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 .
Claim Status
Claims 16-35 are pending
Claims 17, 30, and 32 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The double patenting rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer.
Applicant argues that electron detector (222) of Ogasawara is not “configured to be used to determine an alignment characteristic associated with” the detector (230) of Ogasawara. This is not persuasive. First, the limitation at issue is not simply about the configuration of a detector for performing a function, but instead it is a configuration of a detector for a use. Accordingly, the question is not whether the prior art detector was purpose built for a particular function or even capable of a particular function, rather, the question is whether one could use the second electron detection system to determine an alignment characteristic associated with the first electron detection device. The claim does not specify the extent to which the detector must be used, nor does it even describe what manner it should contribute to the function (e.g., By detecting aligned electrons? By not being in the way of aligned electrons? By holding a flashlight as a technician makes adjustments to alignment?). Rather than analyze the ambiguities and breadth of such claim language, it is easier to simply ask, could one use the second electron detection device of Ogasawara to achieve the claim function? The answer is unambiguously yes. There are at least two reasons to believe as much. First, Ogasawara teaches the same relationship between the first and second detectors as that claimed, i.e. a second detector that moves in front of a first detector so as to obscure it. This correspondence in structure clearly indicates a capability to perform an identical function, i.e., the claimed configuration of use. Second, Ogasawara describes detector (230) being used to align a secondary electrons on their path to detector (222). See Para 158. Therein is a description of determining alignment characteristics of secondary electron beam with respect to the projection lens, which in turn images said secondary electrons onto the first detector (222). That is to say, Ogasawara determines alignment characteristics of the microscope associated with the first electron detection device by using its second electron detection device. For the reasons above, the rejections of record are maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 18-22, 24-25, 31, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0051487 A1 [Ogasawara] in view of US 2019/0355544 A1 [Riedesel].
Regarding Claim 16:
Ogasawara teaches a charged particle beam apparatus for inspecting a wafer (Fig. 22), comprising:
a first electron detection device to detect a plurality of secondary electron beams for inspection of the wafer in an inspection mode (Fig. 22 (222) para 155); and
a second electron detection device to generate one or more images of multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams in an alignment mode (Fig. 22 (230), para 60-61, 158),
wherein the second electron detection device is configured to be used to determine an alignment characteristic associated with the first electron detection device (paras 60-61, 158), and
wherein the second electron detection device is configured to receive the plurality of secondary electron beams in the alignment mode (as shown in Fig. 22).
However, Ogasawara fails to teach that the alignment characteristic determination is based on sizes and shapes of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams.
Riedesel teaches a charged particle beam apparatus for inspecting a wafer (Fig. 1) wherein a detector determines alignment characteristics based on sizes and shapes of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams. Figs. 5a-5f and paras 91-96. In particular, Figs. 5c, 5d, and 5e and their corresponding paragraphs detail correcting alignment based on the sizes of secondary electron beam spots, and Fig. 5d and its corresponding paragraphs detail correcting alignment based on the shapes of secondary electron beam spots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the shape and size measurements and related alignments of Riedesel to Ogasawara. One would have been motivated to do so in order to correct the focus, astigmatisms, and magnification of the system.
Regarding Claim 18:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the alignment characteristic associated with the first electron detection device comprises a characteristic of one or more of the plurality of secondary electron beams related to alignment of the one or more of the plurality of secondary electron beams with the first electron detection device. Riedesel paras 91-96; Ogasawara paras 60-61.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 16, further comprising a secondary projection system to project the plurality of secondary electron beams onto a detection surface of the first electron detection device or a detection surface of the second electron detection device. Ogasawara Fig. 22 (224, 226).
Regarding Claim 20:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the secondary projection system is aligned with a secondary optical axis. As shown in Ogasawara Fig. 22.
Regarding Claim 21:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the secondary projection system projects the plurality of secondary electron beams onto the detection surface of the first electron detection device in the inspection mode (Ogasawara para 155) and onto the detection surface of the second electron detection device in the alignment mode (Ogasawara para 158).
Regarding Claim 22:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 16, further comprising a controller including circuitry (Ogasawara para 45) to determine, based on the one or more images of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams, the alignment characteristic associated with the first electron detection device (Ogasawara para 91, Fig. 3 (116-120); Riedesel paras 91-96).
Regarding Claim 24:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the controller includes circuitry (Ogasawara para 45) to automatically adjust a configuration of a secondary projection system to calibrate alignment of the one or more of the plurality of secondary electron beams with the first electron detection device, based on the determined alignment characteristic (Ogasawara para 91, Fig. 3 (116-120); Riedesel paras 91-96).
Regarding Claim 25:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the alignment characteristic comprises a focus quality of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams. Ogasawara para 156; Riedesel para 93.
Regarding Claim 31:
Ogasawara teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to cause the computing device to perform operations for inspecting a wafer (para 45) using a charged particle beam system with a secondary projection system to project a plurality of secondary electron beams onto a detection surface of a first electron detection device (Fig. 22), the operations comprising:
instructing the charged particle beam system to project the plurality of secondary electron beams to be received by a second electron detection device (as shown in Fig. 22);
acquiring one or more images of multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams using the second electron detection device (Fig. 22 (230), paras 60-61, 258); and
determining an alignment characteristic associated with the first electron detection device (para 60-61, 258).
However, Ogasawara fails to teach that the alignment characteristic determination is based on sizes and shapes of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams.
Riedesel teaches a charged particle beam apparatus for inspecting a wafer (Fig. 1) wherein a detector determines alignment characteristics based on sizes and shapes of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams. Figs. 5a-5f and paras 91-96. In particular, Figs. 5c, 5d, and 5e and their corresponding paragraphs detail correcting alignment based on the sizes of secondary electron beam spots, and Fig. 5d and its corresponding paragraphs detail correcting alignment based on the shapes of secondary electron beam spots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the shape and size measurements and related alignments of Riedesel to Ogasawara. One would have been motivated to do so in order to correct the focus, astigmatisms, and magnification of the system.
Regarding Claim 34:
The above modified invention teaches the computer readable medium of claim 31, wherein the operations further comprising:
automatically adjusting a configuration of the secondary projection system to calibrate alignment of the one or more of the plurality of secondary electron beams with the first electron detection device, based on the determined alignment characteristic (Ogasawara para 91, Fig. 3 (116-120); Riedesel paras 91-96).
Regarding Claim 35:
The above modified invention teaches the computer readable medium of claim 31, wherein the alignment characteristic comprises a focus quality of one or more beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams. Ogasawara para 156; Riedesel para 93.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0051487 A1 [Ogasawara] in view of US 2019/0355544 A1 [Riedesel] as applied to claim 16, and further in view of US 2019/0378681 A1 [Stejskal].
Regarding Claim 26:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second electron detection device comprises:
an electron-to-light conversion unit configured to convert the plurality of secondary electron beams to a plurality of light beams (Ogasawara para 43).
However, the above modified invention fails to teach:
an optical camera to produce the one or more images of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams based on the plurality of light beams.
Stejskal teaches an electron detector (Fig. 4) including a scintillator layer for converting a plurality of electron beams to a plurality of light beams (Fig 4 (2)), para 42) and an optical camera to produce the one or more images of the multiple beam spots of the plurality of secondary electron beams based on the plurality of light beams (Fig. 4 - CCD sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to substitute the electron detector of Stejskal for the wide area electron detector (230) of Ogasawara. This would have been obvious because the detectors perform the same function, i.e., detecting location resolved electrons, in substantially the same way, i.e. by conversion of electrons at a scintillator followed by detection of equivalent photons, and as such the substitution would yield highly predictable results.
Regarding Claim 27:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the second electron detection device further comprises a mirror to direct the plurality of light beams to the optical camera. Stejskal Fig. 4 shows an elliptical mirror performing this function.
Regarding Claim 28:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the electron-to-light conversion unit includes a scintillator. Ogasawara para 43, Stejskal para 42, Riedesel paras 80-81.
Regarding Claim 29:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the optical camera includes a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor or a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor. Stejskal para 44.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0051487 A1 [Ogasawara] in view of US 2019/0355544 A1 [Riedesel] as applied to claim 16, and further in view of US 2016/0329186 A1 [Li].
Regarding Claim 23:
The above modified invention teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the controller includes circuitry to adjust a configuration of a secondary projection system to calibrate alignment of the one or more of the plurality of secondary electron beams with the first electron detection device, based on the determined alignment characteristic. Ogasawara Fig. 22 (128), Fig. 3.
However, the above modified invention fails to teach that the circuitry has a user interface to receive user input.
Li teaches a charged particle optical system (abstract) including circuitry providing a user interface for controlling the optical system (para 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the manual control interface of Li to Ogasawara. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow a user to implement desired adjustments to the system.
Regarding Claim 33:
The above modified invention teaches the computer readable medium of claim 31, wherein operations further comprising:
adjust a configuration of the secondary projection system to calibrate alignment of the one or more of the plurality of secondary electron beams with the first electron detection device, based on the determined alignment characteristic. Ogasawara Fig. 22 (128), Fig. 3.
However, the above modified invention fails to teach providing a user interface to receive user input regarding apparatus control.
Li teaches a charged particle optical system (abstract) including circuitry providing a user interface for controlling the optical system (para 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the manual control interface of Li to Ogasawara. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow a user to implement desired adjustments to the system.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights