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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is missing a conjunction relating the items in the list. For purposes of examination the items will be treated similarly to claim 7, as comprising one or the other. Consider including the word “or”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "…the fifth specifiable location…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-14 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.
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 (deflection control electrode 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;
while the first particle beam is guided over the object, controlling a second deflection device for guiding the second particle beam over the object using a second control unit such that the second particle beam is 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 is capable of positioning the electron beam at a first 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 second particle beam is positionable at the first specifiable location on the object using the second deflection device, deflecting the first particle beam from the object to a second specifiable location using a first deflection unit (when the electron beam is able to be positioned at the first specifiable location on the sample, 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])(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.); and
only when the first particle beam has been deflected to the second specifiable location, or only when the first particle beam has reached the second specifiable location (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], 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]) (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 has been deflected to the second specifiable location’ or ‘the first particle beam has reached the second specifiable location’ being met.).
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 (58, which controls 54 for guiding the second particle beam over the object, controls 53 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 3, “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” 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 deflection of the first particle beam from the object to the second specifiable location’ being met (see claim 1 from which claim 3 depends).
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]. This interpreted control unit is capable of positioning the ion beam at a fourth specifiable location on the sample 19 while the electron beam is guided over the object because this control unit controls the deflector which is capable of deflecting the electron beam onto the sample at some fourth specifiable location, [0013], [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 9, “wherein the deflection of the second particle beam to the third specifiable location or the fifth specifiable location begins at a sixth time, with the sixth time, on the one hand, occurring temporally later than the fourth time and with the sixth time, on the other hand, occurring temporally earlier than the fifth time” 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 third specifiable location’ being met (see claim 4 from which claim 9 depends).
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).
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]);
while the first particle beam is guided over the object, controlling a second deflection device to guide a second particle beam over the object using a second control unit such that the second particle beam is 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 is capable of positioning the electron beam at a first 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 second particle beam is positionable at the first specifiable location on the object using the second deflection device, deflecting the first particle beam from the object to a second specifiable location using a first deflection unit (when the electron beam is able to be positioned at the first specifiable location on the sample, 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])(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 is positionable at the first specifiable location on the object using the second deflection device’ being met.); and
only when the first particle beam has been deflected to the second specifiable location, or only when the first particle beam has reached the second specifiable location (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], 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]) (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 has been deflected to the second specifiable location’ or ‘the first particle beam has reached the second specifiable location’ being met.).
Conclusion
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