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 12/10/25 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) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-15 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) 1-6, 8-9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. (US 20210005422 A1) [hereinafter Nakashima] in view of Tanimoto et al. (US 20050072941 A1) [hereinafter Tanimoto].
Regarding claim 1, Nakashima teaches a method of processing a sample using a multi-beam of charged particles (see fig 1) provided by a column configured to direct a multi-beam of sub-beams of charged particles (see fig 1: 20) onto a sample surface of a sample (see 101), the method comprising:
performing the following operations in sequence using a first sub-beam:
(a) move the sample in a direction parallel to a first direction (see e.g. x direction, figs 3,4, [0047]) a distance
(b) displace the sample in a direction oblique or perpendicular to the first direction (see fig 3, repeating exposure for each stripe 32); and
(c) repeat operations (a) and (b) multiple times to process further elongate regions with the first sub-beam (see repeating process for each stripe 32 in fig 3), the plurality of processed elongate regions defining a first sub-beam processed area (see fig 4b).
Nakashima may fail to explicitly disclose the multi-beam of charged particles being separate from the multi-beam of sub-beams of charged particles. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these sub-beams may refer to different multi-beams/sub-beams or multi-beams/sub-beams in different parts of the column. Furthermore, separation of a multi-beam into sub-beams was well known in the art as a technique to produce electron sub-beams for exposure.
Nakashima may fail to explicitly disclose the distance being substantially equal to a pitch at the sample surface of the sub-beams in the multi-beam in the first direction.
However, Tanimoto teaches a dual pass system to overcome problems with beamlet failure in multibeam systems, comprising moving the scanning region in a direction parallel to a first direction a distance substantially equal to a pitch at the sample surface of the sub-beams (see where shifted by the pitch for one beamlet row, e.g. [0155]) in the multi-beam in the first direction (whichever direction is desired) while using the column to repeatedly scan the multi-beam over the sample surface (see fig 9). Tanimoto also teaches flexibly adjusting the number of subfields in an exposure pattern (see e.g. [0200]), which would also modify the amount of movement of the sample during each exposure step (see e.g. fig 9, showing an example of SF1-8). 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 teaching of Tanimoto into the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve compensation for defective beamlets, including shifting the sample a single sub-beam pitch distance in the first direction (or any of the other 3 directions) and/or enable the flexibly ability to adjust the number of subfields exposed per main field (including a speed wherein the system only moves the substrate one beam pitch per exposure step) to provide effective defective beamlet compensation, in the manner taught by Tanimoto.
Regarding claim 2, Nakashima teaches a maximum range of scanning of the multi-beam by the column in (a) is less than a minimum pitch at the sample surface of the sub-beams in the multi-beam (see Nakashima, fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, Nakashima teaches the distance of displacement of the sample in (b) is such that the plurality of processed elongate regions in the first sub-beam processed area are partially overlapping or contiguous (see e.g. Nakashima, e.g. [0061], e.g. figs 14-17).
Regarding claim 4, Nakashima teaches a performance of (a)-(c) with a second sub-beam defines a second sub- beam processed area that is partially overlapping or contiguous with the first sub-beam processed area (see e.g. Nakashima, e.g. [0061], e.g. figs 14-17; see also Tanimoto, e.g. [0155]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakashima teaches wherein the displacement of the sample in (b) is parallel to the second direction (see y direction, see Nakashima, figs 3, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Nakashima teaches wherein the scans of the multi-beam over the sample by the column in (a) are all performed in the same direction (see y direction, Nakashima, figs 3,4).
Regarding claim 8, Nakashima teaches wherein movements of the sample in (a) during repeated performance of (a) and (b) are all in the same direction (see Nakashima, figs 3,4).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Nakashima and Tanimoto teaches performing the following operations in sequence after operations (a)-(c): (d) displace the sample by a distance equal to at least twice a pitch at the sample surface of the sub-beams in the multi-beam (during exposure of one or more subsequent stripes, which will naturally move the sample more than that distance); and (e) repeat (a)-(d) (during a further subsequent exposure with beamlet compensation).
Regarding claim 13, Nakashima teaches wherein the displacement of the sample in (d) is performed with the sample positioned further away from the column than during movement of the sample in (a)-(c) (defining the position at (d) is where the column is further away than (a)-(c) from the center of the target).
Regarding claim 14, Nakashima teaches where a footprint of the column is defined as the smallest bounding box on the sample surface that surrounds all of the sub-beam processed areas from a performance of (a)-(c) (see e.g. Nakashima, fig 4b), the distance of displacement of the sample in (d) is substantially equal to or greater than a dimension of the footprint parallel to the direction of movement of sample (see fig 3, in y direction).
Regarding claim 15, Nakashima teaches a charged-particle system, comprising:
a stage (see fig 1: 105) for supporting a sample (see 101) having a sample surface; and
a column (see 102) configured to direct a multi-beam of sub-beams of charged particles (see 20) onto the sample surface, wherein the system is configured to control the stage and column to perform the following in sequence using a first sub-beam:
(a) use the stage to move the sample in a direction parallel to a first direction (see e.g. x direction, figs 3,4, [0047]) a distance
(b) use the stage to displace the sample in a direction oblique or perpendicular to the first direction (see fig 3, repeating exposure for each stripe 32); and
(c) repeat (a) and (b) multiple times to process further elongate regions with the first sub-beam (see repeating process for each stripe 32 in fig 3), the plurality of processed elongate regions defining a first sub-beam processed area (see fig 4b).
Nakashima may fail to explicitly disclose the distance being substantially equal to a pitch at the sample surface of the sub-beams in the multi-beam in the first direction.
However, Tanimoto teaches a dual pass system to overcome problems with beamlet failure in multibeam systems, comprising moving the scanning region in a direction parallel to a first direction a distance substantially equal to a pitch at the sample surface of the sub-beams (see where shifted by the pitch for one beamlet row, e.g. [0155]) in the multi-beam in the first direction (whichever direction is desired) while using the column to repeatedly scan the multi-beam over the sample surface (see fig 9). Tanimoto also teaches flexibly adjusting the number of subfields in an exposure pattern (see e.g. [0200]), which would also modify the amount of movement of the sample during each exposure step (see e.g. fig 9, showing an example of SF1-8). 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 teaching of Tanimoto into the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve compensation for defective beamlets, including shifting the sample a single sub-beam pitch distance in the first direction (or any of the other 3 directions) and/or enable the flexibly ability to adjust the number of subfields exposed per main field (including a speed wherein the system only moves the substrate one beam pitch per exposure step) to provide effective defective beamlet compensation, in the manner taught by Tanimoto.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima and Tanimoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lam et al. (US 9466463 B1) [hereinafter Lam].
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Nakashima and Tanimoto may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the scans of the multi-beam over the sample by the column 35 in (a) are all performed in alternating directions. However, 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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima and Tanimoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 20150187540 A1) [hereinafter Ito].
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Nakashima and Tanimoto may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sample is moved using independently actuatable long- stroke and short-stroke stages, a maximum range of motion of the long-stroke stage being longer than a maximum range of motion of the short-stroke stage. However, some form of 2D stage would have been required for the intended operation of the system (see e.g. Nakashima, fig 3), the use of long and short stroke stages to move substrates in beam exposure systems was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Ito teaches a known effective stage system that is capable of holding parallel columns and targets, while controlling the exact position of targets with six degrees of freedom (see Ito, [0016-17]), said system comprising wherein the sample is moved using independently actuatable long- stroke and short-stroke stages (see [0016]), a maximum range of motion of the long-stroke stage being longer than a maximum range of motion of the short-stroke stage (required for operation of system, see fig 1). 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 Ito in the system of the prior art to enable the intended operation of system, while enabling the flexibility to control multiple targets each with six degrees of freedom, as taught by Ito.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Nakashima, Tanimoto, and Ito may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sample is moved in operations (a)-(c) using the short- stroke stage. However, 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 appropriate stages to control the relative movement in the x and y directions, including only using the short-stroke stage for small distance movements.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Nakashima, Tanimoto, and Ito may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sample is moved in operation (d) using the long-stroke stage. However, 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 appropriate stages to control the relative movement in the x and y directions, including using the long-stroke stage for distances greater than the range of the short-stroke stage (see Ito, fig 1, areas of targets not reachable without long stage movement).
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
Prosecution Insights