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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 15 April 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the rejections of claims 12-13, 15-17, 19-20, and 35-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the rejections of claims 9-10, 21, 23, 30-35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0270438 A1), hereinafter Lanio, in view of Zeidler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,653,254 B2), hereinafter Zeidler (2017), and Adler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,979,824 B1), hereinafter Adler, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, that the portions of Lanio cited in the previous office action fail to disclose a multi-beam charged particle beam system and an objective lens configured to focus the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets into an image plane of the object irradiation unit, FIG. 7 and the associated paragraphs have been relied upon as the clearest disclosure of the relevant system components. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that equivalent components are present in the multi-beam charged particle beam system depicted in FIG. 12. For example, while FIG. 7A and paragraph 0071, lines 4-6 most clearly disclose the objective lens (FIG. 7A, element 10) configured to focus the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets into an image plane of the object irradiation unit (paragraph 0071, lines 4-6, “a primary-electron beam 130 which…is focused by objective lens 10 on a sample 125”), FIG. 12 depicts a lens 134 which “could be used…as an objective lens” (paragraph 0110, lines 2-6) “[f]or focusing [all of] the electron beams on specimen 13” (paragraph 0109, lines 1-3).
Furthermore, Lanio states that the disclosed embodiments may be combined (see, e.g., paragraphs 0046, 0073, 0080), and that components disclosed for a single-beam system may be combined for operation in a multi-beam system (paragraph 0105). In particular, paragraph 0105 specifically lists as an example that, in the disclosed multi-beam system, “one objective lens focuses all beams of the multi-beam device”. Therefore, the disclosure of Lanio meets the claimed limitation “an objective lens configured to focus the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets into an image plane of the object irradiation unit” (paragraph 0071, lines 4-6: the objective lens 10 focuses the primary electron beam into the image plane of the object irradiation unit at sample 125; paragraph 0105: the objective lens focuses a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets in the same manner as a single primary charged particle beam).
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, that the cited portions of Lanio fail to disclose a detection unit configured to image the plurality of secondary electron beamlets, Lanio states that the disclosed embodiments may be combined (see, e.g., paragraphs 0046, 0073, 0080), and that components disclosed for a single-beam system may be combined for operation in a multi-beam system (paragraph 0105). Furthermore, Lanio discloses that the detector is divided into different segments for the detection of secondary electrons following different trajectories in accordance with their starting angle, i.e., there are multiple secondary electron beams, each following a respective trajectory (paragraph 0042, “at least 4 sensors for the 4 quadrants of large starting angles…a central detector for low angle SE”).
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, that the cited portions of Lanio fail to disclose that the detection unit comprises an aperture filter module comprising aperture filters and a movement mechanism, paragraph 0065 of Lanio discloses that “[b]y choosing the rotation angle of the detector…every second aperture opening (e.g. openings #1, 3, 5 & 7) and corresponding detection elements…can detect regular structures of an object to be imaged, while the interjacent aperture openings (e.g. openings #2, 4, 6 & 8) and corresponding detection elements would be sensitive to defects”. Therefore, the detection unit comprises an aperture filter module comprising aperture filters #1-8.
Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Still further, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the case at hand, Lanio is not relied upon to disclose that the aperture filter module comprises a movement mechanism.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, that the cited portions of Lanio fail to disclose a beam splitter unit as disclosed in claim 1 of the present application, Lanio states that the disclosed embodiments may be combined (see, e.g., paragraphs 0046, 0073, 0080), and that components disclosed for a single-beam system may be combined for operation in a multi-beam system (paragraph 0105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the disclosure of Lanio demonstrates a beam splitter unit configured to guide the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets from the multi-beamlet generator to the objective lens and to guide the plurality of secondary electron beamlets from the objective lens to the detection unit.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see page 15, that FIG. 12 of Lanio depicts a multi-column system which does not have a common pupil plane of a plurality of secondary electron beamlets within a detection unit, FIG. 11 of Lanio is disclosed as a multi-column device (Lanio, paragraphs 0102-0103), but FIG. 12 is disclosed as a multi-beam device (Lanio, paragraphs 0106-0107). Furthermore, as discussed supra, Lanio states that the disclosed embodiments may be combined (see, e.g., paragraphs 0046, 0073, 0080), and that components disclosed for a single-beam system may be combined for operation in a multi-beam system (paragraph 0105).
Still further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Still further, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the case at hand, Lanio is not relied upon to disclose a common pupil plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets within a detection unit.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see pages 15-16, that the actuator and multi-aperture array of Zeidler (2017) do not meet the claimed movement mechanism configured to position a selected aperture filter within a common pupil plane of the secondary electron beamlets within a detection unit, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the case at hand, the teachings of Zeidler (2017) are relied upon to show that the function of a movement mechanism to position a selected aperture filter in a desired location are known in the prior art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the movement mechanism of Zeidler (2017) with the aperture filter in the pupil plane of Adler such that a selected aperture filter is moved to be positioned in the pupil plane.
In response to applicant’s argument, see page 16, regarding dipole filters, lines 22-23 at page 18 of the instant specification states that “[o]ther anisotropic shapes of aperture filters are possible as well, for example aperture filters with two decentered aperture openings (dipole filters”. This statement shows that “aperture filters with two decentered aperture openings” are considered to be dipole filters, which is in agreement with the rest of the specification (e.g., page 2, lines 26-27, “a dipole or quadrupole filter comprising two or four off-axis aperture openings”). Therefore, the aperture openings 317i and 317ii in FIG. 2 of Zeidler (2017), which are off-axis, or decentered, with respect to the vertical axis of beam 311, meet the claimed limitation “the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape”.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17, that Adler fails to disclose an aperture filter positioned within a common pupil plane of a plurality of secondary electron beamlets within a detection unit, Adler discloses that “angular filtering may be implemented, for example, using one or more apertures in the pupil plane of the system to filter out electrons that are not leaving the specimen at a perpendicular angle to the surface” (Adler, column 5, lines 30-34, emphasis added). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the aperture filter in the pupil plane of Adler with the multi-beam systems of Lanio and Zeidler (2017) such that the aperture filter is positioned within a common pupil plane of a plurality of secondary electron beamlets within a detection unit.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 39 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 21, 23, 27, 30, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler.
Regarding claim 1, Lanio discloses a multi-beam charged particle beam system (paragraph 0010, lines 1-2 and paragraph 0105), comprising:
an object irradiation unit, comprising:
an objective lens (FIG. 7A, element 10) configured to focus the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets into an image plane of the object irradiation unit (paragraph 0071, lines 4-6; paragraph 0105 discloses that the disclosed objective lens “focuses all beams of the multi-beam device”);
a detection unit (paragraphs 0042 and 0105) configured to image a plurality of secondary electron beamlets generated via interaction of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets with a surface of a wafer (paragraph 0047) onto an image sensor (paragraph 0042), wherein the detection unit comprises an aperture filter module which comprises a plurality of aperture filters (paragraphs 0065-0066: the detector is rotated to select between a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8);
a beam splitter unit (FIG. 7A, element 215) configured to guide the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets from the beam generator to the objective lens (paragraph 0071, lines 3-6; paragraph 0105) and to guide the plurality of secondary electron beamlets from the objective lens to the detection unit (paragraph 0071, lines 6-20; paragraph 0105); and
a control unit comprising a contrast control module (paragraph 0065), the contrast control module being configured to: i) select an aperture filter from the plurality of aperture filters based on semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired),
wherein for each aperture filter:
the aperture filter comprises a plurality of aperture openings (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8).
Lanio fails to disclose a multi-beamlet generator configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets; a movement mechanism in the aperture filter module; the contrast control module being configured to: ii) control the movement mechanism so that the movement mechanism positions the selected aperture filter within a common pupil plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets within the detection unit, wherein for each aperture filter: when the aperture filter is in the common pupil plane, at least two of the plurality of openings are outside an electron optical axis of the detection unit and disposed symmetrically with respect to the electron optical axis to provide the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape.
However, Zeidler (2017) discloses a multi-beamlet generator (FIG. 1, element 300) configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets (FIG. 1, element 3);
a movement mechanism in the aperture filter module (column 8, line 33, actuator 350); and controlling the movement mechanism so that the movement mechanism positions the selected aperture filter (column 8, lines 31-35);
wherein at least two of the plurality of openings are outside an electron optical axis of the detection unit and disposed symmetrically with respect to the electron optical axis to provide the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape (FIG. 2 shows openings 315 forming a dipole aperture filter shape having two decentered filters 317i and 317ii).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio to include a multi-beamlet generator configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets; a movement mechanism in the aperture filter module; and controlling the movement mechanism so that the movement mechanism positions the selected aperture filter; wherein at least two of the plurality of openings are outside an electron optical axis of the detection unit and disposed symmetrically with respect to the electron optical axis to provide the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape, based on the teachings of Zeidler (2017) that this provides flexibility in terms of different filtering options while enabling faster object inspection (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 10-19 and 29-56).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) fails to disclose that the aperture filter is positioned within a common pupil plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets within the detection unit.
However, Adler discloses an aperture filter positioned within a common pupil plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets within the detection unit (column 5, lines 30-34: “angular filtering may be implemented, for example, using one or more apertures in the pupil plane of the system to filter out electrons that are not leaving the specimen at a perpendicular angle to the surface”, emphasis added).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) to include that the aperture filter is positioned within a common pupil plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets within the detection unit, based on the teachings of Adler that this enables filtering the secondary electron beamlets such that a desired signal is obtained with minimal interference (Adler, column 5, lines 21-37).
Regarding claim 21, Lanio discloses a method, comprising:
arranging an inspection position of a surface of a wafer in the image plane (FIG. 7A, image plane at the surface of wafer 125) of a multi-beam charged particle beam system (paragraph 0010, lines 1-2 and paragraph 0105);
determining a selected contrast mechanism at the inspection position (paragraph 0042, the contrast mechanism being selected between BF imaging and topographic imaging);
using a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets of the multi-beam charged particle beam system to illuminate a surface of the wafer (paragraphs 0036 and 0105) to generate a plurality of secondary electron beamlets generated by the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets and the wafer (paragraphs 0047 and 0105);
using an objective lens (FIG. 7A, element 10) to collect the plurality of secondary electron beamlets (FIG. 7A, element 140; paragraphs 0071 and 0105); and
selecting, based on structures of semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired), an aperture filter comprising a plurality of openings (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8).
Lanio fails to disclose disposing the selected aperture filter in a common pupil plane of the secondary electron beamlets, wherein when the selected aperture filter is in the common pupil plane, at least two of the plurality of openings in the aperture are: i) outside an electron optical axis of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system; and ii) disposed symmetrically with respect to the electron optical axis to provide the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape.
However, Zeidler (2017) discloses that at least two of the plurality of openings in the aperture are: i) outside an electron optical axis of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system; and ii) disposed symmetrically with respect to the electron optical axis to provide the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape (FIG. 2 shows openings 315 forming a dipole aperture filter shape having two decentered filters 317i and 317ii).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio to include that at least two of the plurality of openings in the aperture are: i) outside an electron optical axis of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system; and ii) disposed symmetrically with respect to the electron optical axis to provide the aperture filter with a shape selected from the group consisting of a dipole shape and a quadrupole shape, based on the teachings of Zeidler (2017) that this enables faster object inspection (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 10-19).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) fails to disclose that the selected aperture filter is disposed in a common pupil plane of the secondary electron beamlets.
However, Adler discloses an aperture filter disposed in a common pupil plane of the secondary electron beamlets (column 5, lines 30-34: “angular filtering may be implemented, for example, using one or more apertures in the pupil plane of the system to filter out electrons that are not leaving the specimen at a perpendicular angle to the surface”, emphasis added).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) to include that the selected aperture filter is disposed in a common pupil plane of the secondary electron beamlets, based on the teachings of Adler that this enables filtering the secondary electron beamlets such that a desired signal is obtained with minimal interference (Adler, column 5, lines 21-37).
Regarding claim 23, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21.
In addition, Adler discloses evaluating an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer (column 6, lines 45-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include evaluating an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer, based on the additional teachings of Adler that this advantageously enables detection of contaminated or blocked areas of semiconductor features (Adler, column 6, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 27, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 1 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 1.
In addition, Adler discloses that the semiconductor features comprise a high aspect ratio (HAR) channel (column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include that the semiconductor features comprise a high aspect ratio (HAR) channel, based on the additional teachings of Adler that it is advantageous to have the ability to identify defects in HAR channels in order to prevent insufficient electrical contact between semiconductor layers (Adler, column 4, lines 12-23).
Regarding claim 30, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 1 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 1.
In addition, Adler discloses evaluating an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer (column 6, lines 45-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include evaluating an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer, based on the additional teachings of Adler that this advantageously enables detection of contaminated or blocked areas of semiconductor features (Adler, column 6, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 39, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21.
In addition, Adler discloses evaluating an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer (column 6, lines 45-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include evaluating an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer, based on the additional teachings of Adler that this advantageously enables detection of contaminated or blocked areas of semiconductor features (Adler, column 6, lines 45-50).
Claims 9 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Zeidler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0355545 A1), hereinafter Zeidler (2019), and Kaufmann et al. (WO Patent No. 2021/156198 A1), hereinafter Kaufmann.
Regarding claim 9, Lanio discloses a multi-beam charged particle beam system (paragraph 0010, lines 1-2), comprising:
an object irradiation unit, comprising:
an objective lens (FIG. 7A, element 10) configured to focus the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets into an image plane of the object irradiation unit (paragraph 0071, lines 4-6; paragraph 0105 discloses that the disclosed objective lens “focuses all beams of the multi-beam device”);
a detection unit (paragraphs 0042 and 0105) configured to image a plurality of secondary electron beamlets generated via interaction of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets with a surface of a wafer (paragraph 0047) onto an image sensor (paragraph 0042), wherein the detection unit comprises an aperture filter module comprising an aperture filter (paragraph 0051; FIG. 3B, element 201) configured to anisotropically filter at least one secondary electron beamlet (paragraph 0051, lines 6-10; the secondary electron beam is split, i.e., filtered, into outer bundles according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer);
a beam splitter unit (FIG. 7A, element 215) configured to guide the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets from the beam generator to the objective lens (paragraph 0071, lines 3-6; paragraph 0105) and to guide the plurality of secondary electron beamlets from the objective lens to the detection unit (paragraph 0071, lines 6-20; paragraph 0105); and
a control unit comprising a contrast control module (paragraph 0065),
wherein the detection unit comprises:
a plurality of electron-optical elements (paragraph 0039, lines 16-20, SE optics); and
an active multi-aperture array, the active multi-aperture array comprising a plurality of apertures (FIG. 3B, element 203), and
wherein:
for an aperture of the multi-aperture array, the contrast control module is configured so that, based on structures of semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased to align the secondary electron beamlets formed by aperture filter 201 based on their polar starting angles and azimuthal directions (which are influenced by the wafer topography), and the topography of the wafer), the contrast control module applies a voltage to the aperture to anisotropically shape the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased and the secondary electron beamlets are aligned, i.e., shaped, based on their separation at aperture filter 201 according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer).
Lanio fails to disclose a multi-beamlet generator configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets; and that the plurality of electron-optical elements are configured to provide an intermediate image plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets; the active multi-aperture array is in proximity to the intermediate image plane, each aperture of the multi-aperture array is configured to pass one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets, each aperture of the multi-aperture array comprising a plurality of electrodes connected to the contrast control module, and wherein: the contrast control module applies a voltage to the plurality of electrodes to individually shape the one of the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture.
However, Zeidler (2019) discloses a multi-beamlet generator configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets (paragraph 0005, lines 3-6);
the plurality of electron-optical elements (FIG. 12, lenses 1310, 1311) are configured to provide an intermediate image plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets (paragraph 0192: the intermediate image plane between charged particle lenses 1311 and 1312);
the active multi-aperture array (paragraph 0194, energy filter 1320) is in proximity to the intermediate image plane (FIG. 12: element 1320 is close to the intermediate image plane between lenses 1311 and 1312), and each aperture of the multi-aperture array is configured to pass one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets (paragraph 0194, lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio to include a multi-beamlet generator configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets; the plurality of electron-optical elements are configured to provide an intermediate image plane of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets; the active multi-aperture array is in proximity to the intermediate image plane, and each aperture of the multi-aperture array is configured to pass one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets, based on the teachings of Zeidler (2019) that this allows for correction of azimuthal and radial distortions (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0191) and enhances voltage contrast signals (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0194).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) fails to disclose that each aperture of the multi-aperture array comprises a plurality of electrodes connected to the contrast control module, and wherein: the contrast control module applies a voltage to the plurality of electrodes to individually shape the one of the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture.
However, Kaufmann discloses that each aperture of the multi-aperture array comprises a plurality of electrodes connected to the contrast control module (page 24, lines 15-17 and page 16, lines 7-8), and
wherein:
the contrast control module applies a voltage to the plurality of electrodes (page 16, lines 7-8) to individually shape the one of the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture (page 24, lines 15-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) to include that each aperture of the multi-aperture array comprises a plurality of electrodes connected to the contrast control module, and wherein: the contrast control module applies a voltage to the plurality of electrodes to individually shape the one of the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture, based on the teachings of Kaufmann that this enables greater imaging sensitivity through individual, independent detection of each secondary electron beamlet (Kaufmann, page 24, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 31, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann as applied to claim 9 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 9, including applying a voltage to the plurality of electrodes of the aperture to individually shape or deflect the one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture (Kaufmann, page 16, lines 7-8 and page 24, lines 15-17; see claim 9 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses that, for each of at least two apertures of the multi-aperture array:
the control module is configured so that, based on structures of semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased to align the secondary electron beamlets formed by aperture filter 201 based on their polar starting angles and azimuthal directions (which are influenced by the wafer topography), and the topography of the wafer), the contrast control module applies a voltage to the aperture to anisotropically shape or deflect the secondary electron beamlets that pass through the aperture (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased and the secondary electron beamlets are aligned, i.e., shaped, based on their separation at aperture filter 201 according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer).
Regarding claim 32, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann as applied to claim 9 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 9, including applying a voltage to the plurality of electrodes of the aperture to individually shape or deflect the one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture (Kaufmann, page 16, lines 7-8 and page 24, lines 15-17; see claim 9 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses that, for each aperture of the multi-aperture array:
the control module is configured so that, based on structures of semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased to align the secondary electron beamlets formed by aperture filter 201 based on their polar starting angles and azimuthal directions (which are influenced by the wafer topography), and the topography of the wafer), the contrast control module applies a voltage to the aperture to anisotropically shape or deflect the secondary electron beamlets that pass through the aperture (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased and the secondary electron beamlets are aligned, i.e., shaped, based on their separation at aperture filter 201 according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer).
Regarding claim 33, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann as applied to claim 9 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 9.
In addition, Kaufmann discloses that the control unit is configured to evaluate an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer (page 28, lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann to include that the control unit is configured to evaluate an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer, based on the additional teachings of Kaufmann that this enables comparison of image distortions or contrast differences between images, and comparison of similar structures in different wafers, which ensures both high quality wafer inspection and high throughput (Kaufmann, page 28, lines 5-27).
Claims 10 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler.
Regarding claim 10, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann as applied to claim 9 discloses the multi-beam particle system of claim 9, including anisotropic filtering of secondary electron beamlets (Lanio, paragraph 0051, lines 6-10; see claim 9 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses a circular aperture filter (FIG. 2B, elements 204).
In addition, Zeidler (2019) discloses that, during use of the multi-beam charged particle beam system, at least one of the secondary electron beamlets is further filtered by passing through an additional aperture filter (FIG. 11 and paragraphs 0178, 0183: the secondary electron beamlets are filtered by diaphragm 1206 and further filtered by a diaphragm arranged in crossover plane 1210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann to include that, during use of the multi-beam charged particle system, at least one of the secondary electron beamlets is further filtered by passing through an additional aperture filter, based on the additional teachings of Zeidler (2019) that this eliminates undesirable crosstalk (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0183).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann fails to disclose that the contrast control module is configured to arrange an aperture filter in a common pupil plane of the detection unit.
However, Zeidler (2017) discloses that the contrast control module is configured to position an aperture filter in a desired location (column 8, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019) and Kaufmann to include that the contrast control module is configured to position an aperture filter in a desired location, based on the teachings of Zeidler (2017) that this provides flexibility in terms of different filtering options while enabling faster object inspection (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 10-19 and 29-56).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019), Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2017) fails to disclose an aperture filter in a common pupil plane of the detection unit.
However, Adler discloses an aperture filter in a common pupil plane of the detection unit (column 5, lines 30-34: “angular filtering may be implemented, for example, using one or more apertures in the pupil plane of the system to filter out electrons that are not leaving the specimen at a perpendicular angle to the surface”, emphasis added).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019), Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2017) to include an aperture filter in a common pupil plane of the detection unit, based on the teachings of Adler that this enables filtering the secondary electron beamlets such that a desired signal is obtained with minimal interference (Adler, column 5, lines 21-37).
Regarding claim 34, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019), Kaufmann, Zeidler (2017), and Adler as applied to claim 10 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 10, including applying a voltage to the aperture (Lanio, paragraphs 0051-0052; see claim 10 supra).
In addition, Kaufmann discloses that the contrast control module is configured to apply a voltage to the plurality of electrodes (page 16, lines 7-8) to deflect the one of the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture (page 24, lines 15-17 and page 16, lines 7-8; the application of voltage results in raster scanning, i.e., deflection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2019), Kaufmann, Zeidler (2017), and Adler to include that the contrast control module is configured to apply a voltage to the plurality of electrodes to deflect the one of the secondary electron beamlets that passes through the aperture, based on the additional teachings of Kaufmann that this enables greater imaging sensitivity through individual, independent detection of each secondary electron beamlet (Kaufmann, page 24, lines 19-23).
Claims 12, 15-17, 19, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019).
Regarding claim 12, Lanio discloses a method, comprising:
using a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets of a multi-beam charged particle beam system to illuminate a surface of a wafer (paragraphs 0036, 0105) to generate a plurality of secondary electron beamlets generated by the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets and the wafer (paragraphs 0047, 0105);
using an objective lens (FIG. 7A, element 10) to collect the plurality of secondary electron beamlets (FIG. 7A, element 140; paragraphs 0071 and 0105);
based on structures of semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased to align the secondary electron beamlets formed by aperture filter 201 based on their polar starting angles and azimuthal directions (which are influenced by the wafer topography), and the topography of the wafer), providing a voltage to an aperture of an active array element to anisotropically shape or deflect a secondary electron beamlet that passes through the aperture (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased and the secondary electron beamlets are aligned, i.e., shaped, based on their separation at aperture filter 201 according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer);
using a selected aperture filter of the multi-beam charged particle beam system to anisotropically filter the secondary electron beamlet (paragraph 0051, lines 2-10: the aperture filter 201 is biased and the secondary electron beam is split, i.e., shaped, into outer bundles according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer); and
using an image sensor to collect the signals of each of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets, including the anisotropically filtered secondary electron beamlet, to generate an image of a surface of the wafer (paragraph 0042).
Lanio fails to disclose that the voltage is provided to electrodes of an aperture of an active array element arranged in proximity to an intermediate image plane of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system to individually shape or deflect a secondary electron beamlet; and using a selected aperture filter arranged in the common pupil plane of the detection unit.
However, Adler discloses an aperture filter arranged in the common pupil plane of the detection unit (column 5, lines 30-34: “angular filtering may be implemented, for example, using one or more apertures in the pupil plane of the system to filter out electrons that are not leaving the specimen at a perpendicular angle to the surface”, emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio to include an aperture filter arranged in the common pupil plane of the detection unit, based on the teachings of Adler that this enables filtering the secondary electron beamlets such that a desired signal is obtained with minimal interference (Adler, column 5, lines 21-37).
Lanio in view of Adler fails to disclose that the voltage is provided to electrodes of an aperture of an active array element arranged in proximity to an intermediate image plane of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system to individually shape or deflect a secondary electron beamlet.
However, Kaufmann discloses that the voltage is provided to electrodes (page 16, lines 7-8) of an aperture of an active array element (page 24, lines 15-17 and page 16, lines 7-8) to individually shape or deflect a secondary electron beamlet (page 24, lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler to include that the voltage is provided to electrodes of an aperture of an active array element to individually shape or deflect a secondary electron beamlet, based on the teachings of Kaufmann that this enables greater imaging sensitivity through individual, independent detection of each secondary electron beamlet (Kaufmann, page 24, lines 19-23).
Lanio in view of Adler and Kaufmann fails to disclose that the active array element is arranged in proximity to an intermediate image plane of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system.
However, Zeidler (2019) discloses that the active array element (paragraph 0194, energy filter 1320) is arranged in proximity to an intermediate image plane (paragraph 0192: the intermediate image plane between charged particle lenses 1311 and 1312) of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system (FIG. 12: element 1320 is close to the intermediate image plane between lenses 1311 and 1312).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler and Kaufmann to include that the active array element is arranged in proximity to an intermediate image plane of a detection unit of the multi-beam charged particle beam system, based on the teachings of Zeidler (2019) that this allows for correction of azimuthal and radial distortions (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0191) and enhances voltage contrast signals (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0194).
Regarding claim 15, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
In addition, Lanio discloses arranging an inspection position of a surface of the wafer in the image plane of the multi-beam charged particle beam system (FIG. 7A, image plane at the surface of wafer 125; paragraph 0105);
determining a selected contrast mechanism at the inspection position (paragraph 0042, the contrast mechanism being selected between BF imaging and topographic imaging);
selecting and providing the aperture filter and a voltage to the active array element to anisotropically filter at least one of the secondary electron beamlets (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased and the secondary electron beamlets are aligned, i.e., shaped, based on their separation at aperture filter 201 according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer) according to the selected contrast mechanism (paragraph 0042); and
performing an image acquisition of the surface of the wafer to acquire a digital image (paragraph 0101 discloses a computer system comprising an image processor and image memory; therefore, the acquired image is a digital image, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster.com definition of “digital”: “characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology”) of the semiconductor features of the wafer at the inspection position (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 16, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Kaufmann discloses that the selected contrast mechanism at the inspection position is determined according to information comprising a member selected from the group consisting of: i) a previously determined selected contrast mechanism at an equivalent inspection position; and ii) CAD information (page 28, lines 20-27: the contrast mechanism is selected to achieve similar contrast as compared to the contrast achieved in a CAD-based image simulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include that the selected contrast mechanism at the inspection position is determined according to information comprising a member selected from the group consisting of: i) a previously determined selected contrast mechanism at an equivalent inspection position; and ii) CAD information, based on the additional teachings of Kaufmann that this contributes to high throughput and image resolution, accuracy, and repeatability (Kaufmann, page 28, lines 5-27).
Regarding claim 17, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Lanio discloses evaluating a first image contrast of the digital image (paragraph 0065, lines 7-9);
modifying the selected contrast mechanism by modifying at least one member selected from the group consisting of the selected aperture filter and the voltage provided to the electrode of the active array element (paragraph 0065, lines 9-10: the selected aperture filter is modified by rotating the detector to align with different apertures); and
determining a second contrast mechanism with improved image contrast compared to the first image contrast (paragraph 0065, lines 11-12: the defect contrast is improved after the detector is rotated, as compared to the defect contrast before the detector is rotated).
Regarding claim 19, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Lanio discloses performing an image evaluation of the digital image of semiconductor features of the wafer to determine a defect comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of a deviation of a size of a semiconductor feature (paragraph 0005), a deviation of an area of a semiconductor feature, a deviation of a material composition of a semiconductor feature, and a contamination particle.
Regarding claim 35, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
In addition, Lanio discloses that the active array element comprises a plurality of apertures (FIG. 3B, element 203); and
the method comprises, based on the structures of the semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased to align the secondary electron beamlets formed by aperture filter 201 based on their polar starting angles and azimuthal directions (which are influenced by the wafer topography), and the topography of the wafer), for each aperture: providing a voltage to the aperture to anisotropically shape or deflect the secondary electron beamlets that pass through the aperture (paragraphs 0051-0052: the multi-aperture plate 203 is biased and the secondary electron beamlets are aligned, i.e., shaped, based on their separation at aperture filter 201 according to their azimuthal angle of emission with respect to the wafer).
In addition, Kaufmann discloses that each aperture of the active array element is configured to pass one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets, each aperture of the active array element comprising a plurality of electrodes (page 24, lines 15-17); and
providing a voltage to the electrodes of the aperture to individually shape or deflect the one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets that pass through the aperture (page 24, lines 15-17 and page 16, lines 7-8; the application of voltage results in raster scanning, i.e., deflection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include that each aperture of the active array element is configured to pass one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets, each aperture of the active array element comprising a plurality of electrodes; and providing a voltage to the electrodes of the aperture to individually shape or deflect the one of the plurality of secondary electron beamlets that pass through the aperture, based on the additional teachings of Kaufmann that this enables greater imaging sensitivity through individual, independent detection of each secondary electron beamlet (Kaufmann, page 24, lines 19-23).
In addition, Zeidler (2019) discloses that the active array element is in proximity to the intermediate plane (paragraph 0192 and FIG. 12: active array element 1320 is close to the intermediate image plane between lenses 1311 and 1312).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include that the active array element is in proximity to the intermediate plane, based on the additional teachings of Zeidler (2019) that this allows for correction of azimuthal and radial distortions (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0191) and enhances voltage contrast signals (Zeidler (2019), paragraph 0194).
Regarding claim 36, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
In addition, Kaufmann discloses using an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer (page 28, lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include using an image of the wafer to determine the semiconductor features in the wafer, based on the additional teachings of Kaufmann that this enables comparison of image distortions or contrast differences between images, and comparison of similar structures in different wafers, which ensures both high quality wafer inspection and high throughput (Kaufmann, page 28, lines 5-27).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zeidler (2017).
Regarding claim 13, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
In addition, Lanio discloses selecting the aperture filter (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired) from a plurality of aperture filters of an aperture filter module (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8).
In addition, Adler discloses that the aperture filter is located in the common pupil plane of the detection unit (column 5, lines 30-34: “angular filtering may be implemented, for example, using one or more apertures in the pupil plane of the system to filter out electrons that are not leaving the specimen at a perpendicular angle to the surface”, emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include that the aperture filter is located in the common pupil plane of the detection unit, based on the additional teachings of Adler that this enables filtering the secondary electron beamlets such that a desired signal is obtained with minimal interference (Adler, column 5, lines 21-37).
Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) fails to disclose positioning the selected aperture filter.
However, Zeidler (2017) discloses positioning an aperture filter in a desired location (column 8, lines 31-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include positioning an aperture filter in a desired location, based on the teachings of Zeidler (2017) that this provides flexibility in terms of different filtering options while enabling faster object inspection (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 10-19 and 29-56).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Leu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0212168 A1), hereinafter Leu.
Regarding claim 20, Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) as applied to claim 19 discloses the method of claim 19.
In addition, Lanio discloses repeating the image acquisition of the surface of the wafer at plural inspection positions (paragraph 0102).
Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) fails to disclose evaluating a distribution of defects to determine at least one member selected from the group consisting of random defects, regular defects, and clusters of defects.
However, Leu discloses evaluating a distribution of defects (paragraph 0042, lines 9-17) to determine at least one member selected from the group consisting of random defects (paragraph 0041, lines 3-6), regular defects (paragraph 0040, lines 3-6), and clusters of defects (paragraph 0042, lines 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Adler, Kaufmann, and Zeidler (2019) to include evaluating a distribution of defects to determine at least one member selected from the group consisting of random defects, regular defects, and clusters of defects, based on the teachings of Leu that defects can cause unintentional short or open circuits, or poor conductivity, and the distribution of defects may provide information about equipment malfunction; therefore, detecting and categorizing the distribution of defects assists in fixing issues more efficiently (Leu, paragraphs 0040-0042).
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as respectively applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Adamec (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0261573 A1), hereinafter Adamec.
Regarding claim 28, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 1 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 1, including positioning the aperture filter (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 31-35; see claim 1 supra) in the common pupil plane (Adler, column 5, lines 30-34; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses that the plurality of aperture filters comprises a first aperture filter and a second aperture filter different from the first aperture filter (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8);
the first aperture filter is configured so that the first aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from semiconductor features (paragraph 0065, lines 10-12); and
the contrast control module is configured to select between the first and second aperture filters based on the semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler fails to disclose that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from local background.
However, Adamec discloses that the second aperture filter (FIG. 2, element 100) is configured so that the second aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from local background (paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from local background, based on the teachings of Adamec that this reduces noise and improves topographic contrast (Adamec, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 37, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21, including positioning the aperture filter (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 31-35; see claim 21 supra) in the common pupil plane (Adler, column 5, lines 30-34; see claim 21 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses that the selected aperture filter is selected from a plurality of aperture filters which comprises a first aperture filter and a second aperture filter different from the first aperture filter (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8);
the first aperture filter is configured so that the first aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from semiconductor features (paragraph 0065, lines 10-12); and
the method comprises selecting between the first and second aperture filters based on the semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler fails to disclose that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from local background.
However, Adamec discloses that the second aperture filter (FIG. 2, element 100) is configured so that the second aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from local background (paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter at least partially blocks secondary electrons from local background, based on the teachings of Adamec that this reduces noise and improves topographic contrast (Adamec, paragraph 0029).
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as respectively applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0014531 A1), hereinafter Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 29, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 1 discloses the multi-beam charged particle beam system of claim 1, including positioning the aperture filter (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 31-35; see claim 1 supra) in the common pupil plane (Adler, column 5, lines 30-34; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses that the plurality of aperture filters comprises a first aperture filter and a second aperture filter different from the first aperture filter (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8);
the first aperture filter is configured so that the first aperture filter increases an imaging contrast of semiconductor features over background structures (paragraph 0065, lines 7-9); and
the contrast control module is configured to select between the first and second aperture filters based on the semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler fails to disclose that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter increases an imaging contrast of background structures over semiconductor features.
However, Yamazaki discloses that the second aperture filter (FIG. 6, element 31) is configured so that the second aperture filter increases an imaging contrast (paragraph 0054, lines 10-14) of background structures (FIG. 7, element 103) over semiconductor features (FIG. 7, elements 101, 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter increases an imaging contrast of background structures over semiconductor features, based on the teachings of Yamazaki that this allows for imaging of structures at different levels within a wafer for more thorough inspection (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 38, Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21, including positioning the aperture filter (Zeidler (2017), column 8, lines 31-35; see claim 21 supra) in the common pupil plane (Adler, column 5, lines 30-34; see claim 21 supra).
In addition, Lanio discloses that the selected aperture filter is selected from a plurality of aperture filters which comprises a first aperture filter and a second aperture filter different from the first aperture filter (paragraphs 0065-0066: a first aperture filter comprising openings #1, 3, 5, & 7, and a second aperture filter comprising openings #2, 4, 6, & 8);
the first aperture filter is configured so that the first aperture filter increases an imaging contrast of semiconductor features over background structures (paragraph 0065, lines 7-9); and
the method comprises selecting between the first and second aperture filters based on the semiconductor features in the wafer (paragraph 0065: the aperture filter is selected by rotation of the detector to correspond with a particular set of openings; the selection is based on whether a maximum sensitivity of regular features or defect features in the wafer is desired).
Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler fails to disclose that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter increases an imaging contrast of background structures over semiconductor features.
However, Yamazaki discloses that the second aperture filter (FIG. 6, element 31) is configured so that the second aperture filter increases an imaging contrast (paragraph 0054, lines 10-14) of background structures (FIG. 7, element 103) over semiconductor features (FIG. 7, elements 101, 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lanio in view of Zeidler (2017) and Adler to include that the second aperture filter is configured so that the second aperture filter increases an imaging contrast of background structures over semiconductor features, based on the teachings of Yamazaki that this allows for imaging of structures at different levels within a wafer for more thorough inspection (paragraph 0054).
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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights