DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 4 March 2026 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 because: it lacks a legible copy of each foreign patent and each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed (e.g., page L10 cited by applicant for Misell appears to missing and pages 11-14 cited by applicant for Soldevila appears to missing). Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraphs 102, 112-114, 120, 141, and 177-189) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper”. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.437 and PCT Rule 11.13(l) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 324. 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. 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.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.437 and PCT Rule 11.13(l) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 203, 204, 205, 440B, 500, 510, 600, 601, 602, and 603. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 1, “the passing step comprising passing through at least a first and second masks” on lines 12-13 should probably be --said step of passing the input signal through at least a first mask--;
(b) in claim 2, “the other portions” on line 4 should probably be --other portions--;
(c) in claim 3, “an array of sensors, an array of masks” on line 2 should probably be –the sensor is a sensor array, said at least a first mask and said at least a second mask are a mask array--;
(d) in claim 3, “the other portions” on line 4 should probably be --other portions--;
(e) in claim 3, “all the portions” on line 5 should probably be --all portions of the wafer--;
(f) in claim 7, “step” on line 1 should probably be --steps--; and
(g) in claim 9, “the passing step comprising passing through at least first and second masks” on lines 13-14 should probably be --said step of passing the input signal through at least first and second masks--.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the amplitudes” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the Fourier transforms” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inverse Fourier transform” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the system” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the step of switching” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the step of splitting” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the amplitudes” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the Fourier transforms” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the inverse Fourier transform” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the system” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the step of switching” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the step of splitting” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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 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 of this title, 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) 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmeyer et al. (US 2016/0178883) in view of Gerchberg (A new approach to phase retrieval of a wave front, Journal of Modern Optics, Vol. 49, no. 7 (2002), pp. 1185-1196).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. disclose a method of inspecting a wafer, comprising:
(a) exposing a first portion of a wafer to a radiative source to produce an input signal (e.g., “… sample includes one or more objects and/or one or more portions of an object. An object may be, for example, a biological entity or an inorganic entity … example of an inorganic entity is a semiconductor wafer … illumination source(s) may be a coherent source(s) … radiation source may comprise an X-ray tube …” in paragraphs 62 and 111);
(b) passing the input signal through at least a first mask to collect a first masked input (e.g., “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraphs 105-107);
(c) passing the input signal through at least a second mask to collect a second masked input (e.g., “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraphs 105-107);
(d) measuring amplitudes for Fourier transforms of the masked inputs via a sensor configured to detect emissions of the radiative source (e.g., “… radiation detector acquires the first sequence of N intensity images: at I1,i=1 to N at acquisition times different from the acquisition times during which the radiation detector acquires the second sequence of N intensity images: I2,i=1 to N … Fourier transform is applied to the initial value to obtain an initialized Fourier transformed image …” in paragraphs 131 and 134);
(e) assigning a set of random phase values to the amplitudes of the Fourier transforms of the masked inputs to produce a set of measured inputs (e.g., “… Fourier transform is applied to the initial value to obtain an initialized Fourier transformed image … 1501 … initial guess may be determined as an interpolation of the low-resolution intensity measurement with a random phase …” in paragraphs 134 and 149);
(f) calculating inverse Fourier transform of the measured inputs (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space … 1520 is performed as an optional sub-operation of operation 1510 by multiplying by multiplying
I
~
by a phase factor in the Fourier domain before performing the inverse Fourier transform to produce
I
l
f
e
i
Φ
l
f
…” in paragraphs 134 and 152);
(g) combining the inverse Fourier transformed inputs to produce a candidate output (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space …” in paragraph 134);
(h) determining whether the candidate output has converged (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space … If the solution has converged, the processor transforms the converged solution in Fourier space to the spatial domain …” in paragraphs 134 and 157);
(i) repeating the method beginning with said step of passing through at least a first mask, providing the candidate output as the input signal, until the candidate output converges (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space … 1510 … reconstruction process filters a low-pass region … If the processor determines that the solution has not converged, then operations 1510 through 1570 are repeated …” in paragraphs 134, 151, and 157); and
(j) providing the candidate output as an output of a system (e.g., “… display may receive image data such as a higher resolution complex image data and/or other data from the processor …” in paragraph 135).
The method of Horstmeyer et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N …” such as the averaging. However, “… combining intensity measurements …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… N estimates must now be combined to yield a single initial wave estimate according to some principle: … averaging the phasor estimates provides the final phasor estimate that was sought. This procedure only guarantees an extreme but the physical situation is such that there can be no maximum …” on pg. 1194 of Gerchberg). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional combining (e.g., comprising details such as “averaging the phasor estimates provides the final phasor estimate”, in order to guarantee “an extreme”) for the unspecified combining of Horstmeyer et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional combining (e.g., comprising details such as averaging the inverse Fourier transformed inputs to produce a candidate output) as the unspecified “… combining …” of Horstmeyer et al.
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. also disclose that each of the at least first and second masks comprise an outer border having a thickness (e.g., “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraphs 105-107).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. also disclose that the masks are physical spatial masks (e.g., “… a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraph 107). The method of Horstmeyer et al. lacks an explicit description of details of a step of switching from one to another of the physical spatial masks. However, Horstmeyer et al. also teach (paragraphs 105-107) that “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the “… X-Y stage …” of Horstmeyer et al. “… to physically translate …” apertures, in order to achieve “… varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations …” by switching from one of the physical spatial masks to another of the physical spatial masks.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. also disclose that the radiative source is selected from X-Rays or ultraviolet (UV) light (e.g., “… radiation source may comprise an X-ray tube …” in paragraph 111).
In regard to claim 9 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. disclose a method of recovering phase information from an input signal, comprising:
(a) exposing a measurement surface to a coherent radiative source, the radiative source selected from ultraviolet (UV) light or X-Rays to produce an input signal (e.g., “… sample includes one or more objects and/or one or more portions of an object. An object may be, for example, a biological entity or an inorganic entity … example of an inorganic entity is a semiconductor wafer … illumination source(s) may be a coherent source(s) … radiation source may comprise an X-ray tube …” in paragraphs 62 and 111);
(b) passing the input signal through at least first and second masks to collect first and second masked inputs, wherein the first mask is a transparent mask (e.g., “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraphs 105-107);
(c) measuring amplitudes of Fourier transforms of the masked inputs via a sensor configured to detect emissions of the radiative source (e.g., “… radiation detector acquires the first sequence of N intensity images: at I1,i=1 to N at acquisition times different from the acquisition times during which the radiation detector acquires the second sequence of N intensity images: I2,i=1 to N … Fourier transform is applied to the initial value to obtain an initialized Fourier transformed image …” in paragraphs 131 and 134);
(d) assigning a set of random phase values to the amplitudes of the Fourier transforms of the masked inputs to produce a set of measured inputs (e.g., “… Fourier transform is applied to the initial value to obtain an initialized Fourier transformed image … 1501 … initial guess may be determined as an interpolation of the low-resolution intensity measurement with a random phase …” in paragraphs 134 and 149);
(e) calculating inverse Fourier transforms of the measured inputs (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space … 1520 is performed as an optional sub-operation of operation 1510 by multiplying by multiplying
I
~
by a phase factor in the Fourier domain before performing the inverse Fourier transform to produce
I
l
f
e
i
Φ
l
f
…” in paragraphs 134 and 152);
(f) combining the inverse Fourier transformed inputs to produce a candidate output (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space …” in paragraphs 134);
(g) determining whether the candidate output has converged (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space … If the solution has converged, the processor transforms the converged solution in Fourier space to the spatial domain …” in paragraphs 134 and 157);
(h) repeating the method digitally, beginning with said step of passing through at least first and second masks, providing the candidate output as the input signal, until the candidate output converges (e.g., “… higher-resolution image is computationally constructed by iteratively combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N in Fourier space … 1510 … reconstruction process filters a low-pass region … If the processor determines that the solution has not converged, then operations 1510 through 1570 are repeated …” in paragraphs 134, 151, and 157); and
(i) providing the converged candidate output as an output of a system (e.g., “… display may receive image data such as a higher resolution complex image data and/or other data from the processor …” in paragraph 135).
The method of Horstmeyer et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… combining intensity measurements from the de-scattered image set I2,i=1 to N …” such as the averaging. However, “… combining intensity measurements …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… N estimates must now be combined to yield a single initial wave estimate according to some principle: … averaging the phasor estimates provides the final phasor estimate that was sought. This procedure only guarantees an extreme but the physical situation is such that there can be no maximum …” on pg. 1194 of Gerchberg). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional combining (e.g., comprising details such as “averaging the phasor estimates provides the final phasor estimate”, in order to guarantee “an extreme”) for the unspecified combining of Horstmeyer et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional combining (e.g., comprising details such as averaging the inverse Fourier transformed inputs to produce a candidate output) as the unspecified “… combining …” of Horstmeyer et al.
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. also disclose that each of the at least first and second masks comprise an outer border having a thickness (e.g., “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraphs 105-107).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, Horstmeyer et al. also disclose that the masks are physical spatial masks (e.g., “… a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …” in paragraph 107). The method of Horstmeyer et al. lacks an explicit description of details of a step of switching from one to another of the physical spatial masks. However, Horstmeyer et al. also teach (paragraphs 105-107) that “… one or more devices configured to sequentially generate an aperture (or plurality of apertures) at different N locations of the intermediate plane … It would be understood however that the aperture can be of varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations … For example, a mechanically-based aperture scanner can comprise an X-Y stage to physically translate and/or rotate a structure having an aperture (e.g., plate of opaque material having an aperture in the form of a transmissive region such as a hole in the plate) to generate the aperture at the different aperture locations …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the “… X-Y stage …” of Horstmeyer et al. “… to physically translate …” apertures, in order to achieve “… varying sizes and shapes at different aperture locations …” by switching from one of the physical spatial masks to another of the physical spatial masks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 10, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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: the instant application is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the invention disclosed in US 2016/0178883. The improvement comprises in combination with other recited elements: (a) repeating the method for a second portion of the wafer different from the first portion of the wafer while the other portions are made electronically inactive as recited in dependent claim 2; (b) repeating the method for a second portion of the wafer different from the first portion of the wafer while the other portions are made electronically inactive as recited in dependent claim 3; (c) a pair of complimentary unipolar binary masks as recited in dependent claims 4 and 10; and (d) splitting the input signal so that it is individually received in parallel by the at least first and second masks as recited in dependent claims 7 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0059174 teaches a non-vibrating contact potential difference wafer inspection.
US 2012/0142122 teaches optical wafer inspection.
US 2016/0011523 teaches optical wafer inspection.
US 2022/0187138 teaches totagraphy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
