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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 6) that Biberger does not disclose “after the imaging, determining a relative position of said sample with respect to the charged particle beam source based on the image of the exposed surface of the sample, wherein the relative position is determined without using a fiducial; and positioning said sample relative to said milling beam using said relative position”; Biberger discloses that “It is advantageous if the positioning is implemented while SEM recordings are being produced so that the exact position of the specimen can be set and monitored” [0070] wherein such monitoring is described in paragraph [0082]: “it is possible to provide a correction option, with the aid of which the accuracy of the positioning can be improved. Since the displacement accuracy of the specimen stage is limited, it is often desirable for the user to be able to check approached positions and manually correct these where desired. Therefore, provision can be made for the previously stored position to be overwritten by the corrected specimen position after such a manual correction. This may be implemented automatically, e.g., triggered by the start of a milling process or the start of a deposition process. It is also conceivable for the correction of the positioning to be brought about with the aid of an automatic drift correction. In this case, too, the previously stored position can be overwritten by the corrected specimen position” [0082]. The process is repeated alternately between electron beam imaging and ion beam processing the sample in the respective orientations: “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069].
Therefore, it is clear that the system of Biberger performs ion beam milling, and then after the milling performs electron beam imaging (“the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069]), and then after the electron beam imaging, determines a relative position of the sample with respect to the charged particle beam source based on the electron beam imaging (since the “exact position of the specimen can be set and monitored” [0070]).
Applicant contends, on page 7, with respect to the cited paragraphs [0047] and [0072] of Biberger, that Biberger merely stores a specimen position and does not determine the specimen position after milling. However, paragraph [0082] clearly identifies that the “previously stored position to be overwritten by the corrected specimen position” [0082] and paragraph [0070] identifies that such a position determination is made for each of the “SEM recordings” [0070].
Therefore, it is clear that Biberger disclsoes “after the imaging, determining a relative position of said sample with respect to the charged particle beam source based on the image of the exposed surface of the sample, wherein the relative position is determined without using a fiducial; and positioning said sample relative to said milling beam using said relative position”, as required in the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments to claims 4 and 17 (on page 7); Examiner agrees that Biberger alone does not teach the newly added claim limitations of claims 4 and 17.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on page 7) with respect to claims 9, 11-13, 21-22, and claims 15-19; Applicant repeats the arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 and no additional response is necessary.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 8) with respect to the Bergendahl reference; Applicant repeats the arguments with respect to claim 1, which is taught by Biberger (as discussed above). Additionally, Applicant refers to the Smith reference, which is not relied upon at all in the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 5, addressed in this section.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 8) with respect to the Brundage reference; Applicant contends that claim 6 requires more than merely using an ion beam for imaging: it requires that the image acquired by the milling beam be used to determine the position of the exposed surface in the image. Biberger teaches imaging using a particle beam (the electron beam) and using this beam to determine the position of the exposed surface (as discussed above), and Brundage discloses that an ion beam may be used for imaging (thereby replacing the electron beam imaging of Biberger). The teaching of the combination of references thereby teaches the claimed “wherein the image of the exposed surface is acquire by the milling beam, and determining said relative position based on the image includes determining a position of the exposed surface in the image”. The test for obviousness is not whether the invention is 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). It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Biberger with the milling beam imaging feature disclosed in Brundage in order to provide multi-modal imaging, thereby allowing an operator to perform multiple inspections of a sample, revealing different information and/or forming different images of the sample, increasing the amount of information that can be obtained in inspecting the sample.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 8) with respect to claim 7; Applicant contends that Brundage does not disclose the claimed post-milling position-determination sequence; as discussed above, such a feature is taught by Biberger.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 9) with respect to claim 8; Brundage teaches that the claimed angle is a result-effective variable (“The degree of the angle Θ, however, may be adjusted based on at least one feature of an active layer of the sample 202” [Brundage: 0038]). Applicant contends that Examiner’s stated rationale does not explain why this teaching would have led a skilled artisan to the substantially parallel orientation in the particular process inherited in claim 8. The rejection stated, in part, that “One would have been motivated to position said exposed surface of said sample substantially parallel to said milling beam for the purpose of milling and/or imaging specific structures in a sample specimen, as desired by a user (milling a specific shape required for imaging, or imaging a specific location, or at a specific angle which is expected to reveal certain features in analyzing the sample)”. The claimed substantially parallel orientation is an example of a particular “degree of the angle”, as discussed in Brundage, where Brundage identifies that this degree of the particular angle may be adjusted. The determining the sample’s relative position is taught by Biberger, as discussed above, and claim 8 therefore merely adds a specific angle (parallel to the milling beam), where Brundage teaches that selecting a specific angle such as this requires only a routine adjustment and would therefore have been obvious.
Applicant contends (on page 10) that quoting In re Aller does not supply the missing limitation, as the general conditions of claims 6-8 are not disclosed. As discussed above, Biberger discloses the claimed relative position determination, while Brundage demonstrates that selecting a specific angle such as this requires only a routine adjustment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 10) that an optimization rationale must include “an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range”; as cited in the rejection, Brundage teaches that selecting a specific angle may be performed “based on at least one feature of an active layer of the sample 202” [Brundage: 0038]. This paragraph [0038] then discusses specific examples wherein the “at least one feature” may be one of several specifically listed types of circuit elements, and then discusses that these circuit elements may be present at different depths. Therefore, Brundage identifies that the specific angle of the beam allows the beam to interact with features at different depths dependent upon the type(s) of features. Therefore, Brundage informs the user of a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range wherein the claimed range may be achieved in search of features at certain depths, dependent upon the type of feature.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 10) with respect to claims 10 and 20; Applicant repeats the assertion that Brundage does not disclose determining a relative position of the sample with respect to a charged particle beam source based on an image of the exposed surface of the sample; this limitation was taught by Biberger, as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biberger U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0355548.
Regarding claim 1, Biberger discloses a method comprising: providing an imaging system including a charged particle beam source (“the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046]); milling, using a milling beam from a milling beam source, a sample to remove a layer of the sample (“specimen material is ablated (milled) using the focussed ion beam until the cross-sectional area is exposed” [0065]), wherein said milling beam is positioned at a plurality of rotational orientations with respect to said sample during the milling (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072] – “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069]); imaging, using a charged particle beam from the charged particle beam source, an exposed surface of the sample (“specimen material is ablated using the focussed ion beam in order to produce a cross section… Finally, the specimen is brought into a position in which the cross section can be imaged in the scanning electron microscope” [0068]); determining a relative position of said sample with respect to the charged particle beam source based on the image of the exposed surface of the sample, wherein the relative position is determined without using a fiducial (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]); and positioning said sample relative to said milling beam using said determined relative position (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α. If the site and space coordinates of the “Face to SEM” position are known and stored, it is consequently possible to calculate the site and space coordinates of the “Face to FIB” position” [0072]). Biberger discloses that “It is advantageous if the positioning is implemented while SEM recordings are being produced so that the exact position of the specimen can be set and monitored” [0070] wherein such monitoring is described in paragraph [0082]: “it is possible to provide a correction option, with the aid of which the accuracy of the positioning can be improved. Since the displacement accuracy of the specimen stage is limited, it is often desirable for the user to be able to check approached positions and manually correct these where desired. Therefore, provision can be made for the previously stored position to be overwritten by the corrected specimen position after such a manual correction. This may be implemented automatically, e.g., triggered by the start of a milling process or the start of a deposition process. It is also conceivable for the correction of the positioning to be brought about with the aid of an automatic drift correction. In this case, too, the previously stored position can be overwritten by the corrected specimen position” [0082]. The process is repeated alternately between electron beam imaging and ion beam processing the sample in the respective orientations: “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069].
Regarding claim 9, Biberger discloses that said milling beam is a focused ion beam (“processed with the focussed ion beam (FIB)” [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Biberger discloses that after positioning said sample relative to said milling beam, milling, with said milling beam, the exposed surface of said sample to remove a further layer of the sample (“specimen material is ablated (milled) using the focussed ion beam until the cross-sectional area is exposed. In this processing step, the specimen is held under the objective lens of the ion-optical column, specifically such that the specimen surface is aligned at approximately right angles to the optical axis of the ion-optical column (specimen position: “Face to FIB”)” [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Biberger discloses determining the relative position (by moving the specimen to the predetermined imaging position) after removing the further layer of the sample (“specimen material is ablated using the focussed ion beam in order to produce a cross section… Finally, the specimen is brought into a position in which the cross section can be imaged in the scanning electron microscope” [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Biberger discloses that positioning said sample relative to said milling beam comprises one or more of the following: modifying a position of the milling beam; pattern placement of said milling beam; and/or moving the sample relative to the milling beam (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Biberger discloses an apparatus comprising: a milling beam source 80 arranged to provide a milling beam (“an ion source 80” [0088]); an imaging system 63 for imaging a sample (“the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046]); a stage 75 arranged to hold a sample 74; and a controller 72 coupled to or including non-transitory memory 71 including code that, when executed by the controller, causes the apparatus (“Data records, which describe the specimen positions and are used for positioning the specimen according to the disclosure, can be stored and processed with the aid of the memory apparatus 71. As a result of an interaction between the memory apparatus 71 and control apparatus 72, it is possible to displace the specimen stage in such a way that a specimen region of interest (ROI) is moved into, and held at, a predetermined position” [0090]) to: position the stage with respect to the milling beam (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072] – “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069]); mill, with milling beam, the sample to remove a layer of the sample (“specimen material is ablated (milled) using the focussed ion beam until the cross-sectional area is exposed” [0065]); after milling, image, with the imaging system, an exposed surface of the sample (“specimen material is ablated using the focussed ion beam in order to produce a cross section… Finally, the specimen is brought into a position in which the cross section can be imaged in the scanning electron microscope” [0068]); determine a position of said sample relative to the imaging system based on the image of the exposed surface of the sample, wherein the relative position is determined without using a fiducial (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]); and position the sample relative to the milling beam based on said determined relative position (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α. If the site and space coordinates of the “Face to SEM” position are known and stored, it is consequently possible to calculate the site and space coordinates of the “Face to FIB” position” [0072]). Biberger discloses that “It is advantageous if the positioning is implemented while SEM recordings are being produced so that the exact position of the specimen can be set and monitored” [0070] wherein such monitoring is described in paragraph [0082]: “it is possible to provide a correction option, with the aid of which the accuracy of the positioning can be improved. Since the displacement accuracy of the specimen stage is limited, it is often desirable for the user to be able to check approached positions and manually correct these where desired. Therefore, provision can be made for the previously stored position to be overwritten by the corrected specimen position after such a manual correction. This may be implemented automatically, e.g., triggered by the start of a milling process or the start of a deposition process. It is also conceivable for the correction of the positioning to be brought about with the aid of an automatic drift correction. In this case, too, the previously stored position can be overwritten by the corrected specimen position” [0082]. The process is repeated alternately between electron beam imaging and ion beam processing the sample in the respective orientations: “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069].
Regarding claim 15, Biberger discloses that the milling beam source is an ion source (“processed with the focussed ion beam (FIB)” [0005]), and the exposed surface is imaged with an electron beam (“the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Biberger discloses that determining the position of said sample relative to the imaging system includes determining a position of the exposed surface relative to the imaging system (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Biberger discloses that the apparatus is further configured to: after positioning said sample, mill the exposed surface to expose a second exposed surface (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072] – “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069] – “If a plurality of cross sections are intended to be produced…” [0076]).
Regarding claim 19, Biberger discloses that determining the position of said sample relative to the imaging system based on the image includes determining a change of the position of said sample relative to the imaging system based on the image, and wherein positioning the sample includes adjusting the stage based on the change of position (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]).
Regarding claim 21, Biberger discloses that moving the sample includes moving the sample with a component in a negative gravitational direction (“the specimen to be examined thus can be displaced in the three spatial directions x, y and z in order to change the location of the specimen” [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, Biberger discloses that positioning the milling beam at a plurality of rotational orientations with respect to said sample during the milling includes positioning the milling beam at a milling angle with respect to said sample while positioning the milling beam at the plurality of rotational orientations (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072] – “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biberger U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0355548 in view of Bergendahl et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0005798.
Regarding claim 2, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger teaches that “The specimen stage often also includes rotational movement elements, which have, e.g., a first axis of rotation (R), about which the specimen stage is arranged in rotatable fashion. It is also conceivable for the stage to additionally have a second axis of rotation (T), about which it is rotatable and which is arranged at right angles to the first axis of rotation. The second axis of rotation is also referred to as a tilt axis (T). If use is made of such a five-axis stage, the specimen to be examined thus can be displaced in the three spatial directions x, y and z in order to change the location of the specimen” [0018], there is no explicit disclosure of orienting a milling beam at the claimed milling angle with respect to the surface of the sample.
Bergendahl discloses an apparatus for ion beam milling wherein “The gallium DBFIB tool may generate an ion beam column based on setting an accelerating voltage in… a tilt angle in the range of about 0 to about 52 degrees (typically +/−2 degrees during TEM sample fabrication)” [0041].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt stage of Biberger to perform milling at the claimed angle (as suggested by Bergendahl), in order to fabricate a sample having a specifically desired shape for analysis in an electron microscopy apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger teaches that “The specimen stage often also includes rotational movement elements, which have, e.g., a first axis of rotation (R), about which the specimen stage is arranged in rotatable fashion. It is also conceivable for the stage to additionally have a second axis of rotation (T), about which it is rotatable and which is arranged at right angles to the first axis of rotation. The second axis of rotation is also referred to as a tilt axis (T). If use is made of such a five-axis stage, the specimen to be examined thus can be displaced in the three spatial directions x, y and z in order to change the location of the specimen” [0018], there is no explicit disclosure of orienting a milling beam at the claimed milling angle with respect to the surface of the sample.
Bergendahl discloses an apparatus for ion beam milling wherein “The gallium DBFIB tool may generate an ion beam column based on setting an accelerating voltage in… a tilt angle in the range of about 0 to about 52 degrees (typically +/−2 degrees during TEM sample fabrication)” [0041].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt stage of Biberger to perform milling at the claimed angle (as suggested by Bergendahl), in order to fabricate a sample having a specifically desired shape for analysis in an electron microscopy apparatus.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biberger U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0355548 in view of Brundage et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0378689.
Regarding claim 6, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger discloses that “the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046] where “The ions produced in the ion source 80… can be used to ablate material from the specimen 74 and/or image the specimen 74” [0059], and Biberger discloses determining said relative distance based on the image includes determining a position of the exposed surface in the image (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]), there is no explicit disclosure that the image of the exposed surface is acquired by the milling beam.
Brundage discloses “a dual beam system” [0016] wherein “an electron microscope may be included for imaging and inspection of a loaded sample, and an ion beam system is included for processing and/or imaging the loaded sample” [0016] and “The ion source 106 typically provides an ion beam of ions… for either modifying the sample 102 by ion milling, enhanced etch, material deposition, or for the purpose of imaging the sample 102” [0021].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Biberger with the milling beam imaging feature disclosed in Brundage in order to provide multi-modal imaging, thereby allowing an operator to perform multiple inspections of a sample, revealing different information and/or forming different images of the sample, increasing the amount of information that can be obtained in inspecting the sample.
Regarding claim 7, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger discloses that “the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046] where “The ions produced in the ion source 80… can be used to ablate material from the specimen 74 and/or image the specimen 74” [0059], and Biberger discloses determining said relative distance based on the image includes determining a position of the exposed surface in the image (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]), there is no explicit disclosure that the image of the exposed surface is acquired by the milling beam.
Brundage discloses “a dual beam system” [0016] wherein “an electron microscope may be included for imaging and inspection of a loaded sample, and an ion beam system is included for processing and/or imaging the loaded sample” [0016] and “The ion source 106 typically provides an ion beam of ions… for either modifying the sample 102 by ion milling, enhanced etch, material deposition, or for the purpose of imaging the sample 102” [0021]. Brundage discloses that “The stage 214 may orient the sample 202 to a desired angle Θ with the ion beam 218 based on the configuration 201” [0038].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Biberger with the milling beam imaging feature disclosed in Brundage in order to provide multi-modal imaging, thereby allowing an operator to perform multiple inspections of a sample, revealing different information and/or forming different images of the sample, increasing the amount of information that can be obtained in inspecting the sample.
Regarding claim 8, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger discloses that “the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046] where “The ions produced in the ion source 80… can be used to ablate material from the specimen 74 and/or image the specimen 74” [0059], and adjusting an angle between said exposed surface and said milling beam before imaging said exposed surface (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072]), there is no explicit disclosure that the image of the exposed surface is acquired by the milling beam.
Brundage discloses “a dual beam system” [0016] wherein “an electron microscope may be included for imaging and inspection of a loaded sample, and an ion beam system is included for processing and/or imaging the loaded sample” [0016] and “The ion source 106 typically provides an ion beam of ions… for either modifying the sample 102 by ion milling, enhanced etch, material deposition, or for the purpose of imaging the sample 102” [0021]. Brundage discloses that “The stage 214 may orient the sample 202 to a desired angle Θ with the ion beam 218 based on the configuration 201” [0038].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Biberger with the milling beam imaging feature disclosed in Brundage in order to provide multi-modal imaging, thereby allowing an operator to perform multiple inspections of a sample, revealing different information and/or forming different images of the sample, increasing the amount of information that can be obtained in inspecting the sample. Biberger and Brundage disclose the claimed invention except that while Brundage teaches that “The degree of the angle Θ, however, may be adjusted based on at least one feature of an active layer of the sample 202” [Brundage: 0038] and Biberger discloses “The specimen stage often also includes rotational movement elements, which have, e.g., a first axis of rotation (R), about which the specimen stage is arranged in rotatable fashion. It is also conceivable for the stage to additionally have a second axis of rotation (T), about which it is rotatable and which is arranged at right angles to the first axis of rotation. The second axis of rotation is also referred to as a tilt axis (T). If use is made of such a five-axis stage, the specimen to be examined thus can be displaced in the three spatial directions x, y and z in order to change the location of the specimen” [0018], there is no explicit disclosure of positioning said exposed surface of said sample substantially parallel to said milling beam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position said exposed surface of said sample substantially parallel to said milling beam since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to position said exposed surface of said sample substantially parallel to said milling beam for the purpose of milling and/or imaging specific structures in a sample specimen, as desired by a user (milling a specific shape required for imaging, or imaging a specific location, or at a specific angle which is expected to reveal certain features in analyzing the sample). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 10, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger discloses that “the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046] where “The ions produced in the ion source 80… can be used to ablate material from the specimen 74 and/or image the specimen 74” [0059], there is no explicit disclosure that said milling beam is a laser beam.
Brundage discloses “a dual beam system” [0016] wherein “the beam used to process the desired samples could comprise, for example, an electron beam, a laser beam, or a focused or shaped ion beam, for example” [0033].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Biberger by replacing the ion milling beam with a laser milling beam since Brundage teaches that these beams are interchangeable in a method of milling a sample specimen for analysis in a dual-beam system. Selecting one type of beam over another may be advantageous in forming features on a sample specimen dependent upon the material of the sample specimen or for selecting specific feature sizes required in forming the sample specimen.
Regarding claim 20, Biberger discloses the claimed invention, except that while Biberger discloses that “the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046] where “The ions produced in the ion source 80… can be used to ablate material from the specimen 74 and/or image the specimen 74” [0059], and Biberger discloses determining said relative distance based on the image includes determining a position of the exposed surface in the image (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]), there is no explicit disclosure that the image of the exposed surface is acquired by the milling beam.
Brundage discloses “a dual beam system” [0016] wherein “an electron microscope may be included for imaging and inspection of a loaded sample, and an ion beam system is included for processing and/or imaging the loaded sample” [0016] and “The ion source 106 typically provides an ion beam of ions… for either modifying the sample 102 by ion milling, enhanced etch, material deposition, or for the purpose of imaging the sample 102” [0021].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Biberger with the milling beam imaging feature disclosed in Brundage in order to provide multi-modal imaging, thereby allowing an operator to perform multiple inspections of a sample, revealing different information and/or forming different images of the sample, increasing the amount of information that can be obtained in inspecting the sample.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4; Biberger U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0355548 discloses a method comprising: providing an imaging system including a charged particle beam source (“the specimen block is imaged with the aid of the scanning electron microscope function of the two-beam device” [0046]); milling, using a milling beam from a milling beam source, a sample to remove a layer of the sample (“specimen material is ablated (milled) using the focussed ion beam until the cross-sectional area is exposed” [0065]), wherein said milling beam is positioned at a plurality of rotational orientations with respect to said sample during the milling (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α” [0072] – “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069]); imaging, using a charged particle beam from the charged particle beam source, an exposed surface of the sample (“specimen material is ablated using the focussed ion beam in order to produce a cross section… Finally, the specimen is brought into a position in which the cross section can be imaged in the scanning electron microscope” [0068]); determining a relative position of said sample with respect to the charged particle beam source based on the image of the exposed surface of the sample, wherein the relative position is determined without using a fiducial (“a specimen region of interest (ROI) at which the first TEM lamella is intended to be prepared is selected on the basis of the image of the specimen (step S3). It may be desirable to displace the specimen in the x- and y-direction until the specimen region of interest (ROI) is placed under the objective lens of the electron beam column in such a way that the specimen region of interest (ROI) lies as desired in the field of view of the electron beam column” [0047]); and positioning said sample relative to said milling beam using said determined relative position (“In order to displace the specimen from the “Face to SEM” specimen position into the “Face to FIB” position, the specimen is rotated about the tilt axis through the angle α. If the site and space coordinates of the “Face to SEM” position are known and stored, it is consequently possible to calculate the site and space coordinates of the “Face to FIB” position” [0072]). Biberger discloses that “It is advantageous if the positioning is implemented while SEM recordings are being produced so that the exact position of the specimen can be set and monitored” [0070] wherein such monitoring is described in paragraph [0082]: “it is possible to provide a correction option, with the aid of which the accuracy of the positioning can be improved. Since the displacement accuracy of the specimen stage is limited, it is often desirable for the user to be able to check approached positions and manually correct these where desired. Therefore, provision can be made for the previously stored position to be overwritten by the corrected specimen position after such a manual correction. This may be implemented automatically, e.g., triggered by the start of a milling process or the start of a deposition process. It is also conceivable for the correction of the positioning to be brought about with the aid of an automatic drift correction. In this case, too, the previously stored position can be overwritten by the corrected specimen position” [0082]. The process is repeated alternately between electron beam imaging and ion beam processing the sample in the respective orientations: “the specimen is successively moved into various positions relative to the optical axis of the electron-optical column and the optical axis of the ion-optical column, and held in these positions, during the course of a cross section preparation” [0069]. However, Biberger discloses that “the specimen is displaced in order to image or process the entire specimen” [0003] and does not disclose that the exposed surface of the sample is directly imaged with the electron beam after the milling, without rotating the sample to adjust an angle between the exposed surface and the milling beam.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method comprising: after the milling using a milling beam from a milling beam source, a sample to remove a layer of the sample, wherein said milling beam is positioned at a plurality of rotational orientations with respect to said sample during the milling, imaging, using a charged particle beam from the charged particle beam source; and after the imaging, determining a relative position of a sample with respect to the charged particle beam source based on the image of an exposed surface of the sample, wherein the relative position is determined without using a fiducial; and positioning said sample relative to said milling beam using said determined relative position; wherein the exposed surface of the sample is directly imaged with an electron beam after the milling, without rotating the sample to adjust an angle between the exposed surface and the milling beam.
Regarding claim 5; claim 5 would be allowable at least for its dependence upon claim 4.
Regarding claim 17; claim 17 includes substantially similar limitations to those of claim 4 and would be allowable at least for the reasons indicated with respect to claim 4.
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 JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights