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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani (US 20190355552 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mizutani teaches a charged particle beam system (scanning electron microscope, fig. 1, [0029]) comprising:
A charged particle beam source (electron source 2, [0029], fig. 1) configured to project a charged particle beam on a sample, the charged particle beam comprising primary charged particles ([0029]);
A detector configured to collect received secondary charged particles (signal detection surface 10, [0030], fig. 1) and detect individual charged particle arrival events (detecting signal electrons, [0040]); and
A controller configured to form an image based on the received secondary charged particles that have an energy within a first range (signal processing circuit 14, [0031[, fig. 1);
Wherein the controller is further configured to perform energy filtering (signal processing circuit 14 including arithmetic circuit 14b performs energy discrimination, [0039],[0041]), wherein the energy filtering includes using signals from the received secondary charged particles that have the energy within the first range ([0039]-[0048]; where energy within the first range is energy equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, [0043]), wherein the signals correspond to individual charged particle arrival events (all signals from the detector are caused by the arrival of individual charged particles, e.g. signal and secondary electrons, [0023]); and
Wherein the energy filtering includes discarding signals from the received secondary charged particles that have an energy outside the first range (signals from electrons having energy outside the energy range selected for are not used, [0039]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Mizutani teaches that the first range is determined based on a correlation between energy levels of received secondary charged particles and depth of penetration of the primary charged particles in the sample ([0042]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Mizutani teaches that the first range is determined such that only secondary charged particles with a penetration depth below a first threshold are used to form the image ([0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Mizutani teaches that the primary charged particles are electrons ([0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Mizutani teaches that the secondary charged particles are backscattered electrons ([0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Mizutani teaches that the signals comprise detection signals ([0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Mizutani teaches that discarding the signals from the received secondary charged particles that have an energy outside the first range comprises comparing the signals to one or more thresholds to determine energies associated with arrival events of the received secondary charged particles ([0040], [0042-0045], fig. 10).
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 8, 11-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Shemesh (US 20200355620 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mizutani does not teach an energy filter, wherein the controller is further configured to divert or immobilize secondary charged particles that have an energy outside the first range using an energy filter.
Shemesh teaches a system comprising an energy filter, wherein the controller is configured to divert or immobilize secondary charged particles that have an energy outside the first range using the energy filter (410, fig. 5, [0115],[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the energy filter of Shemesh to the system of Mizutani, in order to reduce the number of unwanted electrons that reach the sample and improve the defect detection as described by Shemesh.
Regarding claim 11, Mizutani teaches:
Emitting primary charged particles from a source ([0029], fig.1);
Receiving a plurality of secondary charged particles from a sample ([0030], fig. 1); and
Forming an image based on the received secondary charged particles that have an energy within a first range ([0031],[0040]);
Performing energy filter (signal processing circuit 14 including arithmetic circuit 14b performs energy discrimination, [0039-0041]), wherein the energy filtering incudes using signals from the received secondary charged particles that have the energy within the first range ([0039-0048]) where energy within the first range is energy equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, [0043]) wherein the signals correspond to individual charged particle events (signals caused by electron arrivals, [0040]), and
Wherein the energy filtering includes discarding signals from the received secondary charged particles that have an energy outside the first range (signals from electrons having energy outside the energy range selected for are not used [0039-0048]).
Mizutani does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a charged particle beam apparatus to cause the charged particle beam apparatus to perform the method.
Shemesh teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a charged particle beam apparatus to cause the charged particle beam apparatus to perform a method ([0016-0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to control the system of Mizutani with a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions, as this is a known common means of providing automated control of an electron beam system as shown by Shemesh.
Regarding claim 12, Mizutani teaches that the first range is determined based on a correlation between energy levels of received secondary charged particles and depth of penetration of the primary charged particles in the sample ([0042]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Mizutani teaches that the first range is determined such that only secondary charged particles with a penetration depth below a first threshold are used to form the image ([0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Mizutani teaches that the primary charged particles are electrons ([0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Mizutani teaches that the secondary charged particles are backscattered electrons ([0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Mizutani teaches that the signals comprise detection signals ([0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Mizutani teaches that discarding the signals from the received secondary charged particles that have an energy outside the first range comprises comparing the signals to one or more thresholds to determine energies associated with arrival events of the received secondary charged particles ([0040], [0042-0045], fig. 10).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Luo (WO 2020136094 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Mizutani does not teach a controller configured to adjust a landing energy of the primary charged particles based on a depth of a buried structure on the sample.
Luo teaches a controller configured to adjust a landing energy of the primary charged particles based on a depth of structure in the sample ([0183],[0184], fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Luo because doing so allows for forming the focal plane at a desired depth for accurate reconstruction of a feature (Luo, [00184]).
Regarding claim 10, Mizutani does not explicitly teach that the landing energy is adjusted so that an effective depth and an effective spot size of the interaction region formed by the primary charged particle is matched to the buried structure.
Luo teaches wherein the landing energy is adjusted so that an effective depth and an effective spot size of an interaction region formed by the primary charged particles (focal plane, [00183-00184]) is matched to the buried structure ([00183-00184]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Luo in the system of Mizutani to improve accuracy of reproduction of a feature (Luo [00184]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Mizutani does not teach detection of individual arrival events, it is clear that all signals from the detector of Mizutani ultimately derive from the impact of individual electrons, i.e. individual arrival events, which are discriminated based on their threshold value as shown in figs 7 and 11 and discriminated based on their threshold value ([0040]). It is true that Mizutani teaches a difference imaging method by manipulating a signal waveform, but the signal waveform is created by the detection of individual events and the signals correspond to, i.e. are caused by and form an image of, individual charged particle arrival events.
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 DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights