DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims have been fully considered, however, in view of the amendment to claim 1, a new grounds of rejection in view of Madokoro, et. al. (US 20120235055 A1) is presented.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 and its dependent claims have been fully considered, however, in view of the amendment to claim 1, a new grounds of rejection in view of Madokoro, et. al. (US 20120235055 A1) is presented.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-15, and 17-21 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.
Claims 1 and 14 (mutatis mutandis) recite “the ion beam column includes a condense lens, a deflector, an aperture, an objective lens, and a beam bender disposed in a path of the ion beam between the aperture and the objective lens” is indefinite because it is unclear if the a condense lens, a deflector, an aperture, an objective lens, and a beam bender are all disposed in the path of the ion beam between the aperture and the objective lens, or if only the beam bender is disposed in a path of the ion beam between the aperture and the objective lens. If the former, it is unclear how the aperture and objective lens can be disposed between themselves, unless these elements are referring to distinct objective lenses and apertures.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 15 and 17-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 14.
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, 5, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro, et. al. (US 20120235055 A1), hereinafter Madokoro.
Regarding claim 1, Agemura teaches a system comprising:
a stage configured to hold a wafer (sample stage which holds the sample 121, [0041]);
an electron source that generates an electron beam (electron gun unit 102 including a CFE electron source, [0036]);
a scanning electron beam column coupled to the electron source (SEM column 101, [0037]), wherein the scanning electron beam column directs the electron beam at the stage (electron beam 104 is directed at sample 121 which is held by sample stage, [0037], [0041], Fig. 1), and wherein the electron beam is directed at a normal angle relative to a top surface of the stage ([0035] teaches SEM column is vertically disposed. Fig. 1 shows 104 directed at normal angle to sample which is taught to be held by stage in [0041], so 104 is also directed at normal angle to stage);
a detector configured to receive the electron beam reflected from the wafer on the stage ([0041]);
an ion source that generates an ion beam ([0039]); and
an ion beam column coupled to the ion source, wherein the ion beam column directs the ion beam at the stage (FIB column 111, ion beam 114, [0035], [0039], Fig. 1), and wherein the ion beam column directs the ion beam at an angle relative to the electron beam ([0035] teaches FIB column is obliquely disposed. Fig. 1 shows 114 directed at an angle relative to the electron beam.), and wherein the ion beam column includes a condense lens (condenser lens, [0039]), a deflector (deflector, [0039]), an aperture (diaphragm, [0039]), an objective lens (objective lens, [0039]), and a beam bender disposed in a path of the ion beam, wherein the beam bender is configured to be a blanker that prevents the ion beam from impacting the wafer (([0038] teaches that the ion beam blanking unit 113 in the FIB column 111 includes blanking electrode for electrostatically deflecting the ion beam).
Although Agemura teaches a beam bender in a path of the ion beam, Agemura does not explicitly teach that the beam bender is between the aperture and objective lens. Further, Agemura does not explicitly teach wherein the beam bender is configured to bend the ion beam in the ion beam column when the ion beam is impacting the wafer.
Madokoro teaches the beam bender is between the aperture and objective lens (the tilting deflector 5 and blanker 6 (together interpreted to be the beam bender) are between movable aperture 4 and objective lens 8, [0072], as seen in Fig. 1), and the beam bender is configured to bend the ion beam in the ion beam column when the ion beam is impacting the wafer (Fig. 1, [0048], [0059]).
Madokoro modifies Agemura by suggesting a beam bender between the aperture and objective lens configured to bend the ion beam in the ion beam column when the ion beam is impacting the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Madokoro because placing the tilting deflector between the moving aperture and the objective lens, and bending the ion beam via the tilting deflector allows these elements to work in conjunction to irradiate the ion beam on a sample, (Madokor, [0048], [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Agemura does not explicitly teach wherein the objective lens is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the stage and the ion source, wherein the beam bender is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the objective lens and the ion source, wherein the aperture is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the beam bender and the ion source, wherein the deflector is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the aperture and the ion source, and wherein the condense lens is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the deflector and the ion source.
Madokoro teaches wherein the objective lens is disposed in a path of the ion beam between the stage and the ion source (objective lens 8 is between sample stage 9 and ion source 1, [0072], Fig. 1), wherein the beam bender is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the objective lens and the ion source (tilting deflector 5 and blanker 6 together are between objective lens 8 and ion source 1, [0072], Fig. 1), wherein the aperture is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the beam bender and the ion source (movable aperture 4 is between 5, 6 and 1, [0072], Fig. 1), wherein the deflector is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the aperture and the ion source (aligner 3 is between moveable aperture 4 and ion source 1, [0072], Fig. 1. [0072] discloses that aligner 3 is a deflector.), and wherein the condense lens is disposed in the path of the ion beam between the deflector and the ion source (condenser lens 2 is between aligner 3 and ion source 1, [0072], Fig. 1).
Madokoro modifies Agemura by suggesting that the order of the ion column optics along the ion beam path from the ion source is as follows: condense lens, deflector, aperture, beam bender, objective lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Madokoro because this configuration of the ion beam system allows for focused ion beam processing observation through an operation of an optical system in the same manner as in the case of mechanically tilting a sample stage, but without needing to tilt the sample stage, (Madokoro, [0009]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Agemura teaches further comprising a xenon source in fluid communication with the ion source ([0038], [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Agemura teaches further comprising a processor configured to control blanking of the ion beam and the electron beam (common control microcomputer unit 131 controls electron beam blanking unit 103 and ion beam blanking unit 113 via electron beam blanking processing unit 106 and ion beam blanking processing unti 116, [0042], [0040]).
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), further in view of Jiang, et. al. (US 20210327770 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 2, Agemura teaches wherein the scanning electron beam column includes an aperture (diaphragm, [0037]), a condense lens (condenser lens, [0037]), a deflector (deflector), and an objective lens (objective lens).
Agemura does not teach a gun lens or at least two deflectors.
Jiang teaches a gun lens ([0062]-[0063]) and at least two deflectors ([0024], [0083], Fig. 9 shows embodiment having 3 deflectors).
Jiang modifies Agemura by including a gun lens and three deflectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jiang because a gun lens enables focus and defocus of the high voltage electron beam to select a desired beam current (Jiang, [0062]), and including three deflectors allows for the reduction of spherical and chromatic aberration coefficients of the objective lens (Jiang, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Agemura teaches the stage ((sample stage which holds the sample 121, [0041])).
Agemura does not teach wherein the objective lens is disposed in a path of the electron beam between the stage and the electron source, wherein the at least two deflectors are disposed in the path of the electron beam between the objective lens and the electron source, wherein the condense lens is disposed in the path of the electron beam between the at least two deflectors and the electron source, wherein the aperture is disposed in the path of the electron beam between the condense lens and the electron source, and wherein the gun lens is disposed in the path of the electron beam between the aperture and the electron source.
Jiang teaches wherein the objective lens is disposed in a path of the electron beam between the stage and the electron source (objective lens 119, Fig. 6(a)), wherein the at least two deflectors are disposed in the path of the electron beam between the objective lens and the electron source (deflector 106, Fig. 6(a), where Fig. 9 shows embodiment in which there are 3 deflectors, 106, 122, and 121, in this location), wherein the condense lens is disposed in the path of the electron beam between the at least two deflectors and the electron source (condenser lens 105, Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 9), wherein the aperture is disposed in the path of the electron beam between the condense lens and the electron source (aperture 104, Fig. 6(a)), and wherein the gun lens is disposed in the path of the electron beam between the aperture and the electron source (gun lens includes 115, 116, 117, 118, [0063, Fig. 6(a)) ([0021], [0024], [0063]-[0070]).
Jiang modifies Agemura by suggesting that the order of the electron column optics along the electron beam path from the electron source is as follows: gun lens, aperture, condenser lens, deflectors, objective lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jiang because this configuration of the electron beam system allows for wafer inspection and review of 3D devices with a depth of focus up to 20 microns, (Jiang, Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), further in view of Nagahara, et. al. (US 20240355574 A1), hereinafter Nagahara.
Regarding claim 9, Agemura fails to teach wherein the ion beam column provides a Gaussian beam mode and a projection beam mode.
Nagahara teaches wherein the ion beam column provides a Gaussian beam mode (focusing mode, [0016], [0060], [0079], [0080]) and a projection beam mode (projection mode, [0060], [0079], [0081]).
Nagahara modifies Agemura by suggesting the ion beam column provides a Gaussian beam mode and projection beam mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Nagahara because Gaussian (focusing) mode allows for the sample to be scanned to form an image ([0080], [0082]-[0083]), while projection mode allows for uniform illumination of the ion beam on the sample without scanning ([0081]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), in view of Routh, Jr., et. al. (US 20140007307 A1), hereinafter Routh.
Regarding claim 7, Agemura teaches the ion beam column (FIB column 111, [0035], [0039], Fig. 1)).
Agemura does not explicitly teach wherein the ion beam column is electrostatic.
Routh teaches wherein the ion beam column is electrostatic ([0046] teaches electrostatic deflectors and lenses in the ion beam column).
Routh modifies Agemura by suggesting that the optical elements of the ion beam column electrostatic optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Routh because electrostatic elements are equivalents known for the same purpose, as taught by Routh ([0046] teaches that an ion beam column typically comprises electrostatic deflectors and lenses).
Claim 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), further in view of Biberger, et. al. (US 20120145895 A1), hereinafter Biberger.
Regarding claim 10, Agemura does not explicitly teach wherein the angle is from 50° to 60°.
Biberger teaches wherein the angle is from 50° to 60° (last sentence of [0073], Fig. 1).
Biberger modifies Agemura by suggesting that the angle is 20°-60°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Biberger because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990),” see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, Agemura does not explicitly teach whererin the angle is 60°.
Biberger teaches wherein the angle is 60° (last sentence of [0073], Fig. 1).
Biberger modifies Agemura by suggesting that the angle is in a range of 20°-60°, which includes the claimed angle of 60°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Biberger because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990),” see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), further in view of Takahashi, et. al. (US 20080315088 A1), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 12, Agemura does not teach further comprising: a second ion source that generates a second ion beam; and a second ion beam column coupled to the second ion source, wherein the second ion beam column directs the second ion beam at the stage, and wherein the second ion beam column direct the second ion beam at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the ion beam.
Takahashi teaches further comprising: a second ion source that generates a second ion beam (focused ion beam 4, Fig. 2 inherently suggests an ion source to generate the ion beam); and a second ion beam column coupled to the second ion source (FIB lens-barrel 1, [0022]), wherein the second ion beam column directs the second ion beam at the stage (directs ion beam at stage 9, Fig. 1, [0023]), and wherein the second ion beam column direct the second ion beam at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the ion beam ([0022] teaches an azimuthal angle of 90 degrees between the SEM lens-barrel 2 and the gas ion beam lens-barrel 3, however [0025] explicitly teaches an arrangement in where the SEM lens-barrel 2 is arranged vertically instead of the FIB lens-barrel, such that the FIB lens-barrel 1 and the gas ion beam lens-barrel 3 are tilted about the tilt axis (i.e. swap 1 and 2 in Fig. 1). In this case, it would be obvious for the FIB lens-barrel 1 and the gas ion beam lens-barrel to be spaced by a 90° azimuthal angle such that the ion beam of the FIB lens-barrel is at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the gas ion beam, as disclosed by Takahashi in [0022]).
Takahashi modifies Agemura by suggesting a second ion source, beam and column, in which the the second ion column directs the second ion beam at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the first ion beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi because the arrangement of the gas ion beam apparatus, FIB, and SEM allows for a TEM sample to be efficiently prepared (Takahashi, Abstract, [0007]-[0008], [0012]), wherein the arrangement in [0025] of Takahashi is an equivalent known for the same purpose. Furthermore, using both a focused ion beam and a gas ion beam allows for micromachining with the FIB and irradiation with the gas ion beam to remove damage, as discussed in [0003]-[0006] of Takahashi.
Claims 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), further in view of Buxbaum, et. al. (US 20220392793 A1), hereinafter Buxbaum.
Regarding claim 14, Agemura teaches a method comprising:
directing an ion beam at a wafer on a stage whereby the ion beam mills the wafer ([0038], FIB processing, Abstract, of sample 121), wherein the ion beam is directed through an ion beam column ([0038], Fig. 1) includes a condense lens (condenser lens, [0039]), a deflector (deflector, [0039]), an aperture (diaphragm, [0039]), an objective lens (objective lens, [0039]), and a beam bender disposed in a path of the ion beam.
blanking the ion beam using a beam bender (ion beam blanking unit 113, [0038]) such that the ion beam does not reach the wafer ([0040]);
directing an electron beam at the wafer during the blanking [0040], ([0042], [0046], Fig. 2), wherein the electron beam is directed through an electron beam column ([0036], Fig. 1), wherein the ion beam column directs the ion beam at an angle relative to the electron beam ([0035], Fig. 1), and wherein the electron beam is directed at a normal angle relative to a top surface of the wafer ([0035], Fig. 1).
Although Agemura teaches a beam bender in a path of the ion beam, Agemura does not explicitly teach that the beam bender is between the aperture and objective lens. Further, Agemura does not explicitly teach wherein the beam bender is configured to bend the ion beam in the ion beam column when the ion beam is impacting the wafer. Furthermore, Agemura does not explicitly teach determining, using a processor, a depth that the ion beam milled the wafer using the electron beam.
Madokoro teaches the beam bender is between the aperture and objective lens (the tilting deflector 5 and blanker 6 (together interpreted to be the beam bender) are between movable aperture 4 and objective lens 8, [0072], as seen in Fig. 1), and the beam bender is configured to bend the ion beam in the ion beam column when the ion beam is impacting the wafer (Fig. 1, [0048], [0059]). Buxbaum teaches determining, using a processor, a depth that the ion beam milled the wafer using the electron beam ([0065]).
Madokoro modifies Agemura by suggesting a beam bender between the aperture and objective lens configured to bend the ion beam in the ion beam column when the ion beam is impacting the wafer. Buxbaum modifies Agemura by suggesting that a processor can use the imaging capabilities of the scanning electron microscope to generate a depth map that the focused ion beam milled the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Madokoro because placing the tilting deflector between the moving aperture and the objective lens, and bending the ion beam via the tilting deflector allows these elements to work in conjunction to irradiate the ion beam on a sample, (Madokor, [0048], [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Buxbaum because a processor is able to perform depth map generation steps, (Buxbaum, [0065]), and a dual beam device and method allows for 3D volume image generation for inspection of inspection volumes with large depth extension inside a wafer, (Buxbaum, [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Agemura teaches wherein the ion beam includes xenon ions ([0038], [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Agemura teaches further comprising detecting a signal of the electron beam reflected from the wafer to image the wafer ([0041], [0046])
Agemura does not explicitly teach performing defect inspection of the wafer using a processor.
Buxbaum teaches performing defect inspection of the wafer using a processor ([0067], wafer defect inspection device can further comprise an image processing unit with software code installed, [0070], defect detection unit computes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Buxbaum because a processor has software that can compute averages and statistical deviation of a plurality of semiconductor features, therefore allowing the detection of defects, (Buxbaum, [0070]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), in view of Buxbaum (US 20220392793 A1), further in view of Biberger, et. al. (US 20120145895 A1), hereinafter Biberger.
Regarding claim 17, Agemura does not explicitly teach wherein the angle is from 50° to 60°.
Biberger teaches wherein the angle is from 50° to 60° (last sentence of [0073], Fig. 1).
Biberger modifies Agemura by suggesting that the angle is 20°-60°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Biberger because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990),” see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 18, Agemura does not explicitly teach whererin the angle is 60°.
Biberger teaches wherein the angle is 60° (last sentence of [0073], Fig. 1).
Biberger modifies Agemura by suggesting that the angle is in a range of 20°-60°, which includes the claimed angle of 60°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Biberger because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990),” see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), in view of Buxbaum (US 20220392793 A1), further in view of Takahashi, et. al. (US 20080315088 A1), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 20, Agemura does not teach further comprising directing a second ion beam at the wafer on the stage, wherein the second ion beam is directed at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the ion beam.
Takahashi teaches further comprising: directing a second ion beam at the wafer on the stage (focused ion beam directed at sample stage 9, Fig. 1, [0023]), wherein the second ion beam is directed at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the ion beam ([0022] teaches an azimuthal angle of 90 degrees between the SEM lens-barrel 2 and the gas ion beam lens-barrel 3, however [0025] explicitly teaches an arrangement in where the SEM lens-barrel 2 is arranged vertically instead of the FIB lens-barrel, such that the FIB lens-barrel 1 and the gas ion beam lens-barrel 3 are tilted about the tilt axis (i.e. swap 1 and 2 in Fig. 1). In this case, it would be obvious for the FIB lens-barrel 1 and the gas ion beam lens-barrel to be spaced by a 90° azimuthal angle such that the ion beam of the FIB lens-barrel is at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the gas ion beam, as disclosed by Takahashi in [0022]).
Takahashi modifies Agemura by suggesting a second ion beam directed at a 90° azimuthal angle with respect to the first ion beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi because the arrangement of the gas ion beam apparatus, FIB, and SEM allows for a TEM sample to be efficiently prepared (Takahashi, Abstract, [0007]-[0008], [0012]), wherein the arrangement in [0025] of Takahashi is an equivalent known for the same purpose. Furthermore, using both a focused ion beam and a gas ion beam allows for micromachining with the FIB and irradiation with the gas ion beam to remove damage, as discussed in [0003]-[0006] of Takahashi.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agemura (US 20170330722 A1) in view of Madokoro (US 20120235055 A1), in view of Buxbaum (US 20220392793 A1), further in view of Utlaut, et. al. (US 20110163068 A1), hereinafter Utlaut.
Regarding claim 21, Agemura does not teach wherein a beam current of the ion beam is from 100 nA to 1 µA.
Utlaut teaches wherein a beam current of the ion beam is from 100 nA to 1 µA ([0039] teaches that a noble gas column can produce ion beam currents greater than 100 nanoamps).
Utlaut modifies Agemura by suggesting a beam current greater than 100 nA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Biberger because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990),” see MPEP 2144.05, I. Furthermore, incorporating the teachings of Utlaut allows for a usable beam quality and current density that also avoids real or perceived problems of metal contamination, (Utlaut, [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881