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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 8 refers to item number ‘810bc’. The specification refers to items “810b” and “810c”. This appears to be a typographical error that should read ‘810c’. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0006], [0036], [0116]-[0117], and [0217] recites “especially prepared samples” or “samples that are especially prepared”. It is unclear how a sample can be ‘especially’ prepared, and what Applicant intends by such language. Under a plain reading, the phrase ‘especially prepared’ would be read as ‘prepared even more’, ‘prepared very much’, or ‘prepared in particular’, however, it is unclear what these would mean in such a context. Examiner considered the possibility that Applicant intended to indicate ‘specially prepared’, as in, prepared for a specific purpose and/or having special/particular properties, however, ‘specially’ would also be somewhat unclear in context as written, as the specification does not indicate what would be required by such a preparation that would make it ‘special’, and so Examiner does not believe this was Applicant’s intent. Neither especially prepared nor specially prepared are defined by the specification, and the conventional meaning does not appear to make sense in context, and as such, it is not clear what this terminology is intended to mean. For purposes of examination (i.e., for Examiner’s understanding of the scope of support in the specification), this disclosure is interpreted as meaning ‘prepared samples exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design’.
[0157] and [0162] refer to item
N
L
⃑
as a maximum value of an index, however, Fig. 3 shows “K” as the maximum value of this index. This discrepancy should be ameliorated.
[0180] refers to item 51 as the first layer, however, this item is previously indicated in [0180] as item 52a, and the figure accordingly refers to item 52a.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “determined by the respective landing energy”. While definite in the context of “each of the e-beams”, Examiner nevertheless believes “the respective landing energy” could lead to clarity issues, and should recite ‘its respective landing energy’ to indicate the correspondence of the landing energies to the beams
Claim 8 recites “wherein, in order to determine the set of structural parameters, the processing circuitry is configured to execute a trained algorithm, which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities either raw or following initial processing by the processing circuitry;”, which is somewhat unclear due to a grammatical issue. Examiner believes the claim should have another comma prior to ‘either raw or following initial processing’, as it is an interjecting clause: ‘…which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities, either raw or following initial processing by the processing circuitry;’.
Claim 12 has a superfluous comma which would introduce potential clarity issues in the claim in “a measurement operation comprising obtaining a measured set of electron intensities by performing, for each of a plurality of landing energies, selected so as to allow probing an inspected sample to a plurality of depths, suboperations of…”, which should read ‘a measurement operation comprising obtaining a measured set of electron intensities by performing, for each of a plurality of landing energies selected so as to allow probing an inspected sample to a plurality of depths, suboperations of’.
Claim 17 recites “in order to determine the set of structural parameters, executed is a trained algorithm, which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities”, which does not make sense upon plain reading, and should read ‘in order to determine the set of structural parameters, a trained algorithm is executed, which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities’. Claim 17 is also somewhat unclear because of the second use of ‘which’ in “executed is a trained algorithm, which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities, either raw or following initial processing, which comprises isolating, or at least amplifying…”. It is not clear based on the wording alone what the second ‘which’ refers back to, as it could be referring to the measured set of electron intensities or the trained algorithm. However, in context, such interpretations wouldn’t make sense, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the second which to be directed towards the initial processing, and accordingly Examiner believes the claim is definite in context. Nevertheless, the ambiguity should be ameliorated, for example: ‘a trained algorithm is executed, which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities, either raw or following initial processing, the initial processing comprising isolating, or at least amplifying…’.
Claim 20 recites “the sample”. While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis. Consistent terminology should be used in the claims. Accordingly, this should read ‘the inspected sample’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, claims 1 and 12 recite “taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample”, and claims 6 and 16 similarly recites “take/taking into account measured sets of electrons intensities”, however, the specification does not describe what is intended/required by ‘taking into account’. The specification refers to ‘taking into account’ various reference data, however, it does not describe how the data is ‘taken into account’, nor how one would perform such a limitation (i.e., no method steps or exemplary techniques). It provides no boundaries on what would or would not be included in ‘taking into account’, and no instruction as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would take such data ‘into account’ in order to perform the other required limitations of the claims. Furthermore, the specification contains no instruction linking the ‘processing circuitry’ to this function, rather merely reciting similar language to the claim, and there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the “taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample” and the claimed circuitry.
