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 .
The application has canceled claims 2-3 and 5-6. Thus, the application has pending claims 1, 4, and 7-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Hisae is not analogous to a theoretical curve ‘parameterized by a number of measurement points in the each section’”. Examiner would like to point that Hisae was not used for this teaching, but rather ATSUKO. Also, ATSUKO does disclose measurement points, as well as the parameter that they are used in (see ATSUKO page 8/52, wherein parameters regarding inspections are claimed, and a number of measurement points in the inspection area is disclosed), further detailed below.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hisae does not disclose an upper and lower limit value obtained based on the theoretical curve. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hisae does disclose an upper and lower limit value (see Hisae ¶58-62, wherein an upper and lower limit threshold is defined) of the candidate straight line, i.e., the candidate lane line, which is acquired from the Hough transform curve (see Hisae ¶51-58, ¶60, and FIG. 8, wherein a combinational Hough transform is used to draw a curve as shown in FIG. 6) These upper and lower limits are based on a percentage of the maximum voting count (see Hisae ¶60), which are points on the peak (see Hisae ¶47-50). ATSUKO discloses the parameterized theoretical curve, which are comprised of measurement points (see ATSUKO page 8/52, wherein parameters regarding the inspection are obtained by a number of measurement points in the inspection area by the measurement interval) and Hisae also discloses a candidate straight line comprised of voting points (see Hisae ¶60). Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, it would have been obvious to interpret the voting points as measurement points as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use Hisae’s candidate straight line as ATSUKO’s parameterized theoretical curve for the upper and lower thresholds.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Therefore, the new reference of Bunday, in combination with ATSUKO, Hisae, and Hosoya, discloses the newly amended limitations of claim 1.
Lastly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 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. Therefore, the new reference of Bunday and Yamaguchi, in combination with ATSUKO, Hisae, and Hosoya, discloses the newly added claim 10. Therefore, this action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI ATSUKO JP-2008116472-A. hereinafter ATSUKO, in further view of Shibuya Hisae US-20040064269-A1, hereinafter Hisae, Benjamin D. Bunday “Determination of Optimal Parameters for CD-SEM Measurement of Line Edge Roughness”, hereinafter Bunday, and Naoki Hosoya US-20030109952-A1, hereinafter Hosoya.
As per claim 1, ATSUKO discloses a charged particle beam image processing device for performing image processing on an observation image generated by a charged particle beam apparatus (see ATSUKO page 2/52, wherein a scanning electron microscope (SEM) is disclosed for predicting electrical characteristics appearing in the SEM image), the charged particle beam image processing device being configured to:extract an edge of a line pattern from an inspection region of the observation image (see ATSUKO page 4/52 and FIG. 1, wherein a pattern edge is disclosed in the pattern area, i.e., inspection region, of the SEM observation image. See further page 13/52, wherein the inspection computer can obtain the edge points); divide the inspection region into sections each having a plurality of measurement points (see ATSUKO page 4/52 and FIG. 1, wherein each region is split into i’s, and the value of wi is measured for each i);measure a line edge roughness in each of the sections and generate distribution data of the line edge roughness in each section (see ATSUKO page 4/52 and FIG. 1, wherein the difference between the straight line and the actual edge point is measured. Each section is measured and line width variation is determined for each i); calculate a line edge roughness in the entire inspection region (see ATSUKO page 5/52 and FIG. 5, wherein the result of measuring roughness is depicted for each measurement interval Δy See also on FIG. 1, wherein Δy separated each section); calculate a theoretical curve of the line edge roughness in each section based on the inspection region (see ATSUKO page 3/52 as well as pages 5-6/52, wherein an approximate curve is calculated in regions L1 and L2 of the inspection region L), wherein the theoretical curve is parameterized by a number of measurement points in the each section (see ATSUKO page 8/52, wherein parameters regarding the inspection are obtained by a number of measurement points in the inspection area by the measurement interval); anddetermine whether the inspection region is proper based on a comparison between the distribution data and the theoretical curve calculated based on the inspection region (see ATSUKO page 13/52, wherein the curve and the distribution data are used to determine the quality of the inspection target wafer, i.e., determining if the inspection region is proper).
However, ATSUKO fails to explicitly disclose where Hisae teaches:determine whether the inspection region is associated with a proper sampling interval based on a comparison between the distribution data and the theoretical curve calculated based on the inspection region (see Hisae ¶51-58 and FIG. 8, wherein the identification of radial region defects is disclosed. A combinational Hough transform is used to draw a curve, i.e., theoretical curve, as shown in FIG. 6, which is used in combination with detected peaks of detected defects, as shown in FIG. 7. These defects have a certain width and the resolution of
(
θ
,
ρ
)
is made rough, i.e., the roughness in the line
(
θ
,
ρ
)
is the distribution data. If no defects are detected, the process is ended, i.e., inspection region is proper. The sampling result, in the pattern information as disclosed in ¶108-110, is decided based on the defect analysis described prior in ¶49-51. A proper sampling interval would be a non-review result indicating there are no defects as discussed in ¶111),wherein a determination that the inspection region is proper is based on determining whether a maximum value of the line edge roughness in the distribution data is between an upper limit value and a lower limit value obtained based on the theoretical curve (see Hisae ¶58-62, wherein the line type defect has a certain width and the resolution of
(
θ
,
ρ
)
, which is the curve as disclosed in FIG. 6, is made rough. Next, a check is made to see if the width of
ρ
is within an upper and lower limit of a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s device by using Hisae’s teaching by including the determination of the inspection region using the theoretical curve of the inspection region in order to further calculate if the wafer contains defects.
However, ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae, fails to explicitly disclose where Hosoya teaches:
determine whether the inspection region is associated with a proper sampling interval for calculation of the line edge roughness (see Bunday page 8/19, wherein a strict sampling interval is set for the line segment, which is then later used for edge roughness determination as disclosed in page 11/19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s, in combination with Hisae, device by using Bunday’s teaching by including the calculation of the line edge roughness to the determination of a proper sampling interval in order to further confirm that the sampling interval is without defects before calculating the line edge roughness, so as to minimize time by avoiding improper inspection regions.
However, ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae and Bunday, fails to explicitly disclose where Hosoya teaches: display whether the sampling interval is sparse or dense in response to a determination that the inspection region is not associated with the proper sampling interval (see Hosoya ¶66-69, wherein a display interface is disclosed. the interface discloses the wafer map and the defects on the wafer, which includes a densely or sparsely distributed cluster of the local sampling defects as disclosed in ¶20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s, in combination with Hisae and Bunday, device by using Hosoya’s teaching by including a display of the sampling interval in order to further present information to the user of the dense or sparse sampling interval.
As per claim 4, ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae, Bunday, and Hosoya, discloses the charged particle beam image processing device according to claim 1, further configured to: calculate the theoretical curve based on the line edge roughness in the entire inspection region and the number of measurement points in each section (see ATSUKO page 5-6/52 and FIG. 5, wherein the curve is calculated using the roughness and edge point positions with respect to the line length L region (inspection region). see further ATSUKO page 8/52, wherein a number of measurement points in the inspection area by the measurement interval is disclosed).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae, Bunday, and Hosoya, in further view of TSUNEOKA MASATOSHI JP-2002148031-A, hereinafter MASATOSHI.
As per claim 7, ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae, Bunday, and Hosoya, fails to explicitly disclose where MASATOSHI teaches:The charged particle beam image processing device according to claim 1, further configured to: determine the inspection region is not proper based on determining a maximum value of the line edge roughness is not between an upper limit value and a lower limit value obtained based on the theoretical curve (see MASATOSHI page 3/21, wherein the distance between patterns is determined to be greater or shorter than a predetermined value, i.e., maximum and minimum values, and is thus defected. See also bottom of page 8, wherein a curved line is disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s, in combination with Hisae, Bunday, and Hosoya, by using MASATOSHI’s teaching by a determination that the line is not within the maximum and lower limits to the line edge roughness in order to more accurately determine the threshold values of the defects.
As per claim 8, ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae, Bunday, Hosoya, and MASATOSHI, discloses the charged particle beam image processing device according to claim 7, further configured to: determine the inspection region is too sparse based on determining the maximum value of the line edge roughness is larger than the upper limit value (see MASATOSHI page 3/21, wherein a sparse defect parameter is used if the distance pattern is greater than a predetermined value, respectively. See additionally, bottom of page 5/21 and top of page 6/21 and FIGS. 3-4, wherein the sparse region is disclosed).
As per claim 9, ATSUKO, in combination with Hisae, Bunday, Hosoya, and MASATOSHI, discloses the charged particle beam image processing device according to claim 7, further configured to: determine the inspection region is too dense based on determining the maximum value of the line edge roughness is less than the lower limit value (see MASATOSHI page 3/21, wherein a dense a defect parameter is used if the distance pattern is shorter than a predetermined value, respectively. See additionally, bottom of page 5/21 and top of page 6/21 and FIGS. 3-4, wherein the dense region is disclosed).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATSUKO, in further view of Bunday, Atsuko Yamaguchi et al., “Characterization of Line Edge Roughness in Resist Patterns by Using Fourier Analysis and Auto-Correlation Function”, hereinafter Yamaguchi, and Hosoya.
As per claim 1, ATSUKO discloses a charged particle beam image processing device for performing image processing on an observation image generated by a charged particle beam apparatus (see ATSUKO page 2/52, wherein a scanning electron microscope (SEM) is disclosed for predicting electrical characteristics appearing in the SEM image), the charged particle beam image processing device being configured to:extract an edge of a line pattern from an inspection region of the observation image (see ATSUKO page 4/52 and FIG. 1, wherein a pattern edge is disclosed in the pattern area, i.e., inspection region, of the SEM observation image. See further page 13/52, wherein the inspection computer can obtain the edge points); divide the inspection region into sections each having a plurality of measurement points (see ATSUKO page 4/52 and FIG. 1, wherein each region is split into i’s, and the value of wi is measured for each i);measure a line edge roughness in each of the sections and generate distribution data of the line edge roughness in each section (see ATSUKO page 4/52 and FIG. 1, wherein the difference between the straight line and the actual edge point is measured. Each section is measured and line width variation is determined for each i); calculate a line edge roughness in the entire inspection region (see ATSUKO page 5/52 and FIG. 5, wherein the result of measuring roughness is depicted for each measurement interval Δy See also on FIG. 1, wherein Δy separated each section); calculate a theoretical curve of the line edge roughness in each section based on the inspection region (see ATSUKO page 3/52 as well as pages 5-6/52, wherein an approximate curve is calculated in regions L1 and L2 of the inspection region L), wherein the theoretical curve is parameterized by a number of measurement points in the each section (see ATSUKO page 8/52, wherein parameters regarding the inspection are obtained by a number of measurement points in the inspection area by the measurement interval); anddetermine whether the inspection region is proper based on a comparison between the distribution data and the theoretical curve calculated based on the inspection region (see ATSUKO page 13/52, wherein the curve and the distribution data are used to determine the quality of the inspection target wafer, i.e., determining if the inspection region is proper).
However, ATSUKO fails to explicitly disclose where Bunday teaches:calculate a normalized data based on the distribution data, wherein the normalized data represents the distribution data normalized such that an area of the distribution data is one (see Bunday page 5/19, wherein the normalization calculation of the distribution function
A
D
F
z
∆
z
is 1); determine whether the inspection region is associated with a proper sampling interval for calculation of the line edge roughness (see Bunday page 8/19, wherein a strict sampling interval is set for the line segment, which is then later used for edge roughness determination as disclosed in page 11/19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s device by using Bunday’s teaching by including normalized data to the distribution data in order to maintain a common scale for easier data processing, as well as including the calculation of the line edge roughness to the determination of a proper sampling interval in order to further confirm that the sampling interval is without defects before calculating the line edge roughness, so as to minimize time by avoiding improper inspection regions.
However, ATSUKO, in combination with Bunday, fails to explicitly disclose where Yamaguchi teaches:determine whether the inspection region is associated with a proper sampling interval for calculation of the line edge roughness based on determining whether a correlation coefficient between the normalized data and the theoretical curve satisfies a range corresponding to a proper sampling interval for calculation of the line edge roughness (see Yamaguchi page 3/9, wherein in order to properly measure the roughness feature within a line interval, a normalized spatial-frequency distribution, i.e., normalized data, is applied with an auto-correlation function, which includes a correlation coefficient, between the original data series and the LER data series moved by length
r
, i.e., theoretical curve, within the series of fluctuation data in the interval of
r
in
C
(
r
)
data described further in pages 5-6 Section 3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s, in combination with Bunday, device by using Yamaguchi’s teaching by including a determination between the correlation coefficient and the normalized data in order to further ensure that the theoretical curve has a corresponding sampling interval with the normalized distribution data.
However, ATSUKO, in combination with Bunday and Yamaguchi, fails to explicitly disclose where Hosoya teaches: display whether the sampling interval is sparse or dense in response to a determination that the inspection region is not associated with the proper sampling interval (see Hosoya ¶66-69, wherein a display interface is disclosed. the interface discloses the wafer map and the defects on the wafer, which includes a densely or sparsely distributed cluster of the local sampling defects as disclosed in ¶20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ATSUKO’s, in combination with Bunday and Yamaguchi, device by using Hosoya’s teaching by including a display of the sampling interval in order to further present information to the user of the dense or sparse sampling interval.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights