DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0031] of the originally filed specification refers to figure 3A, however no figure 3A appears in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Litman et al. (USPN 10,903,044).
Regarding claim 1, Litman teaches a method of evaluating, with an evaluation tool that includes a first charged particle column (evaluation system 300 in figure 3a-3b with a scanning electron microscope 320), a region of interest on a sample that includes an array of holes separated by solid portions (figure 1 shows array of holes 110 that are separated by solid portions 120, figure 2 shows an SEM image), the method comprising:
positioning the sample such that the region of interest is under a field of view of the first charged particle column (figure 3a shows sample 355, containing a region positioned under the SEM, thus under FOV of the SEM as evident from figure 2); and
locally depositing material within the array of holes in the region of interest by: pulsing a flow of deposition gas to the region of interest by turning the flow of the deposition gas ON and then OFF (col. 7, lines 53-61 teaches localized deposition within the region of holes by deposition gas. Col. 11, lines 36-41 teach repeating the process of introducing gas into the chamber, stopping the gas flow and then exposing the wafer to an SEM beam to initiate deposition dep within the holes multiple times (i.e. the gas flow is on and then off). Stopping and starting gas flow is a pulse of on/off of the gas);
thereafter, scanning a charged particle beam generated by the first charged particle column across the region of interest (repeating the sequence deposition gas, stop gas, exposing the wafer to SEM beams col. 11, lines 36-41. Note step 430 in figure 4 shows scan high energy SEM across sample); and
iteratively repeating the pulsing and scanning steps a plurality of times to locally deposit material within the array of holes in the region of interest (see col. 11, lines 36-41 (note repeating the sequence is iteratively performing the steps), col. 11, lines 18-19 teaches this is a similar technique to that discussed with respect to figure 4. This method is localized to the area (col. 9, lines 5-8) as depicted in figures 5A-5C demonstrating the method of figure 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Litman teaches wherein the evaluation tool comprises a scanning electron microscope (SEM) column (fig. 3, 320) and a focused ion beam (FIB) (fig. 3A, 330) and the first charged particle column is the SEM column (see discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Litman teaches after locally depositing material within the array of holes in the region of interest (after step 430 (modified as discussed in col. 11, lines 36-41)), positioning the sample such that the region of interest is under a field of view of the FIB column (step 440) and milling the portion of the sample (step 450) that includes the array of holes in which the material was locally deposited (fig. 5C and col. 9, lines 21-26) by scanning a second charged particle beam generated by the FIB column across the region of interest (col. 9, lines 66-67 through col. 10, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Litman teaches wherein milling the portion of the sample includes scanning an ion beam across both the material deposited in the array of holes and the solid portions separating the holes (col. 10, lines 11-12) to iteratively delayer both the material in the array of holes and the solid portions separating the holes (col. 10, lines 6-12 teach sequentially remove slices of x by x microns that are each z microns deep, thus iterative removal of solid and deposited material).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Litman teaches after locally depositing material within the array of holes in the region of interest, acquiring a plurality of two- dimensional images of the region of interest by alternating a sequence of delayering the region of interest with a charged particle beam from the FIB column and imaging a surface of the region of interest with the SEM column (col. 10, lines 13-24 teach milling then imaging with SEM and repeating the process. The milling is performed by FIB, see col. 9, lines 65-67. Note an image generated by SEM of a region of dimensions X by X is inherently two-dimensional).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Litman teaches wherein the first charged particle beam is a high energy SEM beam generated by the SEM column (col. 10, lines 37-47 teach high energy electron beam).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Litman teaches wherein the sample is a semiconductor wafer (col. 2, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 10, Litman teaches a system for evaluating a region of interest on a sample (figure 3A-3B), the system comprising:
a vacuum chamber (310);
a sample support (350) configured to hold a sample (355) within the vacuum chamber (350/355 within vacuum chamber 310) during a sample evaluation process (see figure 4);
a first charged particle column (SEM 320) configured to direct a charged particle beam into the vacuum chamber toward the sample (see figure 3A-3B, SEM is configured to direct a CPB towards the sample 355 in chamber 310); and
a processor and a memory coupled to the processor (col. 7, lines 4-16), the memory including a plurality of computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor (col. 3, lines 1-6), cause the system to:
position the sample such that the region of interest is under a field of view of the first charged particle column (see discussion with respect to claim 1);
locally deposit material within an array of holes in the region of interest by: pulsing a flow of deposition gas to the region of interest by turning the flow of the deposition gas ON and then OFF (see discussion with respect to claim 1);
thereafter, scanning a charged particle beam generated by the first charged particle column across the region of interest (see discussion with respect to claim 1); and
iteratively repeating the pulsing and scanning steps a plurality of times to 19 locally deposit material within the array of holes in the region of interest (see discussion with respect to claim 1).
Claim 19 is broader than claim 10 and is anticipated by Litman as in the citations with respect to claims 10 and 9.
Claim 20 is commensurate in scope with claims 2-3 and is anticipated as discussed in the citations above.
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.
Claims 5, 8, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 14 and 17 Litman fails to expressly suggest each iteration of the pulsing and scanning steps takes less than or equal to 0.1 seconds.
However, Litman teaches the “charged particle beam can be focused at the surface 505 of wafer 500 to ensure a high degree of lateral accuracy and the scan rate (i.e., the beam velocity, which as would be understood by a person of skill in the art, is a combination of parameters including pixel size, dwell time and overlap) and i-probe (current) of the particle beam control the deposition rate and can be optimized for best results in terms of deposition quality within the holes.” (col. 8, lines 59-66).
Moreover, Litman teaches “Depending on how long the gas remains in the holes after gas flow is turned off, some embodiments that employ this technique can repeat the sequence of introducing gas into the chamber, stopping the gas flow and then exposing the wafer to an SEM beam to initiate deposition deep within the holes multiple times to deposit material within holes present at different locations of the wafer.”
That is, each iteration of pulsing (i.e. stopping the gas flow) and scanning is dependent on the result effective variables of deposition rate and optimized for best results in terms of deposition quality within the hole.
MPEP 2144.05 (II) recites “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in Litman. The instant specification also discloses that same result effective variable in paragraph [0045] of the instant published application. Specifically, paragraph [0045] recites “The charged particle beam can be focused at the surface 505 of wafer 500 to ensure a high degree of lateral accuracy and the scan rate (i.e., the beam velocity, which as would be understood by a person of skill in the art, is a combination of parameters including pixel size, dwell time and overlap) and i-probe (current) of the particle beam control the deposition rate and can be optimized for best results in terms of deposition quality within the holes.”
Note: this is the identical disclosure of Litman. There is no criticality disclosed with respect to each iteration of gas pulse and scanning being less than 1 second or less than 0.1 seconds. Specifically paragraph [0012] merely indicates that each iteration can take less than one second or can take less than or equal to 0.1 seconds. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the time of the iterations to less than 0.1 seconds because the desired result in both the instant application and Litman is to control the deposition rate and optimize for best results in terms of deposition quality within the holes (Litman (col. 8, lines 59-66) and instant published application [0045]). Therefore, given the variables due to scan velocity and length of time the gas remains in the hole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce each iteration of pulsing the gas and scanning as much as possible to improve the throughput of the deposition sequence, while retaining deposition quality within the holes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881