DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on February 18, 2026 was received. Claims 1 was amended. Claim 20 was canceled. Claims 8-19 were withdrawn. Claim 21 was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued October 2, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (EP0221184) in view of Azuma (US5683547) and McCord (US6586736), and evidenced by Stewart (US20050279934).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a method of repairing a mask (sample) by forming material on the defect portion of the mask (page 1, field of technology, page 7 to page 8 embodiment 2) (a method of depositing material over a localized region of a sample). Sato teaches to position the sample on the sample stage 35 in the vacuum chamber 39 to be example by scanning of ion beam 32 (under a field of view of a charged particle beam column) (page 7 to page 8 embodiment 2, figure 2). Sato teaches to direct the compound vapor (deposition precursor gas) through a nozzle 22 (gas injection nozzle) into the chamber, wherein the nozzle outlet is at the location adjacent to the surface of the sample (deposition region) (page 7 to page 8 embodiment 2, figure 2). Sato teaches to form a thin film on defects by reaction between the compound vapor and ion beam (generating a charged particle beam with the charged practice beam column) and direct the charged particle beam within the deposition region of the sample (page 7 to page 8 embodiment 2, figure 2). Sato teaches the defect of the sample is repaired by scanning of the ion beam (scanning the charged particle beam across the deposition region of the sample to activate molecules of the deposition gas and deposit material on the sample within the deposition region). Sato’s compound vapor (deposition gas) is considered to have adhered to the sample surface in the deposition region as the compound vapor has been supplied to the surface.
Sato does not explicitly teach the charged particle beam is focused (focused ion beam). However, Azuma teaches a method of using a focused energy beam, ion or electron, to locally depositing material on a surface of a sample by inducing a reaction with a chemical vapor by the forced energy beam on a irradiating area (abstract, column 1 lines 8-25). Azuma further teaches to arrange a gas nozzle14 in a discoidal form right above the sample (figures 1-6, column 6 lines 15-45, column 10 lines 5-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the focused ion beam and arrange a gas nozzle14 in a discoidal form right above the sample as suggested by Azuma in the method of Sato as Azuma teaches the focused beam facilitate the local film formation by ion beam (column 1 lines 8-25) and such nozzle distribute the reactant gas in the deposition area uniformly (column 6 line 15-25, column 10 lines 20-26).
Sato in view of Azuma does not explicitly teach to apply a negative bias voltage to the gas injection nozzle. However, McCord teaches a method of generating an image of a sample with an electron beam apparatus (abstract). McCord teaches excess positive charge is being generated on the surface of the sample during the scanning of the electron beam (column 1 lines 25-30). Since Azuma teaches focused ion beam and electron beam and interchangeable for the deposition, it would be reasonably expected that Sato’s ion beam deposition process also creates similar effect and excess positive charge on the surface of the sample. In addition, electrical charge being accumulated on the substate by charged particle beam (ion beam and/or electron beam) during the deposition is evidenced by Stewart (paragraph 0005). McCord teaches the charge is controlled by providing an electrode over the surface to be scanned, wherein the electrode has an opening though which a beam io incident particle may pass and strike the surface of the sample, a negative voltage is applied to the electrode such that at least one of the emitted parties (secondary electrons/ions) from the surface are repelled away from the electrode and towards the surface to cancel positive charge that has built up on the surface (column 1 lines 45-61). Since Azuma teaches the nozzle is in discoidal form with opening through which a beam of ion is pass and strike the surface of the sample and it is being placed right above the sample (see figures 1-6), it would be obvious to use the discoidal nozzle as the electrode and apply negative bias to the nozzle in light of the teaching of McCord. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the negative bias to the electrode (nozzle) as suggested by McCord in the method of Sato in view of Azuma because McCord teaches the negative charge on the electrode (nozzle) respells some of the secondary ions back to the surface of the sample so that the charge of the sample is controlled, which facilitates the image generation during sample scanning (column 1 lines 45-60). Since Sato and Azuma teaches the material is being deposited within the deposition region by scanning the focused ion beam across the depiction region, the combination with McCord would be obvious to apply the negative bios voltage to the gas injection nozzle during the deposition for respelling some of the secondary ions back to the surface of the sample so that the charge of the sample is controlled. The results of “increasing the rate of the precursor gas dissociation and enhancing the rate of material deposition on the sample within the deposition region” is intrinsic as the combination of Sato in view of Azuma and McCord teaches the negative bias voltage to the gas nozzle to repel the secondary electrons back toward the deposition region of the sample.
Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches the particle beam column is ion beam column and the charged particle beam is ion beam (page 7 to page 8 embodiment 2, figure 2). Azuma teaches the particle beam column is focused ion beam column and the charged particle beam is focused ion beam (abstract, column 1 lines 8-25; column 5 lines 60-68, figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Azuma teaches the gas injection nozzle is positioned between a tip of the charged particle column and the sample (see figures 1-6, column 6 lines 7-40).
Regarding claim 4, Azuma teaches the gas injection nozzle includes a channel formed through a distal end of the nozzle that is aligned to allow the focused ion beam to pass through the channel to the sample (see thought hole 15, figures 2a and 2b).
Regarding claims 5-6, McCord teaches the predetermined voltage is selected to repel some of the charged ion emitted from the sample back toward the sample such that charged accumulated on the surface of the sample is controlled, which allow enough emitted particles to reach the detector and image generator such that the image may be analyzed (column 4 lines 40-55). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the negative bias voltage in the process to yield the desired control of the sample surface charge, and allow enough emitted particles to reach the detector and image generator such that the image may be analyzed. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches the sample is semiconductor wafer (page 1 background technology, page 11 utilization possibility in industry).
Regarding claim 21, Sato teaches the distance between the tip of the nozzle and the upper surface of the sample is fixed at the best distance for repairing the mask defects with the small amount of compound vapor (page 9 second paragraph). Azuma teaches the distance of the nozzle and the sample are in the about 100 and 400 micron range (figure 4) and the distance governs the processing speed (figure 7, column 5 lines 20-40, lines column 11 lines 35-40). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the distance between the nozzle and the sample in the process to yield the desired processing speed (deposition rate). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Sato, Azuma or McCord does not recognize or address the problem solved by the present invention.
No motivation in combining McCord with Sato/Azuma.
The rejection relies on hindsight reconstruction.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As discussed above, such result is intrinsic from the combination of Sato, Azuma and McCord.
McCord teaches excess positive charge is being generated on the surface of the sample during the scanning of the electron beam (column 1 lines 25-30). Since Azuma teaches focused ion beam and electron beam and interchangeable for the deposition, it would be reasonably expected that Sato’s ion beam deposition process also creates similar effect and excess positive charge on the surface of the sample. In addition, electrical charge being accumulated on the substate by charged particle beam (ion beam and/or electron beam) during the deposition is evidenced by Stewart (paragraph 0005). McCord teaches the charge is controlled by providing an electrode over the surface to be scanned, wherein the electrode has an opening though which a beam of incident particle may pass and strike the surface of the sample, a negative voltage is applied to the electrode such that at least one of the emitted parties (secondary electrons/ions) from the surface are repelled away from the electrode and towards the surface to cancel positive charge that has built up on the surface (column 1 lines 45-61). Since Azuma teaches the nozzle is in discoidal form with opening through which a beam of ion is pass and strike the surface of the sample and it is being placed right above the sample (see figures 1-6), it would be obvious to use the discoidal nozzle as the electrode and apply negative bias to the nozzle in light of the teaching of McCord. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the negative bias to the electrode (nozzle) as suggested by McCord in the method of Sato in view of Azuma because McCord teaches the negative charge on the electrode (nozzle) respells some of the secondary ions back to the surface of the sample so that the charge of the sample is controlled, which facilitates the image generation during sample scanning (column 1 lines 45-60). While McCord teaches the image generation is being improved by the repels of secondary ions back, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the repel of secondary ions having the benefit of cancelling positive charge that has built up on the surface (column 1 lines 45-61), which is beneficial for the Sato and Azuma’s deposition method also.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights