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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 3-7 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.
As to claim 3, the examiner is unclear how the plurality of low resolution images obtained of the inspect target is distinct from that of the “stack of diffraction images classified among other low resolution diffraction images”. Specifically, the examiner is unclear how the two plurality/stacks of images are related to one another. The examiner failed to find any clear disclosure as to what makes the stack of “other” low resolution diffraction images “other” vs that of the first set of obtained plurality of images. In other words, it is entirely unclear how specifically the two sets/stacks of images are actually obtained and differ from one another. As such the examiner finds the combination of the limitations unclear and the instant disclosure insufficient in providing some understanding to one having ordinary skill in the art as to where the “other” images are pulled from. The examiner cannot at this time provide a reasonable interpretation for the claimed limitations and requests clarification from applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Dam et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0123724 A1).
As to claim 1, Van Dam discloses and shows in figure 6 and 8, an inspection method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of diffraction images (via detectors 19) of an inspection target object (W/TT) by performing a plurality of lighting cycles in which a plurality of light sources (i.e. fiber outputs 51-54) are configured to sequentially irradiate light onto the inspection target object ([0063]; [0074]; [0127]; [0130], as explicitly disclosed the light is input sequentially); and
obtaining an output image of the inspection target object based on the plurality of diffraction images ([0102]; as explicitly disclosed the images sensors 19 produce a diffracted output image, where clearly the input light is explicitly applied so that the image sensors can analyze the resultant diffraction light, lastly that the claim does not require that each of the plurality of diffraction images are combined or added to each other in any manner, only that the output image is “based” on the diffraction images),
wherein for each of the plurality of lighting cycles, the light irradiated to the inspection target object has a different wavelength range (e.g. IR and visible light) ([0071]; [0112]; [0130].
As to claim 2, Van Damn discloses and shows in figure 6 labeled below, an inspection method, wherein the plurality of light sources are spaced respectively in a predetermined distance from the inspection target object, wherein the plurality of light sources are respectively placed at different positions on a virtual plane facing the inspection target object (said plane is explicitly labeled in figure 6 below), and wherein each of the plurality of light sources is configured to be turned on/off once in a single cycle of the plurality of lighting cycles ([0062]; [0071], 1-3; [0108]; where the examiner is interpreting the switching between the two light branches sequentially as sources being turned on/off, specifically fiber ends when on emit light and when off do not).
As to claim 11, Van Dam discloses an inspection method, wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to output the lights for which the each bandwidth is adjusted, and wherein the bandwidth is a range of less than or equal to about 5% of a center wavelength of a wavelength range of light that is output from the plurality of light sources ([0058]; [0089]; where white light is generally defined as 400-700nm with variations around this width, however in disclosed the adjustment is 3 nm, any variance still reasonably is less than 5% of the center wavelength (i.e. 400-700nm)).
As to claim 13, Van Dam discloses a inspection method, wherein the inspection target object is a semiconductor ([0033]-[0034]).
As to claim 15, Van Dam discloses an inspection method, wherein the inspection target object comprises a light-transmitting material ([0233], in the example of flat panel displays or LCDs there is inherently a light-transmitting material).
PNG
media_image1.png
1402
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (KR 2016-0003347 A; where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claim 1, Han discloses and shows in figures 1 and 2, an inspection method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of diffraction images of an inspection target object by performing a plurality of lighting cycles in which a plurality of light sources are configured to sequentially irradiate light onto the inspection target object (as disclosed the sources with distinct wavelengths are “selectively operated”)(page 5, ll. 42-44; page 6, ll. 10-11); and
obtaining an output image (i.e. the “inspection image” which is “restored” from the diffraction images) of the inspection target object based on the plurality of diffraction images (page 6, ll. 18-21),
wherein for each of the plurality of lighting cycles, the light irradiated to the inspection target object has a different wavelength range (page 5, ll. 42-44).
As to claim 14, Han discloses an inspection method, wherein the light irradiated from the plurality of light sources passes through the inspection target object along a lens-less path and is received by the detector (page 4, ll. 5-10; as disclosed the lens modulate is omitted (i.e. lens-less in path between the target object and the detector).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dam et al. in view of Asada et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2010/0091272 A1).
As to claim 8, Van Dam does explicitly disclose in ([0058]) that “Other types of laser, or non-laser source may be used as the radiation source 32”.
Van Dam does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light sources comprise an LED that outputs white light, or at least one of red light, green light and blue light.
However, Asada does disclose in ([0003]; [0091]; [0132]) the basic concept of using both LEDs, and for example red, green and blue variants to illuminate a sample under test for defect detection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Dam wherein the plurality of light sources comprise an LED that outputs white light, or at least one of red light, green light and blue light in order to provide the advantage of expected results and reduction in cost as known in the art LED light sources are low cost highly efficient light sources capable of efficiently illuminating a sample under test in defect detection.
As to claim 10, Van Dam discloses an inspection, wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to output lights for which each bandwidth is adjusted in different wavelength range, and irradiate the lights to the inspection target object ([0112]; for example IR, Visible or as disclosed other section of the radiation spectrum).
As to claim 12, Van Dam discloses an inspection method, wherein the light irradiated from the plurality of light sources passes through an optical filter that is configured to selectively pass light having a number of predetermined wavelength ranges, wherein the light is irradiated to the inspection target object, and wherein the optical filter is configured to be fixed in a position in the direction of propagation of the light ([0089]; where the acousto-optic tunable filter is not moved in the propagation direction).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dam et al. in view of Asada et al. further in view of Fan et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2024/0377338 A1).
As to claim 9, Van Dam discloses an inspection method, wherein the light passes through a filter (i.e. wavelength selector 36, as disclosed is a wavelengths selective acousto-optic tunable filter) and is irradiated onto the inspection target object ([0089]),
Van Dam in view of Asada does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter comprises a first color filter, a second color filter and a third color filter configured to rotate around a direction of propagation of the light to change positions, wherein the first color filter is configured to transmit light of a first wavelength range in incident light, wherein the second color filter is configured to transmit light of a second wavelength range in the incident light, and wherein the third color filter is configured to transmit light of a third wavelength range in the incident light.
However, Fan does disclose and show in figure 6A and in ([0043]) the basic concept of using a filter wheel (213) as a common means by which one can use a plurality of filters (7 in Fan, each with a distinct wavelength range) to relay specific wavelength light to the sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Dam in view of Asada wherein the filter comprises a first color filter, a second color filter and a third color filter configured to rotate around a direction of propagation of the light to change positions, wherein the first color filter is configured to transmit light of a first wavelength range in incident light, wherein the second color filter is configured to transmit light of a second wavelength range in the incident light, and wherein the third color filter is configured to transmit light of a third wavelength range in the incident light in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of the most common and well-known ways to restrict light input to various wavelengths (i.e. a filter wheel), as such one can predictably in a rapid manner switch between various wavelengths in a known manner to illuminate the sample under test for defect analysis which Fan also performs ([0032], ll. 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 16, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose an inspection method comprising: obtaining an image of the inspection target object by aligning the plurality of diffraction images based on shift amount information of a diffraction pattern of each of the plurality of diffraction images, and compositing the aligned plurality of diffraction images in combination with the entirety of elements of instant claim 16.
As to claim 20, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose an inspection method comprising: aligning the first low resolution diffraction images, the second low resolution diffraction images and third low resolution diffraction images, and compositing a first high resolution diffraction image from the aligned first low resolution diffraction images, a second high resolution diffraction image from the aligned second low resolution diffraction images, and a third high resolution diffraction image from the aligned third low resolution diffraction images; and obtaining an output image of the inspection target object by calculating a final amplitude and phase based on a difference in diffraction angles between a first wavelength range of the first high resolution diffraction image, a second wavelength range of the second high resolution diffraction image and a third wavelength range of the third high resolution diffraction image in combination with the entirety off elements of instant claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner’s Note
Claims 3-7 have not been objected to as allowable at this time as the nature of the 112(b) based rejection renders the claim so unclear it is impossible to point to a particular limitation from claim 3 that could be relied upon for novelty. However, if the 112(b) can be overcome the claim may be objected to as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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 at 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 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
