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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 18-25 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shutter of the focusing system” and “each contact arm (391) is provided with at least one row of needle tip sensing contacts, and each row is provided with more than one needle tip sensing contact” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 11 discloses a shutter that is not displayed in any of the drawings.
Claim 16 discloses a contact arm with a row of multiple needle tip sensing contacts. However, none of the drawings filed display a contact arm with multiple needle tip sensing contacts attached.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the corrected electron beam scanning control signal" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the shutter of the focusing system” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the deflection coil” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electron beam control system" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "on each contact arm (391)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claims from which claim 15 depends only introduce one contact arm.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "each contact arm" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims from which claim 15 depends only introduce one contact arm.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites "wherein one or more needle tip sensing contacts (392) are disposed on each contact arm.” However, claim 14, from which the claim depends, only introduces one contact arm. Therefore, it is unclear how many contact arms the present disclosure is claiming. For the purposes of examination, claim 15 will be interpreted to refer to more than one contact arm.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “each contact arm (391) is provided with at least one row of needle tip sensing contacts.” However, claim 14, from which the claim depends, only introduces one contact arm. Therefore, it is unclear how many contact arms the present disclosure is claiming. For the purposes of examination, claim 15 will be interpreted to refer to more than one contact arm.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim limitations “electron beam control system” in claims 11 and 12 and “pattern generator” in claim 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claims 11 and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The “electron beam control system”, in claims 11 and 12, is prescribed with a function of controlling the shutter of the focusing system and the deflection coil and receiving the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device. However, no structure is provided for the limitation in the specification or the drawings. The “electron beam control system” is not described in such a way to convey, to one skilled in the relevant art, what this limitation is. For the purposes of examination, the “electron beam control system” will be interpreted to be a processor.
The “pattern generator”, in claim 11 is prescribed with a function of sending the corrected electron beam scanning control signal after the operation processing to the electron beam control system under the control of the control computer. However, neither the specifications nor the drawing provides any structure for the “pattern generator.” The pattern generator is not described in such a way to convey, to one skilled in the relevant, art what this limitation is. For the purposes of examination, the “pattern generator” will be interpreted to be memory storage.
Therefore, claims 11 and 12 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and do not meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga (20010003655), hereinafter referred to as Tokunaga, and in view of Ina et al. (US 6636311), hereinafter referred to as Ina.
Regarding claim 10, Tokunaga teaches a sub-nano-level high-precision writing field stitching lithography system, comprising a stationary chamber (31) (fig. 6 as annotated below) and a stage (37) in the stationary chamber (fig. 6 as annotated below);
an electron microscope (fig. 6 as annotated below), and a wafer workbench (38) are arranged on the stage (37) (fig. 6 as annotated below);
an electron beam column (32) is provided on the electron microscope (fig. 6 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
546
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the wafer workbench (38) is provided with a numerical control driving device (371) (stage control unit 112 (para. [0006])) for dragging a front, back and/or left, right and/or upward, downward movement of the wafer workbench (an X/Y stage 109 for loading thereon the wafer 200 to position it in X-axis direction and Y-axis direction (para. 0006])).
Tokunaga fails to teach at least one nano-contact sensor arranged on the stage and the wafer workbench is provided with a numerical control device for changing an angle of the wafer workbench.
However, Ina teaches at least one nano-contact sensor arranged on the stage (fig. 18 as annotated below) and the wafer workbench is provided with a numerical control device for changing an angle of the wafer workbench (fig. 2C as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
518
932
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Ina such that the tilt stage 23, disclosed in Ina is added to the X/Y stage 109 of Tokunaga. Doing so allows users to more precisely correct “the overall focus state (col. 8, line 36)” of the wafer.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the nano-contact sensor (atomic force microscope 78), taught by Ina, in order to trace “the surface of the alignment mark portion (col. 20, line 37-38)” to calculate an offset value and achieve wafer alignment.
Regarding claim 13, Tokunaga does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is an atomic force tip sensor, a tunnel electron probe sensor, a nano-level surface work function measurement sensor, or a combination thereof.
However, Ina teaches wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is an atomic force tip sensor, a tunnel electron probe sensor, a nano-level surface work function measurement sensor, or a combination thereof (fig. 2b as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
520
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the nano-contact sensor (atomic force microscope 78), taught by Ina, in order to trace “the surface of the alignment mark portion (col. 20, line 37-38)” to calculate an offset value and achieve wafer alignment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lo et al. (US 20200133139), hereinafter referred to as Lo.
Regarding claim 11, Tokunaga teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the lithography system further comprises a control computer (42) (main control unit 115), a pattern generator (46) (Drawing pattern data or like are stored in a memory 113 or 114 or a dedicated memory (not shown) or like. The alignment deflector 107 uses the drawing pattern data read out, to thereby control the alignment deflector 107, so that a scanning electron-beam (that is, electron-beam deflected corresponding to the drawing pattern data) may be deflected by the alignment deflector 107, thus drawing a pattern (para. [0008]));
the control computer (main control unit 115) is connected to the pattern generator (46), the electron beam control system (34), and the numerical control driving device (371) (fig. 2 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image5.png
980
1103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the pattern generator (46) is configured to send the corrected electron beam scanning control signal after operation processing to the electron beam control system (34) under the control of the control computer (42) (fig. 2 as annotated below)
PNG
media_image6.png
795
1101
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and the electron beam control system (34) (control unit 111) is configured to control the deflection coil ( 35) (alignment deflector 107) (a alignment deflector control unit 111 for controlling the alignment deflector 107 (para. [0006])).
Tokunaga does not teach the nano-contact sensor (39) is configured to send a collected in- situ alignment coordinate identification signal (40) and/or an electron beam drift signal on the measured wafer to the pattern generator (46) under the control of the control computer (42);
and the electron beam control system (34) is configured to control the shutter of the focusing system (32) on the electron beam column (32).
However, Ina teaches the nano-contact sensor (39) is configured to send a collected in- situ alignment coordinate identification signal (40) and/or an electron beam drift signal on the measured wafer to the pattern generator (46) under the control of the control computer (42) (An AFM (atomic force microscope) 103 for measuring the surface of a wafer with or without a resist thereon, and a CPU (central processing unit) 104 for controlling the offset analyzer as a whole and having a simulator for calculating an alignment offset on the basis of the surface shape detected (para. [0019])).
It would have beam obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Ina such that the nano-contact sensor (AFM), disclosed in Ina, sends an alignment coordination signal under the control of the of a control computer (AFM measures the surface of the wafer. This measurement is then used to calculate an alignment offset under the control of the central processing unit.) Doing so allows “for accomplishing high precision alignment (col. 9, lines 37-39).”
Further, Lo teaches, and the electron beam control system (34) (controller 135) (The controller 135 may control the electron source 102 to adjust the intensity of electron beam 134 (para. [0030])) is configured to control the shutter of the focusing system (32) on the electron beam column (32) (fig. 1A as annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
503
576
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Lo by adding the shutter-deflection unit 108 disclosed in Lo onto the electron beam column in Tokunaga such that the electron beam control system (Tokunaga, main control unit 115) is configured to control the shutter-deflection unit 108, as taught by Lo. Doing so allows the main controller to turn one or more electron beams on and off by a set of commands so the layout pattern can be generated in energy sensitive material (Lo, para. [0072])).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Nakano et al. (US 5334846), hereinafter referred to as Nakano.
Regarding claim 12, Tokunaga teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the field stitching system further comprises a secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device (36) disposed on the electron beam column (32) (The reflected electron detector 108 uses a diode detector to trap a reflected electron (that is, secondary electron) from the reflective wafer surface when electrons are applied onto an alignment mark formed as a recess in the wafer 200, thus detecting a position of the alignment mark based on a difference between an amount of reflection from the alignment mark and that from its surrounding (para. [0007]));
the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device (36) is configured to collect a secondary image scanned by the electron beam and feeds the secondary image back to the control computer (42) (fig. 2 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image8.png
789
1101
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Tokunaga does not teach the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device (36) is configured to collect a secondary image scanned by the electron beam and feeds the secondary image back to the control computer (42) through the electron beam control system (34).
However, Nakano teaches teach the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device (36) is configured to collect a secondary image scanned by the electron beam and feeds the secondary image through the electron beam control system (34).
PNG
media_image9.png
466
814
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Nakano by rearranging the order of operations to feed the secondary image through the electron beam control system (Nakano, electron beam control 5) before sending it to the electron beam control system as taught by Tokunaga. Doing so allows the electron beam control to carry out signal processing of the secondary electron image before reaching the main controller.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Toshinobu.
Regarding claim 14, Tokunaga does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is provided with a lever-type sensing contact arm (391), and the contact arm (391) is equipped with a needle tip sensing contact (392)
However, Toshinobu teaches wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is provided with a lever-type sensing contact arm (391), and the contact arm (391) is equipped with a needle tip sensing contact (392) (fig. 6 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image10.png
652
822
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Toshinobu, in view of Ina, such that the nano-contact sensor disclosed in Ina (Ina; probe of the atomic force microscope 78) is provided with a lever-type sensing contact arm. Doing so allows for the “displacement of the cantilever 5 in the Z direction” to be measured (Toshinobu; para. [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Tokunaga does not teach, the system of claim 14, wherein one or more needle tip sensing contacts (392) are disposed on each contact arm (391).
However, Toshinobu teaches wherein one or more needle tip sensing contacts (392) are disposed on each contact arm (391) )(fig. 6 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image11.png
652
822
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga, in view of Ina, to include the teachings of Toshinobu by placing the probe of the atomic force microscope 78, disclosed in Ina, on more than one of the lever-type sensing contact arms (cantilever 5) taught by Toshinobu. Doing so means a larger surface area can be measured at one time to improve efficiency.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina as applied to claim 10 above, Toshinobu as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Hantschel et al. (US 20210116476), hereinafter referred to as Hantschel.
Regarding claim 16, Tokunaga does not teach the system of claim 14, wherein each contact arm (391) is provided with at least one row of needle tip sensing contacts, and each row is provided with more than one needle tip sensing contact (392).
However, Hantschel teaches wherein each contact arm (391) is provided with at least one row of needle tip sensing contacts, and each row is provided with more than one needle tip sensing contact (392) (fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image12.png
513
735
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga, in view of Ina and Toshinobu, to include at least one row of needle tip sensing contacts, where each row is providing with more than one sensing tip. Doing so, allows for the scanning of a larger substrate more efficiently and with different shaped tips as taught in Hantschel.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Hantschel et al. (US 20210116476), hereinafter referred to as Hantschel.
Regarding claim 17, Tokunaga teaches and the electron beam column (32) is directly facing the exposure area (22) of the wafer on the workbench (38) (fig. 2 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image13.png
636
810
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Tokunaga does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the field stitching system comprises two rows of the nano-contact sensor (39) arranged on both sides of the electron beam column (32), four contact sensors in each row.
However, Hantchel teaches wherein the field stitching system comprises two rows of the nano-contact sensor (39) arranged on both sides of the electron beam column (32), four contact sensors in each row (fig. 1 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image14.png
412
697
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga, in view of Ina, to include two rows of four of the nano-contact sensors (Ina; probe of the atomic force microscope 78), as taught by Hantschel. Doing so, allows for the scanning of a larger substrate more efficiently and with different shaped tips, as taught in Hantschel. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to place the rows of contact sensors on either side of the electron beam in order to be able to measure a majority of the surface of the wafer even while the electron beam is on, and to be able to measure the surface faster with more accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Mica Einhorn whose telephone number is (571) 272-4641. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday from Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm. If attempts to reach the
examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached on
(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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881