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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 4/24/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0054976 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application KR10-2024-0054976 has FAILED on 9/24/2025.
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copy of KR10-2024-0102079 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/13/2025 and 4/22/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a second illumination light source disposed adjacent to the first illumination light source and configured to provide second illumination light source, which has a wavelength shorter than that of the first illumination light source” which should read “a second illumination light source disposed adjacent to the first illumination light source and configured to provide second illumination light, which has a wavelength shorter than that of the first illumination light” as the word “source” appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, and 11-15 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a holographic phase pattern disposed between the first main beam splitter and the objective lens and configured to increase in focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light”. The meaning of the underlined portion is unclear due to the phrasing. Is a focal depth of the holographic phase pattern increasing? Is a focal depth of the illumination light increasing? Is this related to the first and second depths in claim 1? The examiner believes there may have been a translation error and the phase may have been intended to recite “configured to increase a focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light”, however, the claim should be amended to accurately reflect the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “configured to increase a focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the image sensor” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that “an image stage” in line 3 was intended to read “an image sensor”. Further, the claim recites “an objective lens disposed on the image sensor and the stage”. It is unclear how an objective lens could be disposed on two elements and it appears the limitation was intended to read “an objective lens disposed between the image sensor and the stage” as similarly recited in claim 1. Thus, for the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “an image sensor disposed on the stage; an objective lens disposed between the image sensor and the stage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 12-15 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20250198941A1 by Rim et al. (hereinafter "Rim") in view of US 20160003735 A1 by Seligson et al. (hereinafter "Seligson"; cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Rim teaches a substrate inspection apparatus comprising (at least Fig. 10; [0076]):
a stage (stage 110) configured to accommodate a substrate (measurement target 10; [0032]);
an image sensor disposed on the stage ([0046] first detector 90);
an objective lens (objective lens 180; [0041]) disposed between the image sensor and the stage and configured to project an image of the substrate ([0045]-[0046] surface image);
a first main beam splitter disposed between the image sensor and the objective lens (beam splitter 170; [0040]; [0078]);
a first illumination light source ([0077] a second light source 220 that outputs the second incident light L2) disposed at one side of the first main beam splitter (see Fig. 10, both light sources disposed at one side of the beam splitter 170) and configured to provide first illumination light second to a first depth of the substrate ([0043] second incident light L2 on a surface of the second layer 12); and
a second illumination light source disposed adjacent to the first illumination light source ([0077] first light source 120 that outputs the first incident light L1) and configured to provide second illumination light source ([0077]), which has a wavelength shorter than that of the first illumination light source ([0036] wavelength of the first incident light L1 is shorter than the wavelength of the second incident light L2), to a second depth ([0043] first incident light L1 on a surface of the first layer 11 ), which is shallower than the first depth ([0042] second layer 12 disposed under the first layer 11), through the first main beam splitter (see Fig. 10).
Although Rim teaches the defect inspection apparatus may include one or more lens ([0048]), Rim is silent as to an imaging optical system disposed between the objective lens and the image sensor and the first main beam splitter disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens.
However, Seligson does address this limitation. Seligson and Rim are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Seligson teaches (at least Fig. 2b; [0039]) an imaging optical system ( imaging optics 238) disposed between the objective lens (objective 228) and the image sensor (detector 240) and the first main beam splitter (beam splitter 234) disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use imaging optics to direct light towards a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to an include an imaging optical system disposed between the objective lens and the image sensor wherein the first main beam splitter disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens in order to focus or direct light towards the imaging sensor thus reducing measurement error.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rim in view of Seligson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20130083319A1 by Nakanishi et al (hereinafter "Nakanishi").
Regarding claim 2, Rim modified by Seligson teaches the substrate inspection apparatus of claim 1, but Rim does not explicitly teach wherein the first illumination light has a first wavelength of about 910 nm, and the second illumination light has a second wavelength of about 800 nm.
However, Rim teaches wherein the first illumination light may be in the infrared band ([0036] second incident light L2 may be in the infrared band) and the second illumination light may be in the visible light band ([0036] the first incident light L1 may be in the visible light band).
Further, Nakanishi does address this limitation. Nakanishi and Rim are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Nakanishi teaches that wavelengths for substrate inspection range from 0.3 to 2 μm and are preferably selected in accordance with the band gap of the substrate for example light in the range of near-infrared (e.g. not more than 1.5 μm in wavelength) to visible regions is preferable for silicon substrates ([0040]).
Thus, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. A wavelength of about 910 nm is in the infrared band and a wavelength of about 800 nm is between visible and infrared in the near-infrared range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to include wherein the first illumination light has a first wavelength of about 910 nm, and the second illumination light has a second wavelength of about 800 nm as suggested by Nakanishi in order to use the most efficient wavelength corresponding to the band gap of the substrate ([0040]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rim in view of Seligson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20120327503A1 by Manassen et a. (hereinafter "Manassen").
Regarding claim 3, Rim modified by Seligson teaches the substrate inspection apparatus of claim 1, but Rim is silent as to further comprising a holographic phase pattern disposed between the first main beam splitter and the objective lens and configured to increase in focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light.
However, Seligson does part of address this limitation.
Seligson teaches a holographic phase pattern ([0021] a series of illumination pupil images (e.g., 304 a, 304 b, and 304 c) generated by a spatial light modulator (SLM 206; [0034]) and configured to generate highest contrast field image ([0033]). Although Seligson does not explicitly teach the holographic phase pattern configured to increase in focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light, Seligson teaches the contrast is changed to image the substrate at different depths ([0058]). Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”). See MPEP 2114 Sec. II. The SLM 206 is configured the same as the SLM described the applicant in [0048] and thus would be capable of performing the same function of increasing in (or a) focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light in order to improve the measurement at different depths.
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a holographic phase pattern for substrate inspecting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to include a holographic phase pattern configured to increase in (or a) focal depth of each of the first and second illumination light as suggested by Seligson in order to produce high contrast images ([0033]).
Further, Rim and Seligson is silent as to the holographic phase pattern disposed between the first main beam splitter and the objective lens.
However, Manassen does address this limitation. Manassen and Rim are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical metrology.
Manassen teaches an illumination pupil (objective pupil 112; [0041] forming a predefined pupil illumination intensity distribution function (e.g., donut, dipole, circle, Gaussian intensity distribution . . . )) disposed between the first main beam splitter (beam splitter 108; [0027]) and the objective lens (objective 110; [0027]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an illumination pupil disposed between the first main beam splitter and the objective lens to change the illumination profile. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to locate the holographic phase pattern disposed between the first main beam splitter and the objective lens as suggested by Manassen in order to control the illumination profile for contrast enhancement ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Rim modified by Seligson and Manassen teaches the inspection apparatus of claim 3, but Rim is silent as to wherein the holographic phase pattern has a donut shape.
However, Seligson does address this limitation.
Seligson teaches wherein the holographic phase pattern has a donut shape (Fig. 3a annular illumination field 304a).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use annular illumination for substrate inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to include wherein the holographic phase pattern has a donut shape as suggested by Seligson as the annular illumination field produced the highest contrast field image ([0033]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rim in view of Seligson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20150062581A1 by Urano et al. (hereinafter "Urano").
Regarding claim 5, Rim modified by Seligson teaches the substrate inspection apparatus of claim 1, and Rim further teaches a controller configured to acquire first and second images using a detection signal acquired from the image sensor ([0046] first and second images; [0050] controller 50 may perform an inspection based on the first image and the second image).
Rim is silent as to further comprising a digital delay pulse generator connected between the first and second illumination light sources and the controller to provide pulses to the first and second illumination light sources.
However, Urano does address this limitation. Urano and Rim are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Urano teaches a digital delay pulse generator (pulse signal generator 101; [0033]) to provide pulses for the first and second illumination (Fig. 1-3 pulsed light from seed light generator 211 is sent to wavelength converting unit 220; [0010] a wavelength converting unit including a branching mechanism that branches the pulse light output into beams of two different wavelengths).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pulsed light at two different wavelength for substrate inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to include a digital delay pulse generator connected between the first and second illumination light sources and the controller to provide pulses to the first and second illumination light sources as suggested by Urano in order to make a robust measurement, including timing data, which can improve the efficiency of the device ([0045]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rim in view of Seligson and KR102420177B1 by Sung et al. (hereinafter "Sung"; cited in the IDS; English translation provided).
Regarding claim 11, Rim teaches a substrate inspection apparatus comprising (at least Fig. 10; [0076]):
a stage (stage 110) configured to accommodate a substrate (measurement target 10; [0032]);
an image sensor disposed on the stage ([0046] first detector 90);
an objective lens disposed between the image sensor and the stage (objective lens 180; [0041]);
a first main beam splitter disposed between the image sensor and the objective lens (beam splitter 170; [0040]; [0078]);
first and second illumination light sources ([0077] first light source 120 that outputs the first incident light L1 and a second light source 220 that outputs the second incident light L2) disposed at one side of the first main beam splitter (see Fig. 10, both light sources disposed at one side of the beam splitter 170) to provide first and second illumination light to the substrate ([0077]), respectively.
Although Rim teaches the defect inspection apparatus may include one or more lens ([0048]), Rim is silent as to an imaging optical system disposed between the objective lens and the image sensor and the first main beam splitter disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens.
However, Seligson does address this limitation. Seligson and Rim are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Seligson teaches (at least Fig. 2b; [0039]) an imaging optical system ( imaging optics 238) disposed between the objective lens (objective 228) and the image sensor (detector 240) and the first main beam splitter (beam splitter 234) disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use imaging optics to direct light towards a sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to an include an imaging optical system disposed between the objective lens and the image sensor wherein the first main beam splitter disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens in order to focus or direct light towards the imaging sensor thus reducing error.
Further, Rim is silent as to a second main beam splitter disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens and third and fourth illumination light sources disposed at the other side of the first and second main beam splitters to provide third and fourth illumination light to the substrate, respectively.
However, Sung does address this limitation. Sung and Rim are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Sung teaches the depth measurement range of the surface shape information of a sample can be extended by using multiple light sources having different wavelengths ([0019]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple light sources for depth measurements. Further, it has been held that the 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) MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Rim to duplicate the first main beamsplitter and first and second illumination light sources such that the device includes a second main beam splitter disposed between the imaging optical system and the objective lens and third and fourth illumination light sources disposed at the other side of the first and second main beam splitters to provide third and fourth illumination light to the substrate, respectively as suggested by Sung in order to extend the measurement range ([0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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.
Claims 12-15 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 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious a substrate inspection apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, a first quarter wave plate disposed between the first illumination light source and the first main beam splitter; a first auxiliary beam splitter disposed between the first illumination light source and the first quarter wave plate and configured to transmit the first illumination light and reflect the second illumination light to the first quarter wave plate; and a first nonlinear crystal plate disposed between the first illumination light source and the first auxiliary beam splitter and having a first thickness in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious a substrate inspection apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, a first nonlinear crystal plate disposed between the first and second main beam splitters and the first illumination light source and having a first thickness; and a second nonlinear crystal plate disposed between the first and second main beam splitters and the second illumination light source and having a second thickness, which is less than the first thickness in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 11.
The closest prior art Rim is silent as to a first quarter wave plate disposed between the first illumination light source and the first main beam splitter; a first auxiliary beam splitter disposed between the first illumination light source and the first quarter wave plate and configured to transmit the first illumination light and reflect the second illumination light to the first quarter wave plate. Further, Rim is silent as to at least a first nonlinear crystal plate disposed between the first and second main beam splitters and the first illumination light source and having a first thickness.
Specifically, Rim teaches a separate embodiment in Figure 1 which uses the optical element 140, which may include a nonlinear optical material such as a crystal, in order to generate the second incident light L2 by adjusting the frequency of the first incident light L1 ([0039]). However, the embodiment of Figure 10 which teaches two light sources and is relied upon in the rejection, does not use the optical element 140 because the second light source is instead used to generate the second incident light L2 ([0077]). Thus, there would be no motivation to modify Rim to include both the nonlinear optical element and the second light source.
Another prior art reference Urano teaches the use of wavelength conversion crystals ([0035]-[0036]), but similar to Rim, they are used to generate different wavelengths of light from a single illumination wavelength. Thus, it would not be obvious to modify Rim in view of Urano because Rim already generates two different wavelengths using two light sources.
Additionally, neither Rim nor Urano teach at least two nonlinear crystal plates with different thicknesses.
Therefore, in light of the current teachings of the prior art, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed invention. Claims 7-10 and 13-15 are dependent on claims 6 and 12 and therefore also include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner notes that Sung (KR102420177B1 cited above and in the IDS) teaches a substate inspection apparatus in Figure 1 which appears to teach or suggest the elements of the invention of claim 1 and Rim. However, Sung does not teach or suggest the use of nonlinear optical crystal plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights