however, the disclosure does not provide specific examples for structure of an imaging element.
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 § 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 1-10 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 limitations “coaxial back projection imaging device”, “upper back projection module”, “lower back projection module”, “side-light imaging device”, “imaging element” and “image capturing element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Paragraphs [0007], [0032-0037], [0044], and [0052] of the specification recites an imaging element, however, no structure or further details is provided for an imaging element. An imaging element is disclosed in [0007] and [0032] of the specification as being a part of a corresponding structure of an upper back projection module, lower back projection module, and a coaxial back projection imaging device. However, since the disclosure does not provide any specific examples for structure for an imaging element, it is also unclear what the structure of an upper back projection module, lower back projection module, or coaxial back projection imaging device is. Therefore, the written description does fails to dispose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for an upper back projection module, a lower back projection module, a coaxial back projection imaging device, and an imaging device. As best understood and therefore interpreted, an imaging element is merely any element that can provide the function of imaging. Claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of coaxial back projection imaging device and upper and lower back projection module which is indefinite due to the written description failing to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Paragraphs [0011] and [0039] of the specification recites an image capturing element, however, no structure or further details is provided for an image capturing element. An image capturing element is disclosed in [0011] and [0039] of the specification as being a part of a corresponding structure of a side-light imaging device. However, since the disclosure does not provide any specific examples for structure for an image capturing element, it is also unclear what the structure of a side-light imaging device is. Therefore, the written description does fails to dispose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for an image capturing device and a side-light imaging device. As best understood and therefore interpreted, an image capturing element is merely any element that can provide the function of imaging. Claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of side-light imaging device which is indefinite due to the written description failing to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, recites “a third imaging path.” However,
claim 1 does not recite a first or a second imaging path, therefore, it is unclear how
there is a third imaging path in claim 7. Claims 2 and 4 does recite a/the first and
second imaging path, therefore, it would appear that claim 7 should be dependent on
either claim 2 or claim 4.
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, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkner (US 20080232672 A1) in view of Watkins (US 20050036671 A1) and further in view of Drillman (US 20240003826 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Birkner teaches a wafer inspection system (Abstract), comprising:
a first platform (Fig. 4: prealigner 10) for placing a target object (Fig. 4: wafer 6) thereon;
a second platform (Fig. 4: carrier 23) moveable relative to the first platform ([0024]: The carrier is movable relative to the prealigner as shown in Fig. 4 with direction of double arrow 24 [0043].), wherein the target object (Fig. 4: wafer 6) on the first platform (Fig. 4: prealigner 10) is moveable relative to the second platform ([0045]: Shown in Fig. 4 where the prealigner 10 is movable in an axial direction as shown by double arrow 43 and also rotatable by controller 40.; [0022]: Prealigner can be movable in the Z-direction.);
a coaxial back projection imaging device (Fig. 4: device 22 where the three cameras are arranged in one plane [0025]) including an upper back projection module (Fig. 6: first camera 25 and illumination means 50 illuminates and images the upper back side of wafer 6) and a lower back projection module (Fig. 6: third camera 27 and illumination means 50 illuminates and images the lower back side of wafer 6) disposed on the second platform (Shown in Fig. 6 where the first camera 25 and the third camera 27 are on a common carrier 23 [0045]), wherein a light (Fig. 6: illumination means 50) is guided to an upper side and a lower side of a peripheral edge (peripheral edge shown in Fig. 6) of the target object (Fig. 6: wafer 6) by the upper back projection module (Fig. 6: camera 25 and illumination means 50) and the lower back projection module (Fig. 6: camera 27 and illumination means 50) to obtain a front back projection image and a rear back projection image of the peripheral edge respectively (Shown in Fig. 6 where illumination means 50 along with cameras 25 and 27 image the peripheral edge of the back side of wafer 6 [0047]); and
a side-light imaging device (Fig. 6: second camera 26 and illumination means 50), wherein a side light (Fig. 6: illumination means 50) emitted by the side-light imaging device is guided to a side of the peripheral edge of the target object to obtain a contrast image of the peripheral edge (shown in Fig. 6 and described in [0017]: First, second, and third cameras acquires an image of the edge area of the wafer, as shown in Fig. 4 and 6. Furthermore, paragraph [0034] recites that Fig. 6 shows an arrangement of external illumination means constituting a bright field arrangement together with the cameras where a bright field arrangement allows for contrast images to be obtained.).
Birkner appears to be silent to having a third platform movable relative to the first platform and located on a side of the second platform; and
a side-light imaging device disposed on the third platform.
Watkins, related to an apparatus for edge inspection of wafers, does teach a third platform (Fig. 10: servo motor 172 that moves sensor 104 [0030]) movable relative to the first platform (Fig. 10: support plate 108) and located on a side of the second platform (Fig. 10: servo motor that moves sensor 102 [0025]); and
a side-light imaging device (Fig. 7 shows sensor 104 has strobes 162A and 162B) disposed on the third platform (Fig. 10: servo motor 172 that moves sensor 104 [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Birkner to incorporate a third platform moveable relative to the first platform and located on a side of the second platform and a side-light imaging device disposed on the third platform, as disclosed by Watkins. The advantage of having a third platform movable relative to the first platform and located on a side of the second platform is that by moving the platform which holds the edge normal camera 113 (third platform) relative to the platform which holds the wafer (first platform), one can focus the edge normal camera using a servo motor ([0030] from Watkins). Furthermore, having a side-light imaging device (Fig. 10: edge normal sensor 104) disposed on the third platform (Fig. 10 servo motor 172 that moves sensor 104 [0030]) has the advantage of allowing for an edge inspection system which can inspect the top and bottom edge of a wafer ([0041] from Watkins).
Birkner modified by Watkins appears to be silent to having a coaxial light.
Drillman, related to a wafer edge inspection device, does teach having a coaxial light ([0073]: Illumination radiation is coaxial with sensor’s optical axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Birkner combined with Watkins to incorporate a coaxial light, as disclosed by Drillman. Coaxial lights have the advantage of allowing for simultaneous illumination and collection of reflected electromagnetic radiation ([0159] from Drillman).
Regarding Claim 2, Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman teaches the wafer inspection system of claim 1.
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman further teaches that the upper back projection module (Birkner, Fig. 6: camera 25 and illumination means 50) and the lower back projection module (Birkner, Fig. 6: camera 27 and illumination means 50) each has a coaxial light source (Drillman, coaxial illumination radiation from [0073]) and imaging element (Birkner, cameras 25-27 as shown in Figs. 4 and 6 would have an imaging element.).
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman (for claim 1) further appears to be silent to having a light splitting element, wherein between the peripheral edge and the corresponding light splitting element and the coaxial light source is formed with a first imaging path, and between the corresponding light splitting element and the imaging element is formed with a second imaging path.
Drillman, related to a wafer edge inspection device, does teach having a light splitting element (Fig. 10B: beam splitter 710), wherein between the peripheral edge (edge shown in Fig. 10B) and the corresponding light splitting element (Fig. 10B: beam splitter 710) and the coaxial light source (Fig. 10B: bright field illumination 104’ is coaxial with the bonding region sensor 110’s optical axis) is formed with a first imaging path (shown in Fig. 10B where the illumination from element 104’ goes toward the wafer), and between the corresponding light splitting element (Fig. 10B: beam splitter 710) and the imaging element (Fig. 10B: bonding region sensor 110) is formed with a second imaging path (Shown in Fig. 10B where the reflected light from wafer is directed to element 110 through the beam splitter 710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Birkner combined with Watkins and Drillman (for claim 1) to incorporate a light splitting element, wherein between the peripheral edge and the corresponding light splitting element and the coaxial light source is formed with a first imaging path, and between the corresponding light splitting element and the imaging element is formed with a second imaging path, as disclosed by Drillman. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that it allows for simultaneous illumination and collection of reflected electromagnetic radiation ([0159] from Drillman).
Regarding Claim 4, Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman teaches the wafer inspection system of claim 2.
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman further teaches that the first imaging paths (Drillman, Fig. 10B: imaging path from light 104 to wafer) of the upper back projection module (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 25 and illumination means 50) and the lower back projection module (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 27 and illumination means 50) are respectively perpendicular to the second imaging paths (Drillman, Fig. 10B: imaging path of reflected light from wafer to sensor 110) of the upper back projection module and the lower back projection module (Drillman, shown in Fig. 10B where the imaging path of the illumination from 104 is perpendicular from the imaging path of the reflected light to the sensor 110.).
Regarding Claim 7, Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman teaches the wafer inspection system of claim 1.
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman further teaches that the side-light imaging device has (Birkner, Fig. 6: camera 26 and illumination means 50) a side light source (Birkner, Fig. 6: illumination means 50) and an image capturing element (Birkner, camera 26 from Fig. 6 would necessarily have an image capturing element), such that the side light source, the image capturing element and the peripheral edge form a third imaging path (Birkner, shown in Fig. 6 where camera 25 has a first imaging path, camera 27 has a second imaging path, and camera 26 has a third imaging path.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkner (US 20080232672 A1) in view of Watkins (US 20050036671 A1) and Drillman (US 20240003826 A1) and further in view of Sakuyama (US 20210140898 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman teaches the wafer inspection system of claim 2.
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman further teaches that the light splitting elements (Drillman, Fig. 10B: beam splitter 710) of the upper back projection module (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 25 and illumination means 50) and the lower back projection module (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 27 and illumination means 50) are disposed between the coaxial light sources on the axis (Drillman, [0073]: Illumination radiation is coaxial with sensor.).
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman appears to be silent to the coaxial light sources of the upper back projection module and the lower back projection module are relatively disposed on a same axis.
Sakuyama, related to an inspection apparatus, does teach that the coaxial light sources ([0046] and [0054]: Inspection illuminators 32a-32i and 32j-32o may be configured so that the illumination lights are emitted along the same axes as the optical axis of the inspection camera 31a-31c and 31d or 31e, respectively.) of the upper back projection module (Fig. 6: upstream imaging mechanism 3B) and the lower back projection module (Fig. 6: downstream imaging mechanism 3C) are relatively disposed on a same axis ([0046] and [0054]: Illuminators illuminate light on the same axes as the optical axis of the inspection camera, which means all illuminators are on the same axis.), and the light splitting elements of the upper back projection module and the lower back projection module are disposed between the coaxial light sources on the axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Birkner combined with Watkins and Drillman so that the coaxial light sources of the upper back projection module and the lower back projection module are relatively disposed on a same axis, as disclosed by Sakuyama. The above-mentioned configuration is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (coaxial light sources) according to known methods (disposed on the same axis) to yield predictable results (for alignment of optical elements for edge inspection to best optimize signal detection) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 Claim 5, Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman teaches the wafer inspection system of claim 1.
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman does not teach a coordinate calibration device having at least two targets, a front calibration target projection image window, and a rear calibration target projection image window, allowing the front back projection image and the rear back projection image to be formed with at least two reference points, wherein the front back projection image and the rear back projection image are converted into coplanar coordinates via the at least two reference points.
King (US 20130120557 A1), related to an inspection system, teaches in Fig. 4D an inspection window 475 with calibration targets 412 [0028-0029]. However, King does not teach a coordinate calibration device having at least two targets, a front calibration target projection image window, and a rear calibration target projection image window, allowing the front back projection image and the rear back projection image to be formed with at least two reference points, wherein the front back projection image and the rear back projection image are converted into coplanar coordinates via the at least two reference points.
Therefore, as to Claim 5, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a wafer inspection system comprising a coordinate calibration device having at least two targets, a front calibration target projection image window, and a rear calibration target projection image window, allowing the front back projection image and the rear back projection image to be formed with at least two reference points, wherein the front back projection image and the rear back projection image are converted into coplanar coordinates via the at least two reference points, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 5.
Claim 6 would be allowed by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman teaches a method of inspecting a wafer (Birkner, Abstract), comprising:
providing the wafer inspection system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
obtaining a front back projection image (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 25 would obtain a front back projection image) and a rear back projection image (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 27) of peripheral edges of the wafer (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: wafer 6) by the coaxial back projection imaging device (Birkner, Fig. 4: device 22);
obtaining a contrast image (Birkner, [0008]: Cameras 25-27 (first to third camera) are arranged in a bright field arrangement which allows for obtaining a contrast image.) of the peripheral edges of the wafer by the side-light imaging device (Birkner, Fig. 4 and 6: camera 26).
Birkner modified by Watkins and Drillman does not teach disposing stacked upper wafer and lower wafer on the first platform;
obtaining a front back projection image and a rear back projection image of peripheral edges of the upper wafer and the lower wafer;
obtaining a contrast image of the peripheral edges of the upper wafer and the lower wafer.
Le (US 20090196489 A1), related to a high resolution wafer edge inspection device, does teach disposing stacked upper wafer and lower wafer (Fig. 4: stacked wafers 54) on the first platform (Fig. 4: stacked wafers 54 would necessarily be on some sort of platform.);
obtaining a front back projection image (Fig. 4: edge top camera 58 obtains an image of the upper wafer 50) and a rear back projection image of peripheral edges of the upper wafer and the lower wafer (Fig. 4: camera 60 obtains an image of the lower wafer 52);
obtaining a contrast image of the peripheral edges of the upper wafer and the lower wafer ([0030]: Illumination of an edge of the stacked wafers 54 is provided by source 70 which can be arranged as a brightfield illuminator would allows for contrast images to be obtained.)
Birkner modified by Watkins, Drillman, and Le does not teach detecting the front back projection image, the rear back projection image and the contrast image to obtain coordinates of notch vertices and coordinates of a plurality of feature points of the peripheral edges of the upper wafer and the lower wafer from the front back projection image, the rear back projection image and the contrast image;
calculating coordinates of a center of the upper wafer and the lower wafer respectively via the coordinates of the plurality of feature points; and
calculating a positional offset between the upper wafer and the lower wafer via the coordinates of the notch vertices and the coordinates of the centers.
Therefore, as to Claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of inspecting a wafer, comprising detecting the front back projection image, the rear back projection image and the contrast image to obtain coordinates of notch vertices and coordinates of a plurality of feature points of the peripheral edges of the upper wafer and the lower wafer from the front back projection image, the rear back projection image and the contrast image;
calculating coordinates of a center of the upper wafer and the lower wafer respectively via the coordinates of the plurality of feature points; and
calculating a positional offset between the upper wafer and the lower wafer via the coordinates of the notch vertices and the coordinates of the centers in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 8.
Claims 9-10 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (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 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights