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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/26/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in new independent claim 25.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1, 6-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23-26 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 6-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected.
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) 25-26 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 25, 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]; alternately see fig 26). 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.
Therefore, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches the particle beam is incident on the object at a second orientation different from the first orientation (see plurality of beam orientations for each scan line, Yamanashi, [0100]); the second scan line (see use of plurality of scan lines at different angles, Itai, fig 18-19, 26) and the second orientation being determined such that they are not perpendicular to each other (see Yamanashi, fig 3, which shows an example of a plurality of orientations/tilt angle; compare with use of different scan line directions in Itai, figs 18-19, 26; at least one combination of tilt and direction will not be perpendicular to each other); the third scan line and the third orientation being determined such that they are not perpendicular to each other (see same).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teaching of Yamanashi and Itai teaches determining the second scan line and the second orientation so that they both lie in a vertical plane (selecting two intersecting lines will naturally define a corresponding plane), and determining the third scan line and the third orientation so that they both lie in a vertical plane (see same).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1, 6-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding the method of controlling a particle beam microscope, comprising the particular combination of structure and method steps as claimed, recited together in combination with the totality of particular structural features/limitations recited therein.
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights