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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 02 September 2025. Claims 1-17 are pending in the instant application where claims 1 and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 02 September 2025 with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In this case, “wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about two or more different axes” is newly added and rejected below with new prior art.
Examiner notes that applicant refers to “‘wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about two or more different axes’ as recited in claims 1 and 17” on page 1 paragraph 3 of the remarks. The indicated limitation appears only in amended claim 17 and not in claim 1 – claim 1 recites a different amended limitation “wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about an axis which is different from an optical axis of the displacement measurement probe”. This newly added limitation in claim 1 is disclosed by an updated interpretation of Samukawa, shown below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0043036 A1 by Dirk Zeidler et al. (“Zeidler”) in view of US 2013/0050712 A1 by Masahiko Samukawa et al. (“Samukawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Zeidler discloses an imaging system comprising: a displacement measurement probe device configured to make one or more displacement measurements with respect to a sample (Zeidler [0020]; multi-beam charged particle inspection system with a position sensing system or sensor [equivalent to a displacement measurement probe device] is equipped with a wafer stage [a stage for a sample] configured to determine a lateral, vertical displacement or rotation of the stage, i.e. with respect to the sample since the sample is coupled to the stage); a mounting stage configured to support the sample, wherein at least one of the displacement measurement probe device or the mounting stage comprises a rotatory actuator configured to rotate the one of the displacement measurement probe device or the mounting stage (Zeidler [0020]; inspection system is equipped with a wafer stage, i.e. a mounting stage, configured to support the sample; stage comprises a stage motion controller, comprising an actuator for displacement or rotation, i.e. rotating the mounting stage); a processing system coupled to at least one of the displacement measurement probe device or the mounting system, wherein the processing system comprises a memory coupled to a processor which is configured to execute programmed instructions (Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method) comprising and stored in the memory to: initiate the one or more displacement measurements with the displacement measurement probe device (Zeidler [0071] lateral displacement of the stage is determined, i.e. a displacement measurement is initiated); determine a lateral position based on the displacement measurements and the one or more rotational positions (Zeidler [0095]; position sensing system determines the lateral and vertical displacement and rotation of the stage from a first image patch to the next image patch); and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample (Zeidler [0147]; several image patches are stitched together to obtain a 2D image representation of the surface of the sample).
Zeidler is silent to a processor configured to initiate with the rotary actuator a change in a rotational position of the sample as a whole on the mounting system relative to the displacement measurement probe device for the one or more of the displacement measurements, wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about an axis which is different from an optical axis of the displacement measurement probe, determine a lateral position of features of the sample based on the displacement measurement and the different rotational positions of the sample as a whole, and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample.
However, Samukawa does address this limitation. Zeidler and Samukawa are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of surface mapping via sample displacement methods/apparatus using optical systems.
Samukawa discloses “a processor configured to initiate with the rotary actuator a change in a rotational position of the sample as a whole on the mounting system relative to the displacement measurement probe device for the one or more of the displacement measurements” (Samukawa fig. 2 and [0071] discloses a lens 2 supported on a “θ-axis rotation system” 6, which rotates the lens about the θ-axis shown in the figure with a rotation drive unit, the motor block for which is shown in fig. 4 [equivalent to the rotary actuator]; [0068] the lens shape measurement device 1 comprises a laser displacement meter 20 [displacement measurement probe device] where the relative position between a lens (i.e. the whole sample) and the displacement meter is altered [change in rotational position of the sample as a whole relative to the probe device]; Samukawa fig. 4 shows a block diagram where a computer control system controls displacement means, data analysis via data processor, etc. [i.e. a processor configured to carry out a method]), “wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about an axis which is different from an optical axis of the displacement measurement probe” (Samukawa fig. 10(B) and [0160] discloses a rotation of the lens 2 [change in rotational position of the sample], and shows the optical axis of the displacement measurement probe – emitted from the laser displacement meter towards the edge of the lens, in the plane of the page; the rotation occurring is about an axis that is into/out of the page in fig. 10 – this rotational axis is different from the optical axis of the displacement measurement probe which is represented only in the plane of the page; for the axis of rotational change to be the same as the optical axis of the displacement probe, a rotation of the lens itself into/out of the page would be required), “determine a lateral position of features of the sample based on the displacement measurement and the different rotational positions of the sample as a whole” (Samukawa fig. 7 and [0164] discloses points P0-P2 along the lens where a displacement measurement has been performed by the displacement meter 20, where the “features of the sample” are considered the points P0-P2 where a measurement has taken place which have coordinates associated with them; the polar coordinates are dependent on the rotational motion of the sample as a whole [rotational positions of the sample]; while the coordinates are polar in form, one of ordinary skill recognizes that a commonly accessible transformation can be done from polar to cartesian coords, which are more explicitly indicative of a “lateral position” – while not explicit in polar form, the lateral position is thus inherently contained within the radial and angular coordinates) “and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample” (Samukawa [0205] discloses that a shape data creation program installed on a data processor 37 part of the lens measuring system 1 uses measurement data obtained by the displacement meter at a certain measurement target [based on determined lateral position of features of the sample, where the measurement targets are the points P0-P2 of fig. 7 for example] to create cross sectional images of the lens 2 [sample]; [0209] and fig. 15 shows two example cross sections of lenses 2 [in two dimensions] and the variety of dimensional analysis of features (bevels, chamfering amount, etc.) that can be performed and/or obtained).
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 Zeidler to incorporate a processor configured to initiate with the rotary actuator a change in a rotational position of the sample as a whole on the mounting system relative to the displacement measurement probe device for the one or more of the displacement measurements, wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about an axis which is different from an optical axis of the displacement measurement probe, determine a lateral position of features of the sample based on the displacement measurement and the different rotational positions of the sample as a whole, and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample as suggested by Samukawa for the advantage of enabling the accurate measurement of samples which comprise mirrored surfaces, which is conventionally difficult, and enabling further shape and dimensional analysis from samples already measured (Samukawa [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, and Zeidler further teaches the system wherein the displacement measurement probe device is a confocal chromatic probe (Zeidler [0095]; position sensing system [the displacement measurement probe device] is a confocal sensor array [equivalent to a confocal chromatic probe, as known in the art]).
Regarding claim 3, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 2. Zeidler does not explicitly disclose the system as set forth in claim 2 wherein the confocal chromatic probe is a confocal chromatic interferometric probe.
However, Zeidler does suggest this limitation.
Zeidler suggests the system as set forth in claim 2, “wherein the confocal chromatic probe is a confocal chromatic interferometric probe” (Zeidler [0095]; the stage movement and stage position is monitored and controlled by sensors known in the art, including a laser interferometer, a confocal sensor array i.e. the confocal chromatic probe of claim 2, a grating interferometer, or a combination thereof; while Zeidler does not specifically disclose a confocal chromatic interferometric probe, Zeidler discloses separately a confocal sensor array and interferometric means of monitoring position, and a combination of which reads on the claimed limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Zeidler as disclosing wherein the confocal chromatic probe is a confocal chromatic interferometric probe for the advantage of incorporating an additional means of tracking the displacement of the stage, as it may increase the available resolution of the images of the samples being investigated.
Regarding claim 4, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, and Zeidler further teaches the system wherein the displacement measurement probe device is configured to make the one or more displacement measurements with respect to a sample comprising a surface (Zeidler [0032]; the displacement and therefore displacement measurements obtained by the position sensing system are obtained relative to the wafer surface).
Claims 5-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Samukawa, and further in view of US 2015/0192769 A1 by Thomas Dresel et al. (“Dresel”).
Regarding claim 5, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 4, and Zeidler further teaches the system wherein the processor is further configured to execute programming instructions comprising and stored in the memory (as with claim 1 above, Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method).
Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a lateral position topography of the surface based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample.
However, Dresel does address this limitation. Zeidler, Samukawa, and Dresel are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of imaging for surface characterization and/or mapping.
Dresel discloses the system set forth in claim 4, “wherein the processor is further configured to determine a lateral position topography of the surface based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample” (Dresel [0104]; processor of optical profiler system identifies surface features, and their coordinates [lateral position topography] via stitching together topography maps during imaging).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the processor is further configured to determine a lateral position topography of the surface based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample as suggested by Dresel for the advantage of having an algorithmic means of stitching topography images together, which greatly decreases the need for highly accurate stage coordinates obtained by other means (Dresel [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 5, and Zeidler further teaches the system wherein for determining the lateral position topography, the processor is further configured to execute programming instructions comprising and stored in the memory (Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method).
Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the lateral position topography of the surface wherein the topography of the surface is numerically imaged.
However, Dresel does address this limitation.
Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to “determine the lateral position topography of the surface wherein the topography of the surface is numerically imaged” (Dresel [0104]; processor of the optical profiler system identifies the coordinates of surface features, and therefore spatial relationships between each of the features connected via the coordinates obtained; Examiner interprets “numerically imaged” as corresponding to a quantitative relationship between surface features).
Regarding claim 7, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the displacement measurement probe device is configured to make the one or more displacement measurements with respect to a sample comprising a volume.
However, Dresel does address this limitation.
Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, “wherein the displacement measurement probe device is configured to make the one or more displacement measurements with respect to a sample comprising a volume” (Dresel [0028]; the test surface object topography [sample] includes spherical surfaces, aspheric surface, or freeform surfaces, all of which examiner interprets has having a volume, an existing in three dimensions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the displacement measurement probe device is configured to make the one or more displacement measurements with respect to a sample comprising a volume as suggested by Dresel for the advantage of expanding the applicability of the high-throughput system (of Zeidler in view of Samukawa) to a third dimension, and gaining the ability to efficiently image samples comprising volumes.
Regarding claim 8, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa and Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 7, and Zeidler further teaches the system wherein the processor is further configured to execute programming instructions comprising and stored in the memory (Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method).
Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a three-dimensional image of an interior of the volume based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample.
However, Dresel does address this limitation.
Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 7, “wherein the processor is further configured to determine a three-dimensional image of an interior of the volume based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample” (Dresel [0079]; computer 128, including a processor, combines topography images to create a final three-dimensional surface topography of the sample. Since the samples may be spherical or aspheric, (examiner envisions a concave surface) the negative curvature of the concave surface is interpreted as an “interior”).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the processor is further configured to determine a three-dimensional image of an interior of the volume based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample as suggested by Dresel for the advantage of generating an easily visualizable map of an object being scanned, instead of being limited to two-dimensional map, with a color representing a third dimension for instance.
Regarding claim 9, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa and Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 8, and Zeidler further teaches the system wherein for determining the three-dimensional image of the interior of the volume, the processor is further configured to execute programming instructions comprising and stored in the memory (Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method).
Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a three-dimensional image of an interior of the volume, wherein the interior of the volume is three-dimensionally numerically imaged.
However, Dresel does address this limitation.
Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 8, “wherein the processor is further configured to determine a three-dimensional image of an interior of the volume, wherein the interior of the volume is three-dimensionally numerically imaged” (Dresel [0104]; processor of the optical profiler system identifies the coordinates of surface features, and therefore spatial relationships between each of the features exist, and are connected via the coordinates obtained. Examiner interprets numerically imaged as corresponding to a quantitative relationship between surface features; Dresel [0105] the topography maps used to obtain coordinates of surface features are associated with a position in 3D space, so the features of the volume are numerically imaged).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the processor is further configured to determine a three-dimensional image of an interior of the volume, wherein the interior of the volume is three-dimensionally numerically imaged as suggested by Dresel for the advantage of having an algorithmic means of stitching topography images together, which greatly decreases the need for highly accurate stage coordinates obtained by other means (Dresel [0104]).
Regarding claim 11, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the displacement measurement probe device is further configured to have a measurement axis and wherein for initiating with the rotary actuator the change in a rotational position of the sample, the processor is further configured to execute programmed instructions comprising and stored in the memory (Zeidler [0023] charged particle beam system comprises an optical axis which is substantially perpendicular to the stage containing the sample; the claim does not require the measurement axis be different than the optical axis of the displacement measurement probe device; Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method).
Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to initiate with the rotary actuator the change in the rotational position of the sample to rotate about an axis orthogonal to the measurement axis.
However, Dresel does address this limitation.
Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, “wherein the processor is further configured to initiate with the rotary actuator the change in the rotational position of the sample to rotate about an axis orthogonal to the measurement axis” (Dresel fig. 1 shows an optical axis that is incident perpendicularly to the test object stage 170, analogous to the optical axis of Zeidler; Dresel fig. 2 shows the test object stage capable of rotating along the C-axis, i.e. a rotation in the plane of the page, and the stage rotating along the B-axis, described as a surface slope rotation; These rotations are orthogonal to the optical axis shown in figure 1; additionally, even if the measurement axis was required to be distinct from the optical axis, the C-axis may be interpreted as the measurement axis, moving orthogonally to the B-axis, and vice versa; [0075]; transducers that actuate the stage are coupled to computer 128, such that computer controls the operation of the transducers, and therefore the rotary actuator).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the processor is further configured to initiate with the rotary actuator the change in the rotational position of the sample to rotate about an axis orthogonal to the measurement axis as suggested by Dresel for the advantage of full control of the actuation of the sample containing stage via a computer, eliminating the need for iterative stage moving, and subsequent scanning by hand.
Regarding claim 12, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 1, further comprising one or more fiducial elements configured to be installed in the sample.
However, Dresel does address this limitation.
Dresel discloses the system as set forth in claim 1 “further comprising one or more fiducial elements configured to be installed in the sample” (Dresel [0120]; the stage supporting the sample may include optical encoder gratings formed on one or more sides of the stage/sample).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate one or more fiducial elements configured to be installed in the sample as suggested by Dresel for the advantage of increased ability to measure and related separated surfaces of an object, specifically a transparent object with a front/back/side surface as disclosed in Dresel [0122].
Claims 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Samukawa, and further in view of US 2021/0151288 A1 by Richard C. Lanza et al. (“Lanza”).
Regarding claim 10, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 1, in which the probe has a measurement beam whose width is greater than the width of the sample.
However, Lanza does address this limitation. Zeidler, Samukawa, and Lanza are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of imaging for surface characterization and/or mapping.
Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, “in which the probe has a measurement beam whose width is greater than the width of the sample” (Lanza [0050]; an example is discussed where the imaging system can image a 10 µm x 10 µm section of a specimen, where the x-ray beam spot size is 5 nm or less; in this case, the width of the measurement beam [i.e. the x-ray beam spot size] is 5 nm, and less than the width of the sample size at 10 µm; however, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in this case under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, as reversing the magnitudes of the proportions of sample width to measurement beam width in the case of Lanza would yield a measurement beam with a greater size than the width of the sample).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the probe has a measurement beam whose width is greater than the width of the sample for the advantage of a measurement beam who’s size can encompass the entire sample which is being investigating, instead needing to image at a single set of spatial coordinates, then shift the sample and image at subsequent spatial coordinates.
Regarding claim 13, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 1. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the generated at least the two-dimensional image of the sample comprises voxels.
However, Lanza does address this limitation.
Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 1, “wherein the generated at least the two-dimensional image of the sample comprises voxels” (Lanza [0057]; captured data to construct absorption and phase images of the sample specimen consist of coordinates, where the coordinates are thought of as voxels).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the generated at least the two-dimensional image of the sample comprises voxels as suggested by Lanza for the advantage of using voxels for efficient coordinate storage of the intensities of captured data corresponding to features in the sample under investigation.
Regarding claim 14, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa and Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 13. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 13, wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 100 nanometers.
However, Lanza does address this limitation.
Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 13, “wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 100 nanometers” (Lanza [0057]; voxel size can be thought of a size 10nm x 10nm x 10nm for (x,y,z) coordinates, OR some other suitable voxel size; 10nm to a side is less than 100nm as claimed).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein a width of the one of the voxels is less than 100 nanometers as suggested by Lanza for the advantage of an increased ability for the imaging system to resolve features on a sample that are less than 100 nanometers.
Regarding claim 15, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa and Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 13. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 13, wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 10 nanometers.
However, Lanza does address this limitation.
Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 13, “wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 10 nanometers” (Lanza [0057]; voxel size can be thought of a size 10nm x 10nm x 10nm for (x,y,z) coordinates, OR some other suitable voxel size”. While the quoted dimension here is 10nm, not less than 10nm, the voxel size is a result-effective variable where the smaller the voxel size, the higher the resolution of the resulting image; therefore the width of the voxel being less than 10 nanometers as an optimized alternative suitable voxel size would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art; further, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable requires routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and (B)).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 10 nanometers as suggested by Lanza for the advantage of an increased ability for the imaging system to resolve features on a sample that are less than 10 nanometers.
Regarding claim 16, Zeidler when modified by Samukawa discloses the system as set forth in claim 13. Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to the system as set forth in claim 13, wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 1 nanometer.
However, Lanza does address this limitation.
Lanza discloses the system as set forth in claim 13 “wherein a width of one the voxels is less than 1 nanometer” (Lanza [0057]; voxel size can be thought of a size 10nm x 10nm x 10nm for (x,y,z) coordinates, OR some other suitable voxel size; here voxel size is a result-effective variable where the smaller the voxel size, the higher the resolution of the resulting image; therefore the width of the voxel being less than 1 nanometer as an optimized alternative suitable voxel size would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art and further, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable requires routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and (B); additionally, Lanza [0023] discloses that the electron beam of the imaging system is focused to 5nm or less, so a voxel size of less than 1 nm is reasonable to accommodate the resolution associated with an electron beam of 5nm or less).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein a width of one of the voxels is less than 1 nanometer as suggested by Lanza for the advantage of an increased ability for the imaging system to resolve features on a sample that are less than 1 nanometer, and on the order of the resolution size of the electron imaging beam.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Samukawa, and further in view of US 2010/0097619 A1 by Zongtao Ge et al. (“Zongtao”).
Regarding claim 17, Zeidler discloses a method for making an imaging system (Zeidler abstract; multi-beam charged particle inspection system and method of operation), the method comprising: providing a displacement measurement probe device configured to make one or more displacement measurements with respect to a sample (Zeidler [0020]; multi-beam charged particle inspection system with a position sensing system or sensor [equivalent to a displacement measurement probe device] is equipped with a wafer stage [a stage for a sample] configured to determine a lateral, vertical displacement or rotation of the stage, i.e. with respect to the sample since the sample is coupled to the stage); providing a mounting stage configured to support the sample, wherein at least one of the displacement measurement probe device or the mounting stage comprises a rotary actuator configured to rotate the one of the displacement measurement probe device or the mounting stage (Zeidler [0020]; inspection system is equipped with a wafer stage, i.e. a mounting stage, configured to support the sample; stage comprises a stage motion controller, comprising an actuator for displacement or rotation, i.e. rotating the mounting stage); and coupling a processing system to at least one of the displacement measurement probe device or the mounting system, wherein the processing system comprises a memory coupled to a processor which is configured to execute programmed instructions (Zeidler [0070]; nontransitory computer readable medium is disclosed, comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of the multi-beam charged particle apparatus [processing system is coupled to probe device], causing the apparatus to perform a method) comprising and stored in memory to: initiate the one or more displacement measurements with the displacement measurement probe device (Zeidler [0071] lateral displacement of the stage is determined after the measurement is initiated [i.e. a displacement measurement]); determine a lateral position based on the displacement measurements and the one or more rotational positions (Zeidler [0095]; position sensing system determines the lateral and vertical displacement and rotation of the stage from a first image patch to the next image patch); and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample (Zeidler [0147]; several image patches are stitched together to obtain a 2D image representation of the surface of the sample).
Zeidler is silent to a processing system configured to initiate with the rotary actuator a change in a rotational position of the sample as a whole on the mounting system relative to the displacement measurement probe device for the one or more of the displacement measurements, determine a lateral position of features of the sample based on the displacement measurement and the different rotational positions of the sample as a whole, and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample.
However, Samukawa does address this limitation. Zeidler and Samukawa are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of surface mapping via sample displacement methods/apparatus using optical systems.
Samukawa discloses “a processing system configured to initiate with the rotary actuator a change in a rotational position of the sample as a whole on the mounting system relative to the displacement measurement probe device for the one or more of the displacement measurements” (Samukawa fig. 2 and [0071] discloses a lens 2 supported on a “θ-axis rotation system” 6, which rotates the lens about the θ-axis shown in the figure with a rotation drive unit, the motor block for which is shown in fig. 4 [equivalent to the rotary actuator]; [0068] the lens shape measurement device 1 comprises a laser displacement meter 20 [displacement measurement probe device] where the relative position between a lens (i.e. the whole sample) and the displacement meter is altered [change in rotational position of the sample as a whole relative to the probe device]; Samukawa fig. 4 shows a block diagram where a computer control system controls displacement means, data analysis via data processor, etc. [i.e. a processor configured to carry out a method]), “determine a lateral position of features of the sample based on the displacement measurement and the different rotational positions of the sample as a whole” (Samukawa fig. 7 and [0164] discloses points P0-P2 along the lens where a displacement measurement has been performed by the displacement meter 20, where the “features of the sample” are considered the points P0-P2 where a measurement has taken place which have coordinates associated with them; the polar coordinates are dependent on the rotational motion of the sample as a whole [rotational positions of the sample]; while the coordinates are polar in form, one of ordinary skill recognizes that a commonly accessible transformation can be done from polar to cartesian coords, which are more explicitly indicative of a “lateral position” – while not explicit in polar form, the lateral position is thus inherently contained within the radial and angular coordinates) “and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample” (Samukawa [0205] discloses that a shape data creation program installed on a data processor 37 part of the lens measuring system 1 uses measurement data obtained by the displacement meter at a certain measurement target [based on determined lateral position of features of the sample, where the measurement targets are the points P0-P2 of fig. 7 for example] to create cross sectional images of the lens 2 [sample]; [0209] and fig. 15 shows two example cross sections of lenses 2 [in two dimensions] and the variety of dimensional analysis of features (bevels, chamfering amount, etc.) that can be performed and/or obtained).
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 Zeidler to incorporate a processing system configured to initiate with the rotary actuator a change in a rotational position of the sample as a whole on the mounting system relative to the displacement measurement probe device for the one or more of the displacement measurements, determine a lateral position of features of the sample based on the displacement measurement and the different rotational positions of the sample as a whole, and generate at least a two-dimensional image of the sample based on the determined lateral position of the features of the sample as suggested by Samukawa for the advantage of enabling the accurate measurement of samples which comprise mirrored surfaces, which is conventionally difficult, and enabling further shape and dimensional analysis from samples already measured (Samukawa [0041]-[0042]).
Zeidler when modified by Samukawa is silent to wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about two or more different axes.
However, Zongtao does address this limitation. Zeidler, Samukawa, and Zongtao are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of surface mapping via sample displacement apparatus/methods using optical systems.
Zongtao discloses “wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about two or more different axes” (Zongtao [0043]-[0045] and fig. 1 disclose a sample surface measuring device comprising a test surface 80 which is fixed to a sample stage 6; the sample stage 6 acts as a two-axis adjusting stage (comprised of a first and second two-axis adjusting stage portions, a tilting stage portion, and a rotating stage portion) where fig. 1 shows the two axis about which the sample is rotated and/or tilted [change in rotational position of the sample is about two or more axes]).
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 Zeidler in view of Samukawa to incorporate wherein the change in the rotational position of the sample is about two or more different axes as suggested by Zongtao for the advantage of ensuring enabling a proper measurement of an irregular test sample with concave and convex portions, as shown in fig. 3A (Zongtao [0049]), and enabling an orientation to normal regardless of the concavity/convexity of the test sample (i.e. Zongtao fig. 5).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877