While there is a presumption that adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed (See MPEP 2163.I.A), the feature of claim 1 requiring ‘’taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample” is an essential/critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and is not conventional or known in the art. Furthermore, while Applicant discloses the processing circuitry as containing software instructions to perform the methods described, it nevertheless does not describe how such software instruction would ‘take into account’ data, or what would constitute ‘taking into account’. Accordingly, while an ordinarily skill artisan would be reasonably apprised of ordinary coding techniques for designing such software, the function required by such software is not adequately described, and thus typical software coding techniques which could be viewed as known or inherent cannot provide written description for such functionality.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would thus accordingly read such a limitation plainly, wherein upon a plain reading ‘taking into account’ would be understood as meaning ‘accounting for’, ‘paying attention to’, ‘bearing in mind’, ‘considering’, ‘incorporating’, etc. However, this would still leave an ordinarily skilled artisan to speculate as to how one should ‘take into account’ such data, which could mean any number of different techniques having widely varying scopes, some of which would clearly not be supported by the disclosure. Accordingly, because the specification contains no such instruction, the claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and the claims are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample”, however, it is unclear what is required by ‘taking into account’. The claim provides no instruction or boundary on what actions would or would not be included in ‘taking into account’, and the specification provides no further instruction as to what is intended/required by such language. An ordinarily skilled artisan would thus accordingly read such a limitation plainly, wherein upon a plain reading ‘taking into account’ would be understood as meaning ‘accounting for’, ‘paying attention to’, ‘bearing in mind’, ‘considering’, ‘incorporating’, etc. However, this would still leave an ordinarily skilled artisan to speculate as to how one should ‘take into account’ such data, which could mean any number of different techniques having widely varying scopes. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such actions would even be patent eligible (see below), because as claimed, it appears the claim scope includes actions which can be performed by the human mind. However, this is unclear, because the scope of such a limitation is wholly unclear, and thus it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. Claims 6 and 16 similarly recite “take/taking into account measured sets of electrons intensities”, which is indefinite for similar reasons. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as omitted, as Examiner would be required to speculate as to what is intended by such language, and because it appears such language includes subject matter which is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites “taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample”, however, it is not clear what is required for the reference data to be ‘indicative of’ an intended design. Such a limitation does not provide a clear boundary as to what is and is not required by the claim, and what would or would not be included in the scope of the claim. Under plain reading and the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this would appear to require that the reference data contain some information about/related to the intended design of the inspected sample, however, this ‘reference data’ is not limited by the claim, and the claim does not require any further relationship for the reference data to be ‘indicative’ of an intended design. Accordingly, under plain reading, the claim would allow for the reference data to include any information that indicates an intended design, which is clearly beyond the scope supported by the specification. Examiner thus looks to the specification for instruction, wherein the specification describes the ‘reference data’ as “design data of the inspected sample and/or ground truth (GT) data of other samples of the same intended design as the inspected sample and/or GT data of especially prepared samples exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design” (Emphases added by Examiner), and further specifies “As used herein, the term “reference data” may refer to structural information, which is initially available (i.e. prior to implementing method 100) and which specifies, or is indicative of, a nominal internal geometry and/or a nominal composition of an inspected sample” (Emphases added by Examiner). However, Examiner notes that this information is merely instructive as to potential ‘reference data’ types, as such limitations are not claimed, and it would be improper for Examiner to read limitations from the specification into the claims. In the case of ‘structural information…which specifies a nominal internal geometry/composition’, if claimed, such a limitation would be clear and definite. However, ‘structural information’ that is merely ‘indicative’ of a nominal internal geometry/composition does not require ‘specifying’ such information in the same manner, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, and does not clearly delineate what would or would not be required by the claim. Under the BRI, the reference data being ‘indicative’ of an intended design would allow for various interpretations having different scopes, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Applicant should positively recite in the claims any limitations pertaining to properties/relationships/functionality that are intended to be required. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as omitted for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “GT data of especially prepared samples exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘especially prepared samples’. As discussed in regards to the objection to the specification, it is unclear how a sample can be ‘especially’ prepared. In the context of claim language, it is also unclear how a sample being ‘especially prepared’ would limit the scope of the claims, because it is not clear what Applicant intends by such language. Under a plain reading, the phrase ‘especially prepared’ would be read as ‘prepared even more’, ‘prepared very much’, or ‘prepared in particular’, however, it is unclear what these would mean in this context. A sample will either be prepared exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design or not be prepared as such. It is unclear how a sample can be ‘especially prepared’ to exhibit the variations. As discussed above, Examiner considered the possibility that Applicant intended to indicate ‘specially prepared’, as in, prepared for a specific purpose and/or having special/particular properties, however, as discussed above the specification does not indicate what would be required by such a preparation that would make it ‘special’, and so Examiner does not believe this was Applicant’s intent. The phrase ‘especially prepared’ is not defined by the specification, and the conventional meaning does not appear to make sense in context, and as such, it is not clear what this terminology is intended to mean, and thus, it is unclear how this would limit the scope of the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘prepared samples exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design’.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the set of structural parameters specifies one or more concentration maps quantifying a dependence of one or more concentrations of one or more substances, respectively, which the inspected sample comprises, at least on the depth”, which is unclear in meaning, as the wording does not make clear what ‘respectively’ corresponds to. Thus, at present, it is not clear what would and would not be required by the claim. Additionally, the portion of the claim reading “wherein the set of structural parameters specifies one or more concentration maps quantifying a dependence of one or more concentrations of one or more substances…at least on the depth” is indefinite for another reason. The term “the depth” lacks antecedent basis, as no particular depth was previously indicated or required in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the set of structural parameters specifies one or more concentration maps, each concentration map quantifying a respective dependence of a concentration of a substance at least on depth, wherein the inspected sample comprises each respective substance’.
Claims 5 and 15 do not clearly delineate what is and is not required by the claim because of the use of ‘and/or’ in this context. In particular, the claims recite “wherein the set of structural parameters comprises one or more of: [item 1]; and [item 2]; and/or [item 3].” This is equivalently both ‘one or more of: [item 1]; and [item 2]; and [item 3]’ and ‘one or more of: [item 1]; and [item 2]; or [item 3]’. However, the latter case does not make sense. In the case of ‘one’ or ‘two’ (more than one), it is unclear what ‘one/two of [item 1]; and [item 2]; or [item 3]’ would require. Accordingly, it would not be clear what limitations would and would not be required under some of the claimed groupings. Additionally, the claims recite “when the inspected sample comprises a plurality of layers…”, followed by ‘one or more of: [three additional items]’. This is a conditional limitation, however, there is no requirement or guarantee that the condition actually be met, and thus, it unclear whether the following limitations further limits the claim if they are never required to be performed. Applicant should positively recite elements of the system/method that are required for the functionality claimed. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘wherein the set of structural parameters comprises one or more of: one or more overall concentrations of one or more substances, respectively, that the inspected sample comprises; and at least one width of at least one structure, respectively, which is embedded in the inspected sample.’
Claim 6 recites “further configured to allow projecting the e-beams so as to impinge on the inspected sample at each of controllably selectable lateral locations thereon”. It is unclear what is required by ‘configured to allow’, as this wording does not positively recite any limitation on any structure of the system or any functionality thereof. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation further limits the system, as it would appear that any structure which does not actively inhibit such functionality would read on this limitation. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of further examination of indefiniteness issues, this limitation is interpreted as only excluding structures that inhibit such functionality.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the concentration map is three-dimensional” and “in generating the concentration map”, however, claim 4, on which claim 6 depends, requires “one or more concentration maps”. Accordingly, in the case of more than one concentration map, it’s not clear which concentration map would be ‘the’ concentration map. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of further examination of indefiniteness issues, these limitations are interpreted as ‘the one or more concentration maps are three-dimensional’ and ‘in generating the one or more concentration maps’, respectively.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, in generating the [one or more] concentration map[s]…”, however, the processing circuitry is not previously required to generate any concentration map. Claim 1 requires processing circuitry for determining a set of structural parameters, based on the measured set of electron intensities. Claim 4 requires that the set of structural parameters specifies one or more concentration maps. In other words, the set of structural parameters (which ‘specifies’ the concentration map(s)) are based on measured data, and are not ‘generated’ by the processing circuitry previously in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of further examination of indefiniteness issues, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, in determining the set of structural parameters that specifies the one or more concentration maps…’.
Claims 6 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to…take into account measured sets of electron intensities obtained by the electron sensor for each of the lateral locations”. First, it is unclear what is required by ‘take into account’ as discussed above. Additionally, the claims do not previously require measuring sets of electron intensities for each of the lateral locations by the electron sensor. As previously discussed, claim 6 does not require actually performing ‘projecting e-beams so as to impinge on the inspected sample at each of controllably selectable lateral locations thereon’, nor does it require that functionality for any claimed element of the system. Furthermore, the electron sensor is not previously required to acquire electron intensities for each of the lateral locations, nor is it required to have such functionality, as the electron sensor is only previously required to obtain measured electron intensities pertaining to (understood as ‘corresponding to’) each of the landing energies (but no lateral movement is required, nor is the system required to be capable of performing such lateral movement). Accordingly, it is unclear how the processing circuitry could ‘take into account’ such ‘measured sets of electron intensities…for each of the lateral locations’, and what ‘taking into account’ would require. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination on the merits, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the processing circuitry is configured to…use measured sets of electron intensities obtained by the electron sensor for each of the lateral locations’.
Claim 8 recites “the projected e-beams”, however, no e-beams are actually required to be projected in the claims. Claim 1 is merely requires ‘an electron beam (e-beam) source for projecting e-beams’, but does not require any particular e-beams actually being projected. As such, the term lacks antecedent basis, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘projected e-beams’.
Claims 11 and 20 recite “each map coordinate”, however, no particular map coordinates are previously required by the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘each map coordinate of a plurality of map coordinates’.
Claims 11 and 20 have several superfluous commas in (i) and (ii) which obscure the meaning of the claim upon plain reading, as it disrupts the correspondence of the parts of the sentence from one another in an ambiguous way. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘(i) a substance having a highest density about the map coordinate, out of a plurality of substances which the inspected sample comprises, and/or (ii) a density of a target substance which the inspected sample comprises to within a respective density range from a plurality of density ranges’ and ‘(i) a substance having a highest density about the map coordinate, out of a plurality of substances which the sample comprises, and/or (ii) a density of a target substance which the sample comprises to within a respective density range from a plurality of density ranges’, respectively.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the set of structural parameters specifies a concentration map quantifying a dependence of a concentration of a target substance…at least on the depth”. The term “the depth” lacks antecedent basis, as no particular depth was previously indicated or required in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the set of structural parameters specifies a concentration map quantifying a dependence of a concentration of a target substance…at least on depth’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “processing circuitry for determining a set of structural parameters…based on the measured set of electron intensities and taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample” and “a data analysis operation comprising determining a set of structural parameters…based on the measured set of electron intensities and taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample”, respectively. ‘Taking into account’ reference data which are ‘indicative’ of an intended design of the inspected sample is understood as comprising a mental process which “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, as ‘taking into account data that is indicative of an intended design’ can be performed by the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite significant structure or method steps for integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 1 is directed toward ‘non-destructive depth-profiling’, which is done by first performing conventional measurement techniques (i.e., projecting e-beams at various landing energies and obtaining corresponding measured sets of electron intensities), and using this data to determine a set of structural parameters with processing circuitry (i.e., generic processing devices), based on the measured set of electron intensities and taking into account reference data. The use of e-beams to acquire measured sets of electron intensities is interpreted as routine data gathering which represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Meanwhile, the key step of determining the set of structural parameters (i.e., to actually achieve the goal of non-destructive depth-profiling) relies upon ‘taking into account reference data’. In other words, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because the remainder of the claim pertains to mere data gathering in a typical manner using conventional elements/techniques, which is a mere precursor to the use of the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is required to include the judicial exception in order to achieve its primary function, and the remaining elements of the claim are well represented in the prior art (see below). For example, a typical e-beam source and an electron sensor for measuring backscattered electrons, which are merely used for routine data gathering, cannot be considered ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception, as they are conventional elements used for insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 6 and 16 recite similar language that is not patent eligible for similar reasons.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 depend on claims 1 and 12, respectively, and are thus also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for these respective dependences.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boughorbel (U.S. Patent No. US 8232523 B2).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches a system for non-destructive depth-profiling of samples (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 49-52), the system comprising:
an electron beam (e-beam) source for projecting e-beams at each of a plurality of landing energies on an inspected sample (Col. 4, Lines 20-21; Col. 5, Lines 1-40);
an electron sensor for obtaining a measured set of electron intensities pertaining to each of the landing energies (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Examiner notes ‘pertaining to’ is interpreted as ‘associated with’, as no particular relationship is required between the measured set of electron intensities and the landing energies); and
processing circuitry for determining a set of structural parameters, which characterizes an internal geometry and/or a composition of the inspected sample, based on the measured set of electron intensities (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See Claim 10) and taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample (See above discussion; for completeness: See embodiments 1 and 2, in which parameters are changed due to type of sample, which is interpreted as ‘taking into account’ reference data ‘indicative of’ an intended design of the sample).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 1.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein each of the e-beams is configured to penetrate the inspected sample to a respective depth, determined by the respective landing energy, such that the inspected sample is probed over a desired range of depths (Col. 4, Lines 20-21; Col. 5, Lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 1.
Boughorbel teaches wherein the reference data comprise design data of the inspected sample and/or ground truth (GT) data of other samples of the same intended design as the inspected sample (Col. 1, Lines 25-48; Boughorbel indicates such techniques using prior knowledge of samples of the same intended design as known in the prior art) and/or GT data of especially prepared samples exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 1.
Boughorbel wherein the set of structural parameters specifies one or more concentration maps quantifying a dependence of one or more concentrations of one or more substances, respectively, which the inspected sample comprises, at least on the depth (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 1.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein the set of structural parameters comprises one or more of:
one or more overall concentrations of one or more substances, respectively, that the inspected sample comprises (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10); and
at least one width of at least one structure, respectively, which is embedded in the inspected sample; and/or
when the inspected sample comprises a plurality of layers, one or more of:
at least one thickness of at least one of the plurality of layers, respectively (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10);
a combined thickness of at least some of the plurality of layers(Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10); and
at least one mass density of at least one of the plurality of layers, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 4.
Boughorbel further teaches further configured to allow projecting the e-beams so as to impinge on the inspected sample at each of controllably selectable lateral locations thereon (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col 2, Line 4; Col. 5, Lines 59-62; Col. 6, Lines 1-7);
wherein the concentration map is three-dimensional (Col. 6 Lines 35-67; Examiner additionally notes that Boughorbel discusses determining depth resolved measured data at a plurality of lateral locations throughout the disclosure, which would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as reading on the map being ‘three-dimensional’); and
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, in generating the concentration map, take into account measured sets of electron intensities obtained by the electron sensor for each of the lateral locations (Col. 5, Lines 59-62; Col. 6 Lines 35-67).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 1.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein the electron sensor is configured to sense electrons returned from the inspected sample, thereby obtaining the measured set of electron intensities (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 1.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein, in order to determine the set of structural parameters, the processing circuitry is configured to execute a trained algorithm (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col. 2, Line 18; Col. 3, Line 49 – Col. 4, Line 67, describing various algorithm techniques applied (and alternatives), several of which that read on ‘trained’; Embodiment 4, starting Col. 8, Line 45, describing further potentially usable trained algorithm techniques; See also NPL references which are referenced in Boughorbel and were provided via Applicant’s IDS dated 02/21/2025), which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities either raw or following initial processing by the processing circuitry (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col. 2, Line 18; Col. 3, Line 49 – Col. 4, Line 67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments); and
wherein the initial processing of the measured set of electron intensities comprises isolating, or at least amplifying, contributions to the raw measured set of electron intensities of backscattered electrons induced by the projected e-beams (Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; Examiner notes for completeness that this limitation would not be required in the case of raw data being provided to the algorithm).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches a computer-based method for non-destructive depth-profiling of samples (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 49-52; Examiner notes ‘computer-based’ is inherent in the disclosed embodiments of Boughorbel), the method comprising:
a measurement operation comprising obtaining a measured set of electron intensities by performing, for each of a plurality of landing energies, selected so as to allow probing an inspected sample to a plurality of depths (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 1-40), suboperations of:
projecting an electron beam (e-beam) on the inspected sample, which penetrates the inspected sample and induces scattering of electrons from a respective volume thereof determined by the landing energy (Col. 4, Lines 20-21; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; See also specific embodiments, e.g. Embodiment 1); and
measuring an electron intensity by sensing backscattered electrons returned from the inspected sample (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; See also specific embodiments, e.g. Embodiment 1); and
a data analysis operation comprising determining a set of structural parameters, which characterizes an internal geometry and/or a composition of the inspected sample, based on the measured set of electron intensities (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See Claim 10) and taking into account reference data indicative of an intended design of the inspected sample (See above discussion; for completeness: See embodiments 1 and 2, in which parameters are changed due to type of sample, which is interpreted as ‘taking into account’ reference data ‘indicative of’ an intended design of the sample).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the method of claim 12.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein the reference data comprise design data of the inspected sample and/or ground truth (GT) data of other samples of the same intended design as the inspected sample (Col. 1, Lines 25-48; Boughorbel indicates such techniques using prior knowledge of samples of the same intended design as known in the prior art) and/or GT data of especially