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 § 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.
Claim 5 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.
Claims 5 contradicts claim 4 and the specification by identifying the second portion (the internal reflection path) instead of the third portion as a second edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece. For examination purposes, the third portion would be considered a second edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Timans (US20070020784A1).
Regarding claim 1, Timans teaches a method for determining one or more properties of a silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece (Abstract, [0176]), the method comprising: providing emission of one or more electromagnetic radiation signals to the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece such that the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals are at least partially transmitted through the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece and internally reflected within the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece ([0069]-[0072], [0113]); receiving the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals at one or more detectors ([0013], [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals enter the semiconductor workpiece at a first portion of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece, are internally reflected through at least a second portion of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece, and exit a third portion of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece ([0070]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals at least partially transmit through a major surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece as scattered electromagnetic radiation ([0125]).
Regarding claim 7, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals at least partially transmit through a major surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece as a result of non-parallelism of the major surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece with a second major surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece ([0070] when the major surfaces are not parallel, the transmitted ray will not propagate parallel to the original ray).
Regarding claim 8, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises detecting an intensity of the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals at the one or more detectors ([0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Timans teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the method comprises determining an optical property of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece based at least in part on the intensity ([0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Timans teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the optical property comprises an absorption property ([0163]).
Regarding claim 11, Timans teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the optical property comprises one or more of a transmittance property, reflectance property, refractive index, dispersion, polarization, birefringence, opacity, scattering, fluorescence, phosphorescence, piezoelectric property, luminescence, photoluminescence, non-linear optical property, or temperature dependent optical property ([0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Timans teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the method comprises determining a surface quality of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece based at least in part on the intensity ([0125]).
Regarding claim 13, Timans teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the method comprises determining a parallelism of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece based at least in part on the intensity of the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals ([0070] Timans links parallelism to the behavior of the transmitted ray, when the surfaces are parallel, T1 will not propagate parallel to A0, and the transmitted light will be redirected. That redirection changes how much light reaches the detector, thereby changing the detected intensity).
Regarding claim 16, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals have a wavelength in a visible light spectral band ([0115], [0177]).
Regarding claim 20, Timans teaches a system ([0068]), comprising: one or more electromagnetic radiation sources operable to provide one or more electromagnetic radiation signals ([0113]); a workpiece holder (15) operable to hold a silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece (14) in an optical path such that the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals are at least partially transmitted through the semiconductor workpiece and internally reflected within the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece ([0053], [0069]-[0072], [0113]); and one or more detectors operable to receive the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals subsequent to the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals being internally reflected within the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece ([0088]).
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 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans (US20070020784A1) in view of Marivoet (US 20160313257 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor workpiece comprises a first major surface, a second major surface opposite the first major surface, and an edge surface between the first major surface and the second major surface, wherein providing emission of one or more electromagnetic radiation signals to the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece (fig. 3, [0069], claim 1 ) , but fails to disclose comprises transmitting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals through the edge surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece.
However, Marivoet, which relates to optical detection device, thus from the same field of endeavor as Timans, teaches transmitting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals through the edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating transmitting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals through the edge surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece for high throughout quality control ([0016]).
Regarding claim 3, Timans, when modified by Marivoet, teaches the method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals through the edge surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece comprises transmitting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals at an angle relative to the first major surface of the semiconductor workpiece, wherein the angle is in a range of about 0 degrees to a critical angle of silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece (Marivoet: [0079] ”The IR light 13 generated by a light source 18 impinges perpendicularly on one selected side face” light striking the side (edge) face perpendicularly propagates through the device parallel to the top and bottom major faces, hence at an angle of approximately 0 degrees relative to the first major surface).
Regarding claim 5, Timans teaches the method of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the first portion is a first edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece and the third portion is a second edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece.
However, Marivoet teaches the first portion is a first edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece and the third portion is a second edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating wherein the first portion is a first edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece and the third portion is a second edge surface of the semiconductor workpiece for high throughout quality control.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans (US20070020784A1) in view of Kopp (US20090262336A1).
Regarding claim 14, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the method comprises coupling the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals to the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece with at least one input coupler, wherein the method comprises determining one or more input coupler properties of the at least one input coupler based at least in part on the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals received at the one or more detectors.
However, Kopp, which relates to optical detection device, thus from the same field of endeavor as Timans, teaches the method comprises coupling the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals to the workpiece (19) with at least one input coupler (11) ([0061]), wherein the method comprises determining one or more input coupler properties of the at least one input coupler based at least in part on the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals received at the one or more detectors ([0038]-[0044], claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating wherein the method comprises coupling the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals to the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece with at least one input coupler, wherein the method comprises determining one or more input coupler properties of the at least one input coupler based at least in part on the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals received at the one or more detectors for improved characterization.
Regarding claim 15, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the method comprises outputting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals from the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece with at least one output coupler, wherein the method comprises determining one or more output coupler properties of the at least one output coupler based at least in part on the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals received at the one or more detectors.
However, Kopp teaches the method comprises outputting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals from the workpiece (19) with at least one output coupler (27) ([0061]), wherein the method comprises determining one or more output coupler properties of the at least one output coupler based at least in part on the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals received at the one or more detectors ([0038]-[0044], claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating wherein the method comprises outputting the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals from the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece with at least one output coupler, wherein the method comprises determining one or more output coupler properties of the at least one output coupler based at least in part on the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals received at the one or more detectors for improved characterization.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans (US20070020784A1) in view of Lobachinsky (US20200292417A1).
Regarding claim 17, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals comprise a reference image.
However, Lobachinsky, which relates to optical detection device, thus from the same field of endeavor as Timans, teaches the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals comprise a reference image (collimated image of the test pattern) ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals comprise a reference image to reliably characterize the wafer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans (US20070020784A1) in view of Sulik (US20070052954A1).
Regarding claim 18, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals have a first signal in a red spectral band, a second signal in a green spectral band, and a third signal in a blue spectral band.
However, Timans teaches the measurements can be made at any wavelength of interest, or they can be performed across a spectrum ([0112]-[0113]), and Sulik which relates to optical detection device, thus from the same field of endeavor as Timans, teaches the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals have a first signal in a red spectral band, a second signal in a green spectral band, and a third signal in a blue spectral band ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating wherein the one or more electromagnetic radiation signals have a first signal in a red spectral band, a second signal in a green spectral band, and a third signal in a blue spectral band for improved inspection of the wafer.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timans (US20070020784A1) in view of Shinoda (US20040145996A1).
Regarding claim 19, Timans teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece comprises an optical device.
However, use of a silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece as an optical device (lens) is well known in the art as disclosed by Shinoda (20040145996: [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timans by incorporating wherein the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece comprises an optical device for better light transmittance ([0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM 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, Michelle Iacoletti 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights