DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/25 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 15-17, 19-24 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 15-17, 19-24 is/are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a particle beam source configured to generate a particle beam an objective lens” appears to be a missing comma after “beam”.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20130026361 A1) [hereinafter Yamanashi] in view of Itai et al. (US 20180374674 A1) [hereinafter Itai].
Regarding claim 1, Yamanashi teaches a method for operating a particle beam microscope, the particle beam microscope comprising a particle beam source (see fig 1: 14) configured to generate a particle beam an objective lens (see 10) configured to focus the particle beam on an object (see 11), a double deflector (see 9a,9b) and a stigmator (see 19) in a beam path of the particle beam between the particle beam source and the objective lens (see fig 1), and a deflection device (see 9a-d) configured to scan the particle beam over a surface of the object, the method comprising:
when an object is set to a first distance from the objective lens, the objective lens is set to a first excitation, an excitation of the stigmator is set to a first excitation (e.g. off; or a given excitation required for astigmatism correction), and the double deflector is set to a first setting so that the particle beam is incident on the object at a first orientation (e.g. non-tilted, see fig 2a,b: 23), obtaining first particle- microscopic data at the first setting of the double deflector (image, see fig 2b,d, [0097]) by scanning the particle beam along a first scan line (see e.g. fig 18a: 1803) on the surface of the object;
setting the excitation of the double deflector to a second setting so that the particle beam is incident on the object at a second orientation different from the first orientation (see e.g. deflected to image next scan line; alternately see tilted beam, 24);
obtaining second particle-microscopic data at the second setting of the double deflector (imaging, see fig 2d) by scanning the particle beam along a second scan line
setting the excitation of the double deflector to a third setting so that the particle beam is incident on the object at a third orientation which differs from both the first and second orientations (see additional images, e.g. [0100]);
obtaining third particle-microscopic data at the third setting of the double deflector by scanning the particle beam along a third scan line (e.g. fig 18a: 1805, later scan lines, etc; alternately same as the first scan line but at a different angle) on the surface of the object (see additional images, e.g. [0100]),
based on an analysis of the first, second, and third particle-microscopic data, performing at least one of the following:
i) determining a second distance of the object from the objective lens, and setting the distance of the object from the objective lens to the second distance;
ii) determining a second excitation of the objective lens, and setting the excitation of the objective lens to the second excitation (see e.g. [0099,104]); and
iii) determining a second excitation of the stigmator and setting the excitation of the stigmator to the second excitation.
Yamanashi teaches using a plurality of angles (see e.g. [0100]) and that different scan patterns may be implemented (see e.g. [0145-146]), but may fail to explicitly disclose wherein a smallest angle between the second scan line and the third scan line is greater than 10°.
However, Itai teaches a system to enable identification and providing optimal scan patterns across different features or feature edges which may not be recognized without an initial scan (see Itai, [0008], e.g. figs 18-19), said system comprising obtaining an e.g. second particle-microscopic data wherein a smallest angle between the second scan line and a third scan line is greater than 10° (see e.g. figs 18-19, [0109-110]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Itai in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve the scan pattern planning for identification and scanning of specific features and/or feature edges, in the manner taught by Itai.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches at least one of the following: determining an orientation of each of the first, second, and third scan lines on the surface of the object based on an azimuth angle of the orientation with which the particle beam is incident on the object; and determining the azimuth angle of the orientation with which the particle beam is incident on the object based on the orientation of each of the first, second, and third scan lines on the surface of the object (natural result of obtaining information from scanning along the scan lines; note also determination of appropriate angles for desired beam tilt required for intended operation of aligning the beam scan with the scanning line, for each subsequent line, see figs 2c, 18a,b).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai may fail to explicitly disclose the limitation, but in a different embodiment, Yamanashi teaches the first and second settings of the double deflector are determined so that substantially no image offset occurs between first and the second particle-microscopic data (see Yamanashi, fig 24) as a known effective way of providing irregularity judgment (see [0195]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the embodiments to enable the operation of the system, try to improve irregularity judgment, and obtain better information about the same sample after offset corrections are made. It is additionally noted that Itai teaches adjusting the scanning extent of subsequent scans at the same location (see e.g. Itai, fig 8, [0086]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select a scanning region (see e.g. fig 19) wherein there is substantially no image offset, as a routine skill in the art, depending on the particular feature being scanned, in the manner taught by Itai.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the first and second settings of the double deflector are determined on the basis of a computational model of the particle beam microscope (see e.g. Yamanashi, e.g. [0152]; some model implicitly required for selection of appropriate deflection voltages).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the first orientation differs from the second orientation by at least 0.010 (see e.g. Yamanashi, [0098]; alternately note Itai, e.g. figs 18-19).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches relative to a principal axis of the objective lens, the first and second orientations differ with regard to their elevation and are the same with regard to their azimuth (see Yamanashi, figs 2a,2c, defining these beams at different elevation angles and with the same azimuthal angle; alternately see also Itai, figs 18-19, defining the resulting fixed tilting angle as azimuth).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches obtaining fourth particle-microscopic data at the first excitation of the objective lens and at the second distance of the object from the objective lens; obtaining fourth particle-microscopic data at the second excitation of the objective lens and at the first distance of the object from the objective lens; obtaining fourth particle-microscopic data at the second excitation of the objective lens and at the second distance of the object from the objective lens, and obtaining fourth particle-microscope data at the second setting of the excitation of the stigmator (see Yamanashi, [0107]; see also further images, [0100]; alternately note obviousness of scanning further regions with the same settings).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the fourth particle-microscopic data comprise a fourth particle-microscopic image (see Yamanashi, [0107]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the first, second and third settings of the double deflector are determined based on a computational model of the particle beam microscope (see Yamanashi, e.g. [0100,152]; some model implicitly required for selection of appropriate deflection voltages).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the first, second and third settings of the double deflector are determined so that no image offset occurs between the first and third particle-microscopic data at the first distance of the object from the objective lens and the first excitation of the objective lens (see Yamanashi, e.g. [0100,195]; note also fig 24). Alternately, in a different embodiment, Yamanashi teaches the first and second settings of the double deflector are determined so that substantially no image offset occurs between first and the second particle-microscopic data (see Yamanashi, fig 24) as a known effective way of providing irregularity judgment (see [0195]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the embodiments to enable the operation of the system, try to improve irregularity judgment, and obtain better information about the same sample after offset corrections are made. It is additionally noted that Itai teaches adjusting the scanning extent of subsequent scans at the same location (see e.g. Itai, fig 8, [0086]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select a scanning region (see e.g. fig 19) wherein there is substantially no image offset, as a routine skill in the art, depending on the particular feature being scanned, in the manner taught by Itai.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches relative to a principal axis of the objective lens, the second and third orientations differ with regard to their azimuth (see Yamanashi, [0100]; alternately see also Itai, figs 18-19, defining the resulting fixed tilting angle as azimuth).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai may fail to explicitly disclose relative to a principal axis of the objective lens, the second and third orientations are the same with regard to their elevation. However, given the teaching of using multiple angles and tilts (see e.g. Yamanashi, [0096,100]) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select more angles and tilts, including wherein two have orientations that are the same with regard to elevation (see fig 3, [0100], same tilt). It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the first and second particle-microscopic data are recorded at the first excitation of the objective lens and at the first distance of the object from the objective lens (see Yamanashi, fig 3c, [0097]; alternately see plurality of excitations at different locations, e.g. Itai, figs 18-19).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the double deflector comprises two individual deflectors at a distance from each other in the beam path of the particle beam (see Yamanashi, fig 1: 9a, 9b; see also Kawasaki, fig 1: 10).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the individual deflector comprises four or eight deflection elements (see Yamanashi, fig 1: 9a,9b) distributed in a circumferential direction around the particle beam (see fig 1, each sector is either formed integrally or separately, but in either case circumferentially) (see also Kawasaki, [0033]).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices (required for intended operation of system, see e.g. fig 1: 8, memory, Yamanashi, [0094]) comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices (e.g. 5, see [0094]) to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches one or more processing devices (see e.g. Yamanashi, fig 1: 5); and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices (required for intended operation of system, see e.g. memory, [0094]) comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see [0094]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi and Itai, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Clauss (US 20040061067 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai may fail to explicitly disclose the deflection elements comprise electrodes and/or coils. However, the use of electrodes and/or coils to form deflectors was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Clauss teaches a known effective beam deflector comprising electrodes and coils (see Clauss, fig 2, [0045]) that suppresses problems caused by thermal influences (see [0007]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Clauss in the system the prior art to enable the intended operation of the system, while suppressing thermal problems, in the manner taught by Clauss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878