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 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument A. (on page 8) that Todokoro’s “Pixels” are image pixels, not detector pixels; secondary reference Brown discloses a pixelized electron detector with multiple pixels (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels [0016]). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). The reference in Todokoro to pixels (at [col. 21; line 34]) refers to image pixels, which generally relate to pixelized positions on a detector surface. However, since Todokoro does not explicitly recite multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector are arranged in a grid pattern (where each pixel relates to a physical coordinate position on the surface of a detector) and secondary reference Brown is cited for teaching this limitation. With respect to Applicant’s argument A., Applicant does not include any argument against the Brown reference.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B. (beginning on page 8) that Todokoro determines 3D characteristics through multiple scans at different angles/energies, not through multiple-pixel detection; as stated above, an in the Non-Final Rejection 1/16/2026 (pages 3-5) Brown is relied upon for teaching the multiple-pixel detection. Todokoro teaches a method of “determining a topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample based on the detection signals”, while Brown is relied upon for detecting secondary electron detection signals in a scanning electron microscope with a pixelated detector surface.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 10) that simply inserting Brown’s multi-pixel detector into Todokoro’s system would provide a detector that collects electrons during Todokoro’s scanning process; Applicant contends that Todokoro’s methodology for determining subsurface characteristics would still rely on multiple scans at different angles or energies, not on analyzing which detector pixels receive signal electrons. Brown specifically addresses this concern: “The combined signals may also provide more information about the surface topography of the sample than can be obtained from either signal on its own” [0015].
Brown teaches that the use of a “multi-pixel solid-state electron detector” [Abstract] allows for the detection of “back-scattered and/or secondary electrons” [Abstract] in a single detector such that “each pixel includes a p-type electron-sensitive region, an n-type buried channel layer, a floating diffusion and an amplifier circuit configured to generate an analog output signal whose level corresponds approximately to the energy of an incident electron or the numbers of electrons (i.e., a back-scattered or secondary electron) entering that pixel” [0016]. Such an arrangement is able to “facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations” [0016] because “the output signals from multiple pixels disposed in a matrix (array) are simultaneously converted for processing, the multi-pixel electron detector of the present invention facilitates both measuring the energy of more than one incident electron received during a given detection/readout operation, and also facilitates determining the path of incident electrons by way of the location of the detecting pixel in the matrix” [0016], and this advantage allows for “more information about the surface topography of the sample than can be obtained from either signal on its own” [0015].
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 10) that a skilled person would not have been motivated to combine the systems of Todokoro and Brown without hindsight guidance; as described above, Brown provides explicit guidance as to how and why one would have been motivated to combine the references. Further, as described above, since Todokoro is directed to the general principal of determining a topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample based on detection signals, and Brown teaches a method of determining a topographical characteristic of a structure buried within a sample based on detection signals generated based on signal electrons received by multiple pixels of a pixelized electron detector, 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 Todokoro with the detector of Brown (having pixels arranged in a grid) in order to utilize a commercially available detector as the detector of Todokoro, wherein such a gridded detector would offer position sensitive detection of charged particles so as to assist in forming a three-dimensional image, being responsive to the specific locations from which reflected electrons are generated.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-18, and 20; Applicant does not provide additional arguments with respect to these references and no additional response is necessary.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todokoro et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,594,245 in view of Brown et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0064184.
Regarding claim 1, Todokoro discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device (“The type of operation can be inputted through a control computer of the present apparatus or from a host computer on line” [col. 16; lines 54-58]) to perform a method for inspecting a sample using a charged particle beam apparatus comprising a pixelized electron detector with multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]), the method comprising: receiving signal electrons by the multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]) of the pixelized electron detector (“Reflection electrons generated from the specimen 8 have high energy and therefore they are hardly deflected by an electric field formed by the attraction electrode 16, keeping a substantially straight path and impinging upon a reflection electron detector 15” [col. 13; lines 33-37]), wherein the signal electrons are generated in response to an emitted charged particle beam impacting a structure in a subsurface region of the sample (“the electron beam can intrude into the specimen 102 to reach a part thereof at a large depth owing to the high energy on the beam, and is then scattered by an internal structure 106 to produce scattered (reflection) electrons 103b, which escape from the specimen 102” [col. 6; lines 39-44]); generating detection signals based on the signal electrons received by the multiple pixels, wherein each detection signal corresponds to the signal electrons received by a corresponding pixel of the pixelized electron detector (“an image signal indicative of the secondary electrons 203 and an image signal indicative of the secondary electrons 203a are used to form a specimen image” [col. 24; lines 14-16] – “Image signals of the specimen images A and A' are first ANDed. In the AND process, each pixel of the image A is compared with each pixel of the image A' to determine the presence of an image” [col. 21; line 34]); an determining a topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample based on the detection signals (“three-dimensional configurations of the surface and internal structures can be determined” [col. 23; lines 38-40]). However, although Todokoro generally describes that the detector includes pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]), there is no explicit disclosure that the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector are arranged in a grid pattern.
Brown discloses a scanning electron microscope 100 controlled by a computer 140, wherein “Back-scattered electrons may be detected by a back-scattered electron detector, such as those shown at 122a and 122b, which is implemented by one of the solid-state electron detectors described herein, and is configured to generate an image data signal ID1 in accordance with detected back-scattered electrons, where data signal ID1 is transferred to computer 160 and is also utilized to generate the image of the associated scanned sample area” [0035], and the electron detector comprises multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [0016]).
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 Todokoro with the detector of Brown (having pixels arranged in a grid) in order to utilize a commercially available detector as the detector of Todokoro, wherein such a gridded detector would offer position sensitive detection of charged particles so as to assist in forming a three-dimensional image, being responsive to the specific locations from which reflected electrons are generated.
Regarding claim 2, although Todokoro generally describes that the detector includes pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]), there is no explicit disclosure that the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector are arranged in a grid pattern.
Brown discloses a scanning electron microscope 100 controlled by a computer 140, wherein “Back-scattered electrons may be detected by a back-scattered electron detector, such as those shown at 122a and 122b, which is implemented by one of the solid-state electron detectors described herein, and is configured to generate an image data signal ID1 in accordance with detected back-scattered electrons, where data signal ID1 is transferred to computer 160 and is also utilized to generate the image of the associated scanned sample area” [0035], and the electron detector comprises multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern comprising a two-dimensional Cartesian grid (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [0016]).
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 Todokoro with the detector of Brown (having pixels arranged in a grid) in order to utilize a commercially available detector as the detector of Todokoro, wherein such a gridded detector would offer position sensitive detection of charged particles so as to assist in forming a three-dimensional image, being responsive to the specific locations from which reflected electrons are generated.
Regarding claim 5, Todokoro discloses that determining the topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample includes determining a distribution characteristic of the signal electrons emitted from the sample (“three-dimensional configurations of the surface and internal structures can be determined” [col. 23; lines 38-40]).
Regarding claim 6, Todokoro discloses a charged particle beam apparatus for inspecting a sample, comprising: a pixelized electron detector (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]) to receive signal electrons generated in response to an emitted charged particle beam impacting a structure in a subsurface region of the sample (“the electron beam can intrude into the specimen 102 to reach a part thereof at a large depth owing to the high energy on the beam, and is then scattered by an internal structure 106 to produce scattered (reflection) electrons 103b, which escape from the specimen 102” [col. 6; lines 39-44]), the electron detector comprising: multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]) configured to generate multiple detection signals (“an image signal indicative of the secondary electrons 203 and an image signal indicative of the secondary electrons 203a are used to form a specimen image” [col. 24; lines 14-16]), wherein each detection signal corresponds to the signal electrons received by a corresponding pixel of the pixelized electron detector (“Image signals of the specimen images A and A' are first ANDed. In the AND process, each pixel of the image A is compared with each pixel of the image A' to determine the presence of an image” [col. 21; line 34]); and a controller (“pattern data concerning a specimen and device structure information are previously stored in a data base (memory 210), information about the observing direction/position, inclination and area of an image observing field is detected by a controller 214 when performing observation with a scanning electron microscope 215” [col. 26; lines 60-66]) includes circuitry configured to: determine a topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample based on the detection signals generated by the multiple pixels (“three-dimensional configurations of the surface and internal structures can be determined” [col. 23; lines 38-40]); and identify a defect within the sample based on the topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample (“comparison of the specimen image with a previously stored reference image is effected to provide a difference between the specimen and reference images, and a defect/foreign matter is detected from the difference” [col. 19; lines 33-36]). However, although Todokoro generally describes that the detector includes pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]), there is no explicit disclosure that the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector are arranged in a grid pattern.
Brown discloses a scanning electron microscope 100 controlled by a computer 140, wherein “Back-scattered electrons may be detected by a back-scattered electron detector, such as those shown at 122a and 122b, which is implemented by one of the solid-state electron detectors described herein, and is configured to generate an image data signal ID1 in accordance with detected back-scattered electrons, where data signal ID1 is transferred to computer 160 and is also utilized to generate the image of the associated scanned sample area” [0035], and the electron detector comprises multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [0016]).
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 Todokoro with the detector of Brown (having pixels arranged in a grid) in order to utilize a commercially available detector as the detector of Todokoro, wherein such a gridded detector would offer position sensitive detection of charged particles so as to assist in forming a three-dimensional image, being responsive to the specific locations from which reflected electrons are generated.
Regarding claim 7, although Todokoro generally describes that the detector includes pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]), there is no explicit disclosure that the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector are arranged in a grid pattern.
Brown discloses a scanning electron microscope 100 controlled by a computer 140, wherein “Back-scattered electrons may be detected by a back-scattered electron detector, such as those shown at 122a and 122b, which is implemented by one of the solid-state electron detectors described herein, and is configured to generate an image data signal ID1 in accordance with detected back-scattered electrons, where data signal ID1 is transferred to computer 160 and is also utilized to generate the image of the associated scanned sample area” [0035], and the electron detector comprises multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern comprising a two-dimensional Cartesian grid (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [0016]).
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 Todokoro with the detector of Brown (having pixels arranged in a grid) in order to utilize a commercially available detector as the detector of Todokoro, wherein such a gridded detector would offer position sensitive detection of charged particles so as to assist in forming a three-dimensional image, being responsive to the specific locations from which reflected electrons are generated.
Regarding claim 10, Todokoro discloses that determining the topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample includes determining a distribution characteristic of the signal electrons emitted from the sample (“three-dimensional configurations of the surface and internal structures can be determined” [col. 23; lines 38-40]).
Regarding claim 12, Todokoro discloses that determining the topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample includes determining a distribution characteristic of the signal electrons emitted from the sample (“three-dimensional configurations of the surface and internal structures can be determined” [col. 23; lines 38-40]).
Regarding claim 13, Todokoro discloses that the signal electrons comprises backscattered electrons (BSEs) (“a scanning particle beam is irradiated to a specimen to act on the specimen so as to produce primary information such as back-scattered particles” [col. 3; lines 35-38]).
Regarding claim 14, although Todokoro generally describes that the detector includes pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [col. 21; line 34]), there is no explicit disclosure that the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector are arranged in a grid pattern wherein each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector has a same size.
Brown discloses a scanning electron microscope 100 controlled by a computer 140, wherein an electron detector comprises multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [0016]). Figure 3a illustrates that each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector has a same size.
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 Todokoro with the detector of Brown (having pixels arranged in a grid) in order to utilize a commercially available detector as the detector of Todokoro, wherein such a gridded detector would offer position sensitive detection of charged particles so as to assist in forming a three-dimensional image, being responsive to the specific locations from which reflected electrons are generated.
Regarding claim 15, Todokoro discloses that the charged particle beam comprises a plurality of primary electrons (“a primary electron beam” [col 2; line 46]).
Regarding claim 17, Todokoro discloses identifying a defect within the sample based on the topographical characteristic of the structure buried within the sample (“comparison of the specimen image with a previously stored reference image is effected to provide a difference between the specimen and reference images, and a defect/foreign matter is detected from the difference” [col. 19; lines 33-36]).
Regarding claim 18, Todokoro discloses that the topographical characteristic of the structure comprises a three-dimensional topographical information of the structure (“three-dimensional configurations of the surface and internal structures can be determined” [col. 23; lines 38-40]).
Regarding claim 20, Todokoro discloses that the three-dimensional topographical information comprises a depth of the structure relative to the surface of the sample (“information in the direction of depth as to a three-dimensional configuration of a particle or as to what kind of particle is distributed at which depth position can be obtained” [col. 18; lines 59-63]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todokoro et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,594,245 in view of Brown et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0064184 in further view of Mack U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0187570.
Regarding claim 3, Todokoro discloses a detector having multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [Todokoro: col. 21; line 34])and Brown discloses a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [Brown: 0016]), but does not disclose counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector.
Mack discloses a scanning electron microscope (“images formed when using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)” [0002]) comprising a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern, and discloses counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector (“The result is a two-dimensional array of pixels (locations along the surface of the sample) with detected electron counts digitally recorded for each pixel” [0081]).
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 Todokoro and Brown with the electron counting of Mack in order to provide a mechanism for imaging electrons by the detector, creating an image based on the amount(s) of electrons striking a detector.
Regarding claim 4, Todokoro discloses a detector having multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [Todokoro: col. 21; line 34])and Brown discloses a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [Brown: 0016]), but does not disclose counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector.
Mack discloses a scanning electron microscope (“images formed when using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)” [0002]) comprising a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern, and discloses counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector and the detection signals are generated based on the number of the signal electrons counted by the corresponding pixels (“The result is a two-dimensional array of pixels (locations along the surface of the sample) with detected electron counts digitally recorded for each pixel” [0081]).
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 Todokoro and Brown with the electron counting of Mack in order to provide a mechanism for imaging electrons by the detector, creating an image based on the amount(s) of electrons striking a detector.
Regarding claim 8, Todokoro discloses a detector having multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [Todokoro: col. 21; line 34])and Brown discloses a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [Brown: 0016]), but does not disclose counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector.
Mack discloses a scanning electron microscope (“images formed when using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)” [0002]) comprising a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern, and discloses counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector (“The result is a two-dimensional array of pixels (locations along the surface of the sample) with detected electron counts digitally recorded for each pixel” [0081]).
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 Todokoro and Brown with the electron counting of Mack in order to provide a mechanism for imaging electrons by the detector, creating an image based on the amount(s) of electrons striking a detector.
Regarding claim 9, Todokoro discloses a detector having multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [Todokoro: col. 21; line 34])and Brown discloses a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [Brown: 0016]), but does not disclose counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector.
Mack discloses a scanning electron microscope (“images formed when using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)” [0002]) comprising a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern, and discloses counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector and the detection signals are generated based on the number of the signal electrons counted by the corresponding pixels (“The result is a two-dimensional array of pixels (locations along the surface of the sample) with detected electron counts digitally recorded for each pixel” [0081]).
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 Todokoro and Brown with the electron counting of Mack in order to provide a mechanism for imaging electrons by the detector, creating an image based on the amount(s) of electrons striking a detector.
Regarding claim 11, Todokoro discloses a detector having multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [Todokoro: col. 21; line 34])and Brown discloses a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [Brown: 0016]), but does not disclose counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector.
Mack discloses a scanning electron microscope (“images formed when using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)” [0002]) comprising a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern, and discloses counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector (“The result is a two-dimensional array of pixels (locations along the surface of the sample) with detected electron counts digitally recorded for each pixel” [0081]).
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 Todokoro and Brown with the electron counting of Mack in order to provide a mechanism for imaging electrons by the detector, creating an image based on the amount(s) of electrons striking a detector.
Regarding claim 16, Todokoro discloses a detector having multiple pixels (“each pixel of the image A” [Todokoro: col. 21; line 34])and Brown discloses a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern (“an electron detector comprises an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters, where each pixel functions in the manner described above to generate an analog output signal, and each analog-to-digital converter is connected to convert the analog output signal from only one associated pixel in order to facilitate both high-speed and high-resolution detection/readout operations. The pixel array includes multiple pixels arranged in rows and columns (e.g., 16×16, 32×32, 64×64 or more), thereby facilitating the detection of incident electrons over a large area” [Brown: 0016]), but does not disclose counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector.
Mack discloses a scanning electron microscope (“images formed when using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)” [0002]) comprising a detector having multiple pixels arranged in a grid pattern, and discloses counting a number of the signal electrons received by each of the multiple pixels of the pixelized electron detector (“The result is a two-dimensional array of pixels (locations along the surface of the sample) with detected electron counts digitally recorded for each pixel” [0081]).
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 Todokoro and Brown with the electron counting of Mack in order to provide a mechanism for imaging electrons by the detector, creating an image based on the amount(s) of electrons striking a detector.
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