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 3/24/26 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 claim(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 6-10, 14-18 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13 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) 1-5, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biberger et al. (US 20160181058 A1) [hereinafter Biberger] in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20080224039 A1) [hereinafter Nakamura].
Regarding claim 1, Biberger teaches a charged particle beam device comprising:
a first deflector (required for operation of system, see e.g. first deflection element, [0010]) configured to scan a region of interest (e.g. center portion of e.g. fig 5: RZ11) with a beam emitted from a beam source (see fig 2: 3);
a second deflector (see e.g. second deflection element, [0010]) configured to retract the beam to outside of the region of interest after scanning the region of interest with the beam (outside of the region of interest, see fig 5: on RZ11; alternately referring to other RZ numbers);
one or more computer systems including one or more processors (required for operation of system, see [0047]) configured to execute a program stored in a storage medium,
wherein the one or more computer systems
(i) determine a retraction direction or a retraction position of the beam (note selection of subsequent positions, see [0008,79], requiring determination of the new scanning and retraction positions and directions of the beam e.g. between RZ lines, between RB scans, alternately implicit in determining scanning directions, or simply re-centering (retracting with or without blanking) the beam between scans as well known in the art) or (ii) output characteristic information regarding the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam based on a scanning direction of the beam in the region of interest.
Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose the first and second deflectors being utilized in the preferred embodiment (e.g. fig 5). However, some form of deflectors or beam control would have been required for the intended operation of the system, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective deflector pair system to enable the desired 2D control of the beam, in the manner taught by Biberger.
Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose an aperture plate disposed between the first deflector and the second deflector; and to control the second deflector to deflect the beam onto the aperture plate such that the beam is blocked by the aperture plate when the region of interest is not being scanned.
However, the use of blanking aperture plates was known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Nakamura teaches a system to use a deflector and aperture plate to turn the beam on and off on demand and avoid exposing regions of the substrate that do not to be imaged (see e.g. Nakamura, [0041,73,77]), said system using an aperture plate (see e.g. fig 1: 11a) disposed between the first deflector (see e.g. 3) and the second deflector (see e.g. 11c, [0041]); and to control the second deflector to deflect the beam onto the aperture plate such that the beam is blocked by the aperture plate when the region of interest is not being scanned (see [0041]). 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, to enable the ability to more precisely control the beam to enable the ability to avoid exposing regions of the substrate and turn the beam on and off on demand, the in manner taught by Nakamura.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Biberger and Nakamura teaches wherein the one or more computer systems determine the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam (required for operation of system, as discussed in claim 1) to prevent the beam from crossing a non- scanning region in the region of interest during the retraction of the beam (active beam spot not being scanned e.g. between rows in Biberger, fig 5; alternately defining the non-scanning region as one of the outer sides of fig 5: RB1-3).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Biberger and Nakamura teaches wherein the one or more computer systems determine the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam (required for operation of system, as discussed in claim 1) such that a region other than a non-scanning region (e.g. defining as another region not a non-scanning region) in the region of interest is irradiated with the beam during the retraction of the beam (e.g. during another row or RB where the beam is relatively retracted compared to a previous RB). Alternately it is noted that
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Biberger and Nakamura teaches wherein the one or more computer systems control the second deflector such that the beam passes outside of the region of interest from the retraction position (e.g. to a subsequent region of interest, see Biberger, fig 5), is moved to a release position (in a different region), and is moved from the release position to a start position of next scanning (in a different region for subsequent scanning).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Biberger and Nakamura may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computer systems control the first deflector such that the beam is deflected for scanning in the scanning direction multiple times in order from a position closest to the retraction position of the beam to a position farthest from the retraction position of the beam. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select a scanning order from whatever retraction position is determined/defined/selected, and/or constructively define the retracted position as that position furthest or closest from the scan line progression.
Regarding claim 11, Biberger teaches a charged particle beam device comprising:
a first deflector (required for operation of system, see e.g. first deflection element, [0010]) configured to scan a region of interest (e.g. center portion of e.g. fig 5: RZ11) with a beam emitted from a beam source (see fig 2: 3);
a second deflector (see e.g. second deflection element, [0010]) configured to retract the beam to outside of the region of interest after scanning the region of interest with the beam (outside of the region of interest, see fig 5: on RZ11; alternately referring to other RZ numbers);
one or more computer systems including one or more processors (required for operation of system, see [0047]) configured to execute a program stored in a storage medium,
wherein the one or more computer systems
(i) determine a retraction direction or a retraction position of the beam (note selection of subsequent positions, see [0008,79], requiring determination of the new scanning and retraction positions and directions of the beam e.g. between RZ lines, between RB scans, alternately implicit in determining scanning directions, or simply re-centering (retracting with or without blanking) the beam between scans as well known in the art) in the process of scanning a previous irradiation region that is scanned before the region of interest (during e.g. change of direction time, see [0018]; alternately note obviousness of performing subsequent exposures on different regions, and note obviousness of performing parallel unrelated calculations to save time) or (ii) output characteristic information regarding the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam in the process of scanning the previous irradiation region based on first information regarding a position of the region of interest or an irradiation position of the region of interest with the beam and second information regarding a position of the previous irradiation region.
Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose the first and second deflectors being utilized in the preferred embodiment (e.g. fig 5). However, some form of deflectors or beam control would have been required for the intended operation of the system, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective deflector pair system to enable the desired 2D control of the beam, in the manner taught by Biberger.
Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose an aperture plate disposed between the first deflector and the second deflector; and to control the second deflector to deflect the beam onto the aperture plate such that the beam is blocked by the aperture plate when the region of interest is not being scanned.
However, the use of blanking aperture plates was known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Nakamura teaches a system to use a deflector and aperture plate to turn the beam on and off on demand and avoid exposing regions of the substrate that do not to be imaged (see e.g. Nakamura, [0041,73,77]), said system using an aperture plate (see e.g. fig 1: 11a) disposed between the first deflector (see e.g. 3) and the second deflector (see e.g. 11c, [0041]); and to control the second deflector to deflect the beam onto the aperture plate such that the beam is blocked by the aperture plate when the region of interest is not being scanned (see [0041]). 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, to enable the ability to more precisely control the beam to enable the ability to avoid exposing regions of the substrate and turn the beam on and off on demand, the in manner taught by Nakamura.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bibinger and Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lam et al. (US 9466463 B1) [hereinafter Lam].
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Biberger and Nakamura teaches wherein the one or more computer systems determine the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam (required for operation of system, as discussed in claim 1) such that a region other than a non-scanning region (e.g. defining as another region not a non-scanning region) in the region of interest is irradiated with the beam during the retraction of the beam (e.g. during another row or RB where the beam is relatively retracted compared to a previous RB). Alternately it is noted that it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to scan a sample in a zigzag or serpentine patten. For example, Lam teaches scanning in both the same and alternating directions was equivalently effective to perform imaging (see Lam, col 15 line 65- col 16, line 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of a scan pattern as a routine skill in the art to obtain known effective imaging.
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 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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 2878
Prosecution Insights