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 Arguments
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) :
Applicant cites Ma. Inst. Of Tech. v. Abacus Soft arguing the term “circuit” or “circuitry” connote structure and should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Examiner is not persuaded that Ma. Inst. Of Tech. v. Abacus Soft applies in this case. The Federal Circuit provided reasons why the term “circuitry” was sufficient structure to not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and none of the reasons appear to apply to the present claims. The circuitry in Ma. Inst. Of Tech. v. Abacus Soft pertained to a more traditional electronics such as resistors and capacitors and that one of ordinary skill in the art would know the structure (i.e. the arrangement of the electrical components that perform the functions). In contrast, the present claim have functions that are achieved by “processing units” with programming/algorithm and one of ordinary skill must resort to the specification such as that pointed to by Applicant of Figure 11. No evidence is before the Examiner showing that the term “circuitry” is sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions without resorting to the specification ("Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure." See MPEP 2181(I) para. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) :
The previous rejections of claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argues the first defect detection test and the second defect detection test as claimed cannot be performed in the human mind, and cites SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. This is not found persuasive as the Federal Circuit explains that the detection is done using network monitors. Here, claim 20 does not recite such structure or similar. Applicant provides no support that the human mind “is not equipped” to perform a first defect detection test and a second defect detection test. There is also no limitation in the claims as to the processing rate (See Applicant’s argument on page 15, first paragraph). Even so, the use of a computer to assist in the mental process does not render a claim eligible. Please also note that claim 20 is not required to be implemented in a computer (See MPEP 2105.06(a)(II): “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation.”).
The disclosure states the first test is “a simple algorithm” and “may comprise selecting a subset of the sample image datastream.” See Specification paragraph [0096]. This is directed at a high level of generality and is something that can be done in the human mind or with the assistance of a computer (e.g. removing data outside a range). The second test is “any suitable defect detection test.” See paragraph [0097]. This is directed at a high level of generality and is something that can be done in the human mind or with the assistance of a computer (selecting data centered around a mean value or a smaller range) See MPEP 2106.04(C) (1) or (2).
Applicant argues that an abstract idea has not been properly identified because the claimed first defect detection and second defect detection test cannot be performed mentally. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons discussed above in that these steps are simple algorithms.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the purported abstract idea into a practical application as being analogous to Example 3 in the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. The Examiner does not find Example 3 to be analogous because. The Examiner finds that the digital image processing of Example 5 (Digitech Image Tech. LLC., v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,) to be analogous where claim 10 recites two steps of generating image data and combining the first and second data into a device profile because the claims of the present invention do not recite any additional elements besides the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims reflect an improvement in computer-based image processing. It is noted that claim 20 does not call for a computer (“It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation.”) In claim 1, it is found that a computer is used “merely as a tool” rather than “improve computer capabilities.” See MPEP 2106.05(a)*I). For the same reasons, Applicant’s argument that the claims recite “significantly more” is not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant argues that the limitation that the first defect detection test is performed in parallel with receipt of the sample image data is not directed to intended use, but that it results in a structural different (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference). Since claim 1 is drawn to a product, Applicant has not identified what the structural difference. The claim is drawn to a computer product and the Examiner did not find any difference in the structure of the processor or an algorithm (i.e. structure) the enables the parallel function. Therefore the Examiner concluded that the parallel operation be directed at how the processor is intended to be operated. Hiroi’s teaching that the image data is first stored does not establish that the processor is not capable of performing the defect detection test while receiving the image data.
Applicant argues Horoi’s classification of defects to not be a defect detection test because the defect detection test is completed prior to classification of defects. In response, the Examiner submits that classifying of defect is a defect detection test because it is identifying what type of defect is detected. The claims do not establish what particular acts must be performed in order to be considered a defect detection test or when the beginning and end of the test is. The claim effectively defines the first test to locally filter the image data to a subset of data and the second defect detection test to further filter the subset. The claim does not require any addition or other steps.
Applicant’s statement that the claims “addresses the problem of processing data at a high rate” “without excessive hardware requirement” which is a statement of a problem to be solved does not serve to distinguish the claims from Hiroi so long as Hiroi teaches all the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Argument A: Applicant argues Gunji’s disclosure of operation part 48 for aligning an image signal stored in the first image storage part 46 with that stored in the second image storage part 47 does not correspond to the claimed first defect detection test. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because Applicant does not address Gunji’s teaching that the operation part 48 performs “normalizing signal levels, and removing noise signals.” See Para. [0051]. As to the parallel operation, please see the discussion of the limitation with respect to Hiroi above.
Argument B: Applicant argues Gunji’s failure to show a first defect detection test means that Gunji’s “predetermined threshold” is not a second test that is higher than the first. Since the Examiner did not find Applicant’s argument regarding the first defect detection test to be persuasive, it follows that Applicant’s argument that there is no second defect detection test to also not be persuasive.
Argument C. Applicant argues Lin’s dividing an image into a plurality of images does not amount to a defect detection test. The Examine respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the grounds of rejection relied on Lin to teach the second defect detection. See “In the alternative, Lin also shows selecting a subset of the first selected data…” Officer Action, page 18. Nonetheless, the Examiner submits that Lin also shows a first defect detection test. The claim defines the second defect detection test to have a higher sensitivity and to select a subset of the first selected data. The Examiner submit that this is what Lin discloses. Lin shows dividing an image produces a subset of data (i.e. each of the plurality of images is a subset) and it has a sensitivity (e.g. number of plurality of images).
Argument D. Applicant argues Lin does not disclose a second defect flagging sensitivity that is higher than the first defect flagging sensitivity. Applicant states that Lin’s second pre-trained abnormality detection model is not a second defect detection test, but at best is “a first instance in which any analysis of the content in the images is performed.” It appears Applicant interprets the claim to require an “analysis of the content in the images” to be performed for each of the first and second defect detection test. The Examiner respectfully disagrees if this is so because nothing is found in the claim which requires “analysis of the content in the images.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“data processing device comprising circuitry” in claims 1-19. See MPEP 2181(V).
“defect processing units” in claim 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A:
A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Examiner notes that independent claim 20 recites the steps of –
performing a first defect detection test using the sample image datastream to select a subset of the sample image datastream as first selected data, wherein the first defect detection test is performed in parallel with receiving the sample image datastream, and wherein the first defect detection test is a localized defect detection test with a first defect flagging sensitivity;
performing a second defect detection test using the first selected data to select a subset of the first selected data as second selected data, wherein the second defect detection test has a second defect flagging sensitivity that is higher than the first defect flagging sensitivity; and
generating a defect detection outcome based on the second selected data.
These steps fall under the grouping of Mental Processes or Mathematical Concepts. The performing of first and second defect detection tests may be done in the human mind or with the aid of a calculator and is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The disclosure states the first test is “a simple algorithm” and “may comprise selecting a subset of the sample image datastream.” See paragraph [0096]. This is something that can be done in the human mind or with the assistance of a computer (e.g. removing data outside a range which can be done in the human mind or with the aid of a computer that calculates if the data is greater than and/or less than a filter values).
The second test is “any suitable defect detection test.” See paragraph [0097]. This is something that can be done in the human mind or with the assistance of a computer (selecting data centered around a mean value).
The recitation of “generating a defect detection outcome based on the second selected data” is also considered a mental or mathematical process of making a decision whether the result of the second test meets a threshold for a defect.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claim 20 recites a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP § 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP § 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use –see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 20 recites “receiving a sample image datastream from the charged particle assessment system, the sample image datastream comprising an ordered series of data points representing an image of a target sample” and “receiving the first selected data” which are considered data gathering and the limitations are not found to add significantly more as receiving data is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The same applies to claim 1. The recitation that the method is “computer-implemented” does not add significantly more.
For claim 1, the claim is directed at a system that comprises “a data processing device comprising a circuit” that performs steps akin to the method of claim 20. The “data processing device comprising a circuit” is highly generic components(e.g. similar to a generic computer) and do not add significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-13 further limit the abstract idea. Nothing is found to impart significantly more.
Hence, under Prong Two of PEG 2019, the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For the above reasons, claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed above, there are no additional elements and the use of a general purpose computer component is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi et al. (US 2002/0057831).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Hiroi shows:
1. A data processing device (computer implemented process) for detecting defects in sample image data generated by a charged particle assessment system, the device comprising:
a first processing module (e.g. para. [0084]): ”an image processor circuit 202”) configured to receive a sample image datastream from the charged particle assessment system, the sample image datastream comprising an ordered series of data points representing an image of the sample and to apply a first defect detection test to select a subset of the sample image datastream as first selected data (”If any difference is found in comparison, the difference is extracted as a pattern defect 11 to prepare a list of pattern defects 11. The list of pattern defects 11 thus prepared is sent to the general control part 110.”; para. [0101]: “After completion of inspection of the entire region of interest…”), wherein the first defect detection test is a localised test) which is performed in parallel with receipt of the sample image datastream (this parallel performance is not taken to be a component of the algorithm, but rather intended use and thus does not impart any structural limitation to the claim. In addition: [0097]: “the user specifies whether or not the image processing condition 201 is to be applied at the time of inspection”); and
performing a second defect detection test using the first selected data to select a subset of the first selected data as second selected data, (para: [0102]: “the pattern defect 11 is subjected to classification according to the image and feature quantity data thereof, i.e., a class code is assigned to the feature quantity data of the pattern defect 11.”; para. [0107]: “the user can set up a new image processing region additionally to provide conditioning for image processing as required.”; para. [0112]: “each candidate defect 40 is received from the candidate defect memory part 41 and it is checked whether the candidate defect 40 meets prespecified feature quantity data”); wherein the second defect detection test has a second defect flagging sensitivity that is higher than the first defect flagging sensitivity (classification of defects has a higher sensitivity than identifying defect pattern 11; ) and
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (US 2009/0206257) in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0222800).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Gunji shows:
A system for (and method) for detecting defects in sample image data generated by a charged particle beam system, the system comprising:
a data processing device (image processor 5 receives image datastream from electron detection part 7; paras. [0041]-[0044]) comprising circuitry and configured to:
perform a first defect detection test using, and in parallel with receipt of (this parallel performance is not taken to be a component of the algorithm, but rather intended use and thus does not impart any structural limitation to the claim. Furthermore, it would be obvious to perform the test in parallel to receiving the data in order to save time and quickly perform the determination), the sample image datastream to select a subset of the sample image datastream as first selected data (any of these operations is a defect detection test: “the operation part 48 performs various kinds of image processing for aligning an image signal stored in the first image storage part 46 with that stored in the second image storage part 47, normalizing signal levels, and removing noise signals.” Para. [0051]), and wherein the first defect detection test is a localized defect detection test with a first defect flagging sensitivity (e.g. line pitch 205; aligning, normalizing, or removing noise is localized);
perform a second defect detection test using the first selected data to select a subset of the first selected data as second selected data, wherein the second defect detection test has a second defect flagging sensitivity that is higher than the first defect flagging sensitivity (para. [0051]:”if the level of the differential image signal is greater than the predetermined threshold, determines pixels thereof to be a defect candidate.” The sensitivity is higher because if it was the same or lower, the test would not produce different results.); and
generate a defect detection outcome based on the second selected data ([0051]:”displays the position thereof, the number of defects and the like on the monitor 50).
In the alternative, Lin also shows selecting a subset of the first selected data as second selected data.
Lin shows a method for analyzing images for defect detection to:
perform a first defect detection test (“dividing the image into a plurality of first divided images” See claim 1) using, and in parallel with receipt of (this parallel performance is not taken to be a component of the algorithm, but rather intended use and thus does not impart any structural limitation to the claim), the sample image datastream to select a subset of the sample image datastream as first selected data, and wherein the first defect detection test is a localized defect detection test with a first defect flagging sensitivity;
perform a second defect detection test using the first selected data to select a subset of the first selected data as second selected data, wherein the second defect detection test has a second defect flagging sensitivity that is higher than the first defect flagging sensitivity (para. [0051]:”Inputting the plurality of first divided images into a second pre-trained abnormity detection model.” The sensitivity is higher because if it was the same or lower, the second test would not produce different results.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to further divide the analyzed regions of Gunji and analyze the further divided images in order to improve the accuracy of defect detection.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the data processing device is further configured to:
perform the first defect detection test using a first number of comparator operations per pixel; and
perform the second defect detection test using a second number of comparator operations per pixel, the first number of operations being less than the second number of operations based on the first defect flagging sensitivity and the second defect flagging sensitivity (Gunji filtering as discussed for claim 1 above which entails comparing (comparator) data values. Gunji does not explicitly show that the first number of operations being less than the second number of operations. There being only three possible alternatives, i.e. less, greater, or equal, all three would have been obvious to pursue.).
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the data processing device is further configured to perform the first defect detection test using less than 200 (Gunji does not show more than 200 comparator operations being performed per pixel. In addition, Gunji shows structure identical as claimed and therefore it is reasonable to conclude the identical structure has the same capabilities).
4. The system of claim 1, wherein comparator operations used by the first defect detection test are selected from the group consisting of: AND, OR, NOT, NAND, XOR, addition, subtraction, bit shifts (Official notice is taken that computers inherently use these logic gates).
5. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the data processing device is configured to:
receive the sample image datastream is received at a sample image data rate; and
transmit the first selected data is less than the sample image data rate (a computer processor is inherently capable of receiving and transmitting data at a set rate).
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the data processing device is further configured to buffer the sample image datastream using an input buffer that has a data storage capacity smaller than a data size associated with an image of a die on the target sample (the input buffer is not taken to be an element of the claimed system. There being no structural difference between this claim and Gunji, it is reasonable to conclude Gunji is capable of using the input buffer in the same manner).
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the first defect detection test compares data points of the sample image datastream to first reference image data ([0051]).
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the data processing device is further configured to buffer the image using a reference buffer having a data storage capacity smaller than a data size associated with a reference image of a die on the target sample (the buffer is not taken to be an element of the claimed system. There being no structural difference between this claim and Gunji, it is reasonable to conclude Gunji is capable of using the buffer in the same manner).
10. The system of claim 8, wherein
the first reference image data has a resolution that is lower than a resolution of the image of the target sample,
the second defect detection test compares the first selected data to second reference image data,
the first reference image data has a resolution that is lower than a resolution of the reference image data. (The reference image data are considered to be objects worked upon by the claimed system. See MPEP 2115. These are not elements of the system and do not serve to structurally distinguish from Gunji. In addition, being that there are only three possible options, i.e. higher, lower, and equal, all three options would have been obvious to pursue.)
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry comprises a field programmable gate array or an application-specific integrated circuit. (Gunji does not explicitly show field programmable gate array or an application-specific integrated circuit. Lin teaches the electronic device 3 can include a field programmable gate array or an application-specific integrated circuit. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a field programmable gate array or an application-specific integrated circuit for the expected ability to execute the functions/steps of analyzing the image data)
12. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the data processing device is configured to perform the first defect detection test by flagging pixels of the sample image datastream; and
the first selected data comprises a region of pixels surrounding pixels that include pixels of the sample image datastream flagged by the first defect detection test (inspection strip 200 for each line pitch 205; para. [0054]).
13. The system of claim 1, wherein
the first defect detection test generates a first defect score that is indicative of a defect at a pixel of the image of the target sample (the result after noise removal, as identified for claim 1, is indicative of a defect); and
the data processing device is further configured to accumulate, as the first selected data, data of regions having the highest values of the first defect score (the data processing device is capable of using a buffer).
14. A charged particle assessment system (see Fig. 1)comprising;
a charged particle beam system (1) comprising:
a charged particle beam source (10) configured to generate a beam of primary charged particles;
a charged particle optical system (12) configured to direct the beam of primary charged particles at a target sample; and
a charged particle detector system (7) configured to detect secondary charged particles associated with interaction of the primary charged particles with the target sample; and
a data processing device comprising circuitry (5) and configured to (see discussion of claim 1):
receive a sample image datastream from the charged particle beam system, the sample image datastream comprising an ordered series of data points representing an image of a target sample;
perform a first defect detection test using, and in parallel with receipt of, the sample image datastream to select a subset of the sample image datastream as first selected data, wherein the first defect detection test is a localized defect detection test with a first defect flagging sensitivity;
perform a second defect detection test using the first selected data to select a subset of the first selected data as second selected data, wherein the second defect detection test has a second defect flagging sensitivity that is higher than the first defect flagging sensitivity; and
generate a defect detection outcome based on the second selected data.
15. The charged particle assessment system of claim 14, wherein the charged particle beam system and a first portion (wires to deflectors or detectors`) of the data processing device are disposed in a vacuum chamber (2) and a second portion (6) of the data processing device is disposed outside the vacuum chamber.
16. The charged particle assessment system of claim 14, wherein the charged particle beam system is a multi-column beam system configured to provide multiple beams of charged particles (Official notice is taken that multi-column beam systems were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use a multi-column beam system in order to inspect additional locations simultaneously).
17. The charged particle assessment system of claim 16, wherein:
the circuitry comprises:
first number of first defect processing units configured to perform the first defect detection test; and
a second number of second defect processing units configured to perform the second defect detection test;
each of the first defect processing units is associated with a respective column of the multi-column beam system; (see claim 16) and
the second number of second defect processing units is less than the first number of first defect processing units. (The claim sets forth a limited number of possibilities: less than, equal to, and greater than. There being only three options all three would be obvious to pursue in making the claimed system.)
18. The charged particle assessment system of claim 16, wherein:
the charged particle detector system comprises a plurality of detectors:
each of the detectors is associated with a respective column of the multi-beam column system; and
the data processing device is further configured to receive scan image data from the plurality of detectors (see discussion above for claim 16 for the multi-columns and as such, there would be a corresponding number of detectors in order to detect the charged particles in each column).
19. The charged particle assessment system of claim 16, wherein columns of the multi-column system are configured to scan corresponding parts of a plurality of dies on the target sample (Official notice is taken that it was well known to use multi-column electron beam systems to inspect multiple dies. As such, the spacing between the columns would have matched the spacing of the dies).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji and Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seeger et al. (US 2006/0008178).
Gunji and Lin show all the steps as recited for claim 1 but do not show the filtering of noise based on a convolution of the data points of the sample image datastream with a kernel of predetermined size.
Seeger shows images from a scanning electron microscope wherein an image for a K coefficient is efficiently computed by a convolution with a convolution kernel the size of the neighborhood centered on the corresponding pixel.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious analyze the charged particle beam image by a convolution of the data points of the sample image datastream with a kernel of predetermined size in order to efficiently analyze the image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877