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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koole et al. (2012/0182538) in view of Singamaneni et al. (2021/0396747).
Regarding claim 1, Koole teaches the majority of claim 1 including the illumination source, metal substrate, photoluminescent material, and detector system. (Koole, [0078], [0079], Figs. 6A-6B)
Koole lacks explicit teaching of the claimed nano-spacer and photoluminescent material being bound to the nano spacer to inhibit metal-induced quenching of the photoluminescent material.
Singamaneni teaches use of a nano-spacer to separate the photoluminescent material from the conductive [metal] surface in order to inhibit metal-induced quenching and thereby improve the performance of the photoluminescent material. (Singamaneni, [0136],[0137])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a nano-spacer as taught by Singamaneni in the inspection system of Koole in order to increase the brightness of the photoluminescent material.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Koole and Singamaneni further teaches the non-conductive nanomaterial includes at least one of:poly methyl methacrylate, one or more oligomers, one or more polymers, or silicon dioxide. (Singamaneni, [0168])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koole and Singamenani lacks explicit teaching of the one or more polymers include at least one of:polystyrene or poly acrylic acid.
However, Singamaneni teaches the use of polymers generally, indicating the primary trait necessary is uniform deposition to appropriate thickness. (Singamenani, [0167]) Selection of a known material based on its suitability for a particular purpose is obvious absent some unexpected result from the selection. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the non-conductive nanomaterial of the nano-spacer has a thickness of 15 nm. (Singamenani, [0167])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the non-conductive nanomaterial of the nano-spacer has a thickness of 35 nm. (Singamenani, [0167])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the illumination source is configured to excite the photoluminescent material of the substrate. (Koole, [0078], [0079], Figs. 6A-6B)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the photoluminescent material includes at least one of: one or more fluorophores. (Koole, [0078])
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more detectors, the controller including one or more processors to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to identify one or more defects on the surface of the substrate based on the photoluminescent emission detected from the one or more detectors. (Koole, [0017]; [0135])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the feature of interest includes a defect of interest. (Koole, [0078], [0079], Figs. 6A-6B)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the feature of interest includes a pattern of interest. (Koole, [0081])
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the feature of interest includes a material of interest. (Koole, [0081])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the substrate includes a wafer. (Koole, [0006])
Regarding claims 13 to 18, claims 13-18 contain similar limitations as those of claim 1-7 above, except inasmuch as they are directed to the wafer under inspection rather than the inspection device. As Koole discloses both the device and the wafer (Koole, [0006]), claims 13-18 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-7.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches the patterned wafer includes an integrated circuit device. (Koole, [0005], [0006])
Regarding claim 20, the methods used to polish the wafer do not provide structure by which to differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Koole and Singamenani further teaches a dielectric material, wherein the dielectric material is interlaced with the metal substrate material to form a dielectric/metal interlaced pattern, wherein the non- conductive nanomaterial of the nano-spacer is deposited on a top surface of the dielectric/metal interlaced pattern of the patterned wafer. (Koole, [0124] et seq.)
Claims 22-24 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 9-11 above.
Regarding claims 25-29, these method claims contain limitations directed to subject matter addressed above and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights