DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
In view of the amendment to claim 10, the objection to claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 §USC 112(b)
In view of the amendment to claim 9, the indefiniteness rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 §102
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although claims 1 and 14 have been amended, they fail to overcome the cited art of Ito. The remarks state on pg. 3 that “there is no teaching in Ito to control the electron beam while guiding the first particle beam.” The remarks are found to be unpersuasive because Ito teaches controlling the electron beam while guiding the ion beam (first particle beam). In particular, Ito teaches that the electron beam is controlled (via the interpreted second control unit (55, 54, and part of 58) including the electron beam blanking controller 55) to be blanked while the ion beam scans the sample. This is depicted in Fig. 7 of Ito and discussed in at least paragraphs [0013]-[0014] of Ito. See the translated version of Ito’s Fig. 7 below for reference. See the 102 rejection below for further details.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 06/02/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3 and 9 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 3 recites “wherein the deflection of the first particle beam from the object to the second specifiable location begins at a third time, with the third time, on the one hand, occurring temporally later than the first time and with the third time, on the other hand, occurring temporally earlier than the second time” contains idiomatic language that renders the claim narrative and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito, et. al. (JP H09204897 A) (See English Translation for paragraph numbers), hereinafter Ito.
For reference, a translated version of Fig. 7 of Ito is provided:
PNG
media_image1.png
575
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a method for imaging, processing and/or analyzing an object using a particle beam device ([0001]) having a first particle beam with first charged particles (focused ion beam, [0005]) and having a second particle beam with second charged particles (electron beam, [0005]), the method comprising:
guiding the first particle beam over the object using a first deflection device (blanking electrode 16, blanking aperture 17, and deflection control electrode 18 for the ion beam, [0009]), which is controlled by a first control unit (ion beam blanking controller 53, ion beam scanning controller 52, and part of controller 58 that controls timing of the ion beam scanning and blanking [0014]);
performing at least one of the following: processing the object using the first particle beam (processing a workpiece with the ion beam [0007], [0011]) or detecting first interaction particles and/or a first interaction radiation using at least one detector, wherein the first interaction particles and/or the first interaction radiation result/results from an interaction of the first particle beam with the object;
controlling a second deflection device for guiding the second particle beam over the object, while the first particle beam is guided over the object, using a second control unit such that the second particle beam is brought into a switching state to be positionable at a first specifiable location on the object (electron beam blanking controller 55, electron beam scanning controller 54, and part of controller 58 that controls timing of the electron beam scanning and blanking are together interpreted as the second control unit that controls deflection elements of the electron beam, [0013]-[0014]. This interpreted control unit controls the electron beam deflection, blanking and scanning elements such that it is capable of switching positions based on signals/commands, [0014], therefore, the second particle beam is in a “switching state” (state in which the second particle beam is under the control of the interpreted controller such that it can be positioned as desired) during operation, including the times when the first particle beam is guided over the object. This interpreted control unit controls the deflector such that it is able to position the electron beam (the beam is “positionable”) at a first specifiable location on the sample 19, [0014]. Note that the claim, as written, does not require the switching and positioning of the second beam take place during the first particle beam being guided over the object. Rather, the claim merely requires the second particle beam being in a “switching state” and “positionable”, i.e. capable of being positioned, while the first particle beam is guided over the object.);
following guiding the first particle beam over the object, deflecting the first particle beam from the object to a second specifiable location using a first deflection unit (after the ion beam is guided over the object, the ion beam is deflected/blanked to a second specifiable location as controlled by the ion beam scanning and blanking control unit 53, 52, 58, [0013], [0014], Fig. 7); and
following deflecting the first particle beam (blanking the ion beam (deflected to the second specifiable location), [0013]), deflecting the second particle beam from a third specifiable location to the first specifiable location on the object using a second deflection unit and guiding the second particle beam from the first specifiable location on the object over the object using the second deflection device (electron beam goes from blanked (third specifiable location) to deflected onto the sample at the first specifiable location to be scanned over the sample using the blanking and scanning control of the electron beam 53, 54, 58, [0013]-[0014], Fig. 7), and performing at least one of the following: processing the object using the second particle beam or detecting second interaction particles and/or a second interaction radiation which results/results from an interaction of the second particle beam with the object, using the detector (detecting secondary electrons, [0006], [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Ito teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing program code, which is loadable into a processor and which, when executed, controls a particle beam device to perform the following (control device 58, Fig. 1, [0014]):
guiding a first particle beam over an object using a first deflection device, which is controlled by a first control unit (scanning of ion beam via deflection electrode controlled by ion beam scanning controller 52 of an interpreted first control unit including 52, 53, and part of 58 that controls the ion beam, [0013]-[0014]);
performing at least one of the following: processing the object using the first particle beam or detecting first interaction particles and/or a first interaction radiation using at least one detector, wherein the first interaction particles and/or the first interaction radiation are a result of an interaction of the first particle beam with the object (ion beam processes the sample, [0007], [0011]);
controlling a second deflection device for guiding a second particle beam over the object, while the first particle beam is guided over the object, using a second control unit such that the second particle beam is brought into a switching state to be positionable at a first specifiable location on the object (electron beam blanking controller 53, electron beam scanning controller 54, and part of controller 58 that controls timing of the electron beam scanning and blanking are together interpreted as the second control unit that controls the deflection electrode of the ion beam, [0014]. This interpreted control unit controls the deflector such that it is capable of switching positions based on signals/commands, [0014], therefore, the second particle beam is in a “switching state” (state in which the second particle beam is under the control of the interpreted controller such that it can be positioned as desired) during operation, including the times when the first particle beam is guided over the object. This interpreted control unit controls the deflector such that it is able to position the electron beam (the beam is “positionable”) at a first specifiable location on the sample 19, [0014]. Note that the claim, as written, does not require the switching and positioning of the second beam take place during the first particle beam being guided over the object. Rather, the claim merely requires the second particle beam being in a “switching state” and “positionable”, i.e. capable of being positioned, while the first particle beam is guided over the object.);
following guiding the first particle beam over the object, deflecting the first particle beam from the object to a second specifiable location using a first deflection unit (after the ion beam is guided over the object, the ion beam is deflected/blanked to a second specifiable location as controlled by the ion blanking controller 53 of the ion beam scanning and blanking control unit 53, 52, 58, [0013]); and
following deflecting the first particle beam (blanking the ion beam (deflected to the second specifiable location), [0013]), deflecting the second particle beam from a third specifiable location to the first specifiable location on the object using a second deflection unit and guiding the second particle beam from the first specifiable location on the object over the object using the second deflection device (electron beam goes from blanked (third specifiable location) to deflected onto the sample at the first specifiable location to be scanned over the sample using the blanking and scanning control of the electron beam 55, 54, 58, [0013], Fig. 7), and performing at least one of the following: processing the object using the second particle beam or detecting second interaction particles and/or a second interaction radiation which results/results from an interaction of the second particle beam with the object, using the detector (detecting secondary electrons, [0006], [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Ito teaches further comprising:
controlling the second deflection device for guiding the second particle beam over the object beginning at a first time, at which the first particle beam is still being guided over the object (the interpreted second control unit 58,54, 55 which controls the blanking/deflecting/scanning elements of the electron beam column for guiding the electron beam over the object, controls the blanking elements at a first time to blank the electron beam while the ion beam is being guided over the object, [0013]-[0014], Fig. 7); and
processing the object using the second particle beam and/or detecting the second interaction particles and/or the second interaction radiation, which result/results from the interaction of the second particle beam with the object, beginning at a second time, with the second time occurring temporally later than the first time (at a second time, the electron beam scans the object and the interaction particles are detected by the secondary electron detector 12, [0012]-[0013], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ito teaches further comprising:
while the second particle beam is guided over the object, controlling the first deflection device for guiding the first particle beam over the object using the first control unit such that the first particle beam is positionable at a fourth specifiable location on the object (ion beam blanking controller 53, ion beam scanning controller 52, and part of controller 58 that controls timing of the ion beam scanning and blanking are together interpreted as the first control unit, [0014]. While the electron beam is scanned, the blanking/deflecting/scanning elements of the ion beam column are controlled via this interpreted first control unit. The electron beam is capable of being positioned “positionable” at a fourth specifiable location on the object. [0014]-[0014], Fig. 7);
when the first particle beam is positionable at the fourth specifiable location on the object using the first deflection device, deflecting the second particle beam from the object to the third specifiable location using the second deflection unit (when the ion beam is able to be positioned at the fourth specifiable location on the sample, the electron beam is deflected/blanked to the third specifiable location as controlled by the electron beam scanning and blanking control unit 53, 54, 58, [0013]-[0014], Fig. 7) (Note: this limitation is a contingent limitation and is not required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111.04 II. The limitation is contingent because the limitation depends on ‘the first particle beam is positionable at the fourth specifiable location on the object using the first deflection device’ being met.); and
only when the second particle beam has been deflected to the third specifiable location, or only when the second particle beam has reached the third specifiable location (blanking the electron beam (deflected to the third specifiable location), [0013]-[0014]), deflecting the first particle beam from the second specifiable location on the object to the fourth specifiable location on the object using the first deflection unit and guiding the first particle beam from the fourth specifiable location on the object over the object using the first deflection device (ion beam goes from blanked (second specifiable location) to deflected onto the sample at the fourth specifiable location to be scanned over the sample using the blanking and scanning control of the ion beam 53, 52, 58, [0013]-[0014], Fig. 7), and performing at least one of the following: processing the object using the first particle beam or detecting the first interaction particles and/or the first interaction radiation which results/results from the interaction of the first particle beam with the object, using the detector (processing the sample with the ion beam [0007], [0011]) (Note: this limitation is a contingent limitation and is not required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111.04 II. The limitation is contingent because the limitation depends on ‘the second particle beam being positionable at the first specifiable location on the object using the second deflection device’ being met.).
Regarding claim 5, Ito teaches further comprising at least one of the following:
the third specifiable location used is a location in the particle beam device that is not arranged on the object, and as a result the second particle beam guided onto the third specifiable location does not interact with the object (the interpreted third specifiable location is the location the particle beam is deflected during blanking such that the particle beam is not incident on the sample, [0009], [0012]-[0014]);or
the third specifiable location used is a location on the object that has already been imaged, processed and/or analyzed.
Regarding claim 8, Ito teaches further comprising:
controlling the first deflection device for guiding the first particle beam over the object beginning at a fourth time, at which the second particle beam is still being guided over the object (58, which controls 52 for guiding the first particle beam over the object, controls 55 at a fourth time to blank the electron beam while the electron beam is still being guided over the object, [0013]-[0014], Fig. 7); and
processing the object using the first particle beam and/or detecting the first interaction particles and/or the first interaction radiation, which result/results from the interaction of the first particle beam with the object, beginning at a fifth time, with the fifth time occurring temporally later than the fourth time (at a fifth time, the ion beam processes the sample, [0013], [0016], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Ito teaches further comprising:
while the second particle beam is guided over the object, controlling the first deflection device for guiding the first particle beam over the object using the first control unit such that the first particle beam is positionable at a fourth specifiable location on the object (electron beam blanking controller 53, electron beam scanning controller 54, and part of controller 58 that controls timing of the electron beam scanning and blanking are together interpreted as the second control unit that controls the deflection electrode of the ion beam, [0014]. This interpreted control unit is capable of positioning the electron beam at a fourth specifiable location on the sample 19 while the first particle beam is guided over the object because this control unit controls the deflector which is capable of deflecting the electron beam onto the sample, [0014]);
when the first particle beam is positionable at the fourth specifiable location on the object using the first deflection device, deflecting the second particle beam from the object to a fifth specifiable location using the second deflection unit (when the electron beam is able to be positioned at the fourth specifiable location on the sample, the ion beam is deflected/blanked to a fifth specifiable location as controlled by the ion beam scanning and blanking control unit 53, 52, 58, [0013])(Note: this limitation is a contingent limitation and is not required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111.04 II. The limitation is contingent because the limitation depends on ‘the first particle beam is positionable at the fourth specifiable location on the object using the first deflection device’ being met.); and
only when the second particle beam has been deflected to the fifth specifiable location, or only when the second particle beam has reached the fifth specifiable location (blanking the ion beam (deflected to the fifth specifiable location), [0013]), deflecting the first particle beam from the second specifiable location on the object to the fourth specifiable location on the object using the first deflection unit and guiding the first particle beam from the fourth specifiable location on the object over the object using the first deflection device (electron beam goes from blanked (second specifiable location) to deflected onto the sample at the fourth specifiable location on the sample to be scanned over the sample using the blanking and scanning control of the electron beam 53, 54, 58, [0013], Fig. 7), and performing at least one of the following: processing the object using the first particle beam or detecting the first interaction particles and/or the first interaction radiation which results/results from the interaction of the first particle beam with the object, using the detector (detecting secondary electrons, [0006], [0012]) (Note: this limitation is a contingent limitation and is not required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111.04 II. The limitation is contingent because the limitation depends on ‘the second particle beam has been deflected to the fifth specifiable location’ or ‘the particle beam has reached the fifth specifiable location’ being met.).
Regarding claim 7, Ito teaches further comprising one of the following:
the fifth specifiable location used is a location in the particle beam device that is not arranged on the object, and as a result the second particle beam guided onto the fifth specifiable location does not interact with the object (the interpreted fifth specifiable location is the location the particle beam is deflected during blanking such that the particle beam is not incident on the sample, [0009], [0012]-[0014]); or
the fifth specifiable location used is a location on the object that has already been imaged, processed and/or analyzed.
Regarding claim 10, Ito teaches further comprising:
the second specifiable location used is a location in the particle beam device that is not arranged on the object, and as a result the first particle beam guided onto the second specifiable location does not interact with the object (the interpreted fifth specifiable location is the location the particle beam is deflected during blanking such that the particle beam is not incident on the sample, [0009], [0012]-[0014]);
the second specifiable location used is a location on the object that has already been imaged, processed and/or analyzed.
Regarding claim 11, Ito teaches further comprising:
transmitting signals for guiding the first particle beam and the second particle beam between the first control unit and the second control unit (ion beam scanning controller 52, and electron beam scanning controller 54 are controlled via control device 58, Fig. 1, such that signals are transmitted between the two interpreted units through the control device, [0014], Fig. 1), wherein; the first deflection unit is controlled with the first control unit (ion beam blanking controller 53 is controlled with interpreted first control unit comprising 53, 52, 58), the second deflection unit is controlled with the second control unit (electron beam blanking controller 55 is controlled with interpreted second control unit comprising 55, 54, 58), and signals for deflecting the first particle beam and the second particle beam are transmitted between the first control unit and the second control unit (interpreted first and second control units are connected via controller 58 such that signals are transmitted between them, Fig. 1, [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches wherein the first control unit and the second control unit are identical and form an individual control unit (55, 54, 53, 52, 59, and 58 are interpreted as the individual control unit), and wherein both the first deflection unit and also the second deflection unit are controlled with the individual control unit (Fig. 1, [0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Ito teaches wherein: the first particle beam used is an electron beam or an ion beam (ion beam is interpreted as the first particle beam, [0013], Fig. 7) and/or the second particle beam used is an electron beam or an ion beam (electron beam is interpreted as the second particle beam, [0013], Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 is allowable over Ito, the closest prior art to the claimed invention, for its recitation requiring that the third time occurring temporally earlier than the second time.
Claim 9 is allowable over Ito, the closest prior art to the claimed invention, for its recitation requiring that the sixth time occurs temporally later than the fourth time.
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 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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights