DETAILED ACTION
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 on 12/17/25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claims.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 20050194533 A1) [hereinafter Okuda] in view of Nakamura et al. (WO2020084729A1) (US 20220044906 A1 will be used as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Okuda teaches a charged particle beam system comprising:
a charged particle beam device (SEM, see claim 1)
a computer system (required for intended operation of system) that controls an operation of the charged particle beam device, wherein
the computer system executes
a process of performing autofocus on each of a plurality of peripheral AF points set in the sample and outside a measurement area (see e.g. fig 2, [0034-35]; e.g. around defect(s) square(s)), and acquiring focus information of the plurality of peripheral AF points (see focus measurement, [0034-35], fig 1),
a process of approximating focus distribution within the measurement area based on the focus information of the plurality of peripheral AF points (e.g. [0038]), and
a process of measuring each measurement point (e.g. in defect) within the measurement area of the same sample as the sample from which the focus information is acquired, using the approximated focus distribution (see abstract), and
Okuda may fail to explicitly disclose a detector. However, some kind of detector would be required for the intended operation of the SEM, and the use of secondary electron detectors was well known in the art. o
Okuda may fail to explicitly disclose the pixel range being a predetermined pixel range. However, it would have been obvious to repeatedly expand the size by a set amount automatically until the result is stable, and/or provide an operator a UI option to bump the region size (e.g. similar to divert point UI option in fig 7). It is noted that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Okuda may fail to explicitly disclose the computer system determining the failed AF point has failed.
However, some kind of determination by the operator or computer would be required to determine the calculation is unstable (see Okuda, [0047]). Okuda does teach the desirability of reducing time necessary for automatic focusing by setting up the wider region for AF when AF on a narrow focusing region fails (see [0085-86]). It is unclear what the calculation is. However, the use of automated autofocus failure determination was known in the art. For example, Nakamura teaches a known effective system to determine autofocus failure based on a user adjustable sharpness level (see e.g. Nakamura, [0064,75], claim 21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Nakamura in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of automatic autofocusing to save time, while also enabling user selectable sharpness thresholding, in the manner taught by Nakamura.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura teaches the computer system further executes a process of performing autofocusing on at least one internal AF point set within the measurement area (e.g. see Okuda, defining the measurement area as a portion of fig 2 comprising some but not all focus position points) and acquiring focus information of the at least one internal AF point (all information used to develop focus map), and in the process of approximating the focus distribution, the computer system approximates the focus distribution within the measurement area based on the focus information of the plurality of peripheral AF points and the focus information of the at least one internal AF point (see calculated focus map in fig 1, e.g. minimizing square error, see [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura may fail to explicitly disclose the computer system executes the process of acquiring the focus information of the plurality of peripheral AF points and the process of approximating the focus distribution within the measurement area each time a sample to be measured changes. However, given the teaching that the surface deformation is caused by wafer warpage, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to repeat the process every time the specimen changes, in order to optimize corrections for individual deformations in different specimens. It is noted that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura teaches the computer system updates the approximated focus distribution based on a measurement result of the measurement point within the measurement area (see e.g. Okuda, [0052], fig 1), and uses the updated focus distribution for measurement of measurement points subsequent to the measurement point (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura teaches the computer system executes a process of acquiring an image of the measurement point using the approximated focus distribution before update (see e.g. fig 1: 133, [0040], before updating for that measurement point), a process of calculating an [image data] (see focus measures, e.g. [0040,43]), and updating the focus distribution (see [0040]). Okuda may fail to explicitly disclose the image data being an image evaluation value and a measurement value from the acquired image, and a process of comparing the image evaluation value with a first threshold and comparing the measurement value with a second threshold, respectively, and updating the focus distribution according to the two comparison results. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the image evaluation value and measurement value may be defined as values based on the image data, and the thresholds may be defined as e.g. thresholds for maximization of the focus measure function (see [0045]). Inasmuch as the references address mathematical calculations of the same problem, using same parameters, applying a modified mathematical approach without changing the issue being addressed is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. The equations themselves are not a patentable subject matter; as to the method steps utilizing particular equations, the use of particular mathematical means would have accomplished the same result.
Regarding claim 10, Okuda teaches wherein in the process of updating the focus distribution, the computer system acquires focus information by performing autofocusing on the measurement point (see Okuda, fig 1, note repeating [0055]), and updates the focus distribution using the focus information of the measurement point (see fig 1).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda and Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasajima et al. (US 20120138796 A1) [hereinafter Sasajima].
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose a first deflector. However, deflectors appear to be required for the intended operation of the system, and the use of deflectors to control SEMs was well known in the art. For example, Sasajima explicitly teaches controlling scanning deflectors to expose different size areas (see Sasajima, [0163]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Sasajima in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the intended operation of exposing different size areas. Therefore the combined teaching of Okuda and Sasajima teaches a first deflector configured to deflect the charged particle beam (see Sasajima, [0163]), and the computer system applies coordinates of the measurement point to the approximated focus distribution to calculate a focus parameter (see e.g. Okuda, fig 1; alternately see focusing on the sub region, fig 7), and applies the focus parameter to the first deflector to measure the measurement point (see exposing different region and/or size, see also Sasajima, [0168]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Okuda, Nakamura, and Sasajima teaches the computer system calculates a size of a set region (see e.g. detection region, Okuda, [0047]) surrounded by the plurality of peripheral AF points (detection region is only part of the entire wafer comprising many AF points, not including any previous AF points calculated, see fig 1), and determines whether or not the [parameters are] appropriate based on the size of the set region (see [0047], unstable focus measure calculation). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the parameters include the set number of peripheral AF points. However, the focus measure function calculation is naturally based on the number of peripheral AF point (see figs 1,9, [0012], used to generate focus map and Z_est) and will fail if the focus map estimation fails, due to insufficient AF points causing a defective focus map (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to pause the operation of the system and/or flag the operator when a focus measure calculation fails (similar to a related failure discussed in [0047]), since this indicates the underlying focus map generation, and thereby the number of peripheral AF points, is inadequate.
Regarding claim 6, Okuda teaches a charged particle beam system comprising:
a charged particle beam device (SEM, see claim 1)
a computer system (required for intended operation of system) that controls an operation of the charged particle beam device, wherein
the computer system executes
a process of performing autofocus on each of a plurality of peripheral AF points set in the sample and outside a measurement area (see e.g. fig 2, [0034-35]; e.g. around defect(s) square(s)), and acquiring focus information of the plurality of peripheral AF points (see focus measurement, [0034-35], fig 1),
a process of approximating focus distribution within the measurement area based on the focus information of the plurality of peripheral AF points (e.g. [0038]), and
a process of measuring each measurement point (e.g. in defect) within the measurement area of the same sample as the sample from which the focus information is acquired, using the approximated focus distribution (see abstract), and
the computer system calculates a size of a set region (see e.g. detection region, [0047]) surrounded by the plurality of peripheral AF points (detection region is only part of the entire wafer comprising many AF points, not including any previous AF points calculated, see fig 1), and determines whether or not the [parameters]
Okuda may fail to explicitly disclose a detector. However, some kind of detector would be required for the intended operation of the SEM, and the use of secondary electron detectors was well known in the art. o
Okuda may fail to explicitly disclose the computer system determining the set number of peripheral AF points is not appropriate.
However, some kind of determination by the operator or computer would be required to determine the calculation is unstable (see Okuda, [0047]). Okuda does teach the desirability of reducing time necessary for automatic focusing by setting up the wider region for AF when AF on a narrow focusing region fails (see [0085-86]). It is unclear what the calculation is. However, the use of automated autofocus failure determination was known in the art. For example, Nakamura teaches a known effective system to determine autofocus failure based on a user adjustable sharpness level (see e.g. Nakamura, [0064,75], claim 21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Nakamura in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of automatic autofocusing to save time, while also enabling user selectable sharpness thresholding, in the manner taught by Nakamura.
The combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura may fail to explicitly disclose the parameters include the set number of peripheral AF points. However, the focus measure function calculation is naturally based on the number of peripheral AF point (see Okuda, figs 1,9, [0012], used to generate focus map and Z_est) and will fail if the focus map estimation fails, due to insufficient AF points causing a defective focus map (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to pause the operation of the system and/or flag the operator when a focus measure calculation fails (similar to a related failure discussed in [0047]), since this indicates the underlying focus map generation, and thereby the number of peripheral AF points, is inadequate.
The combined teaching of Okuda and Nakamura may fail to explicitly disclose the computer system outputs a notification urging setting of further peripheral AF points.
However, Okuda teaches some kind of intervention and correction would be required when the set region size setting fails (see e.g. Okuda, [0047]), and the use of error messages and notifications to alert operators to undesirable conditions was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed (see e.g. Nakamura, [0075], Sasajima, [0174-175]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the user error feedback of Nakamura and/or Sakajima in the prior art to enable the error notification, including generically suggesting correction of the underlying user-inputted points (including but not limited to number and position of peripheral AF points), because a skilled artisan would want to enable an operator to effectively recover from any failed states, including suggesting reviewing all user-defined parameters.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda and Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakahira et al. (US 20160343540 A1) [hereinafter Nakahira].
Regarding claim 11, Okuda teaches the computer system displays a user interface on a screen of a display unit (see Okuda, e.g. fig 7) but may fail to explicitly disclose using the UI for setting and inputting the peripheral AF points by an operator. However, Okuda teaches the setting and inputting all the AF points is done directly by manual control (see Okuda, [0034]), and the use of a UI to select points was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Nakahira teaches a known effective GUI system that enables an operator to select and deselect points of interest by using left and right mouse clicks (see Nakahira, [0145]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Nakahira in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the intended operation of allowing operator manual control over the points, while enabling easy selection and deselection of points, as taught by Nakahira.
Regarding claim 12, Okuda teaches the computer system displays a user interface on a screen of a display unit (see Okuda, e.g. fig 7) but may fail to explicitly disclose using the UI for setting and inputting the peripheral AF points and the internal AF point by an operator. However, Okuda teaches the setting and inputting all the AF points is done directly by manual control (see Okuda, [0034]), and the use of a UI to select points was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Nakahira teaches a known effective GUI system that enables an operator to select and deselect points of interest by using left and right mouse clicks (see Nakahira, [0145]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Nakahira in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the intended operation of allowing operator manual control over the points, while enabling easy selection and deselection of points, as taught by Nakahira.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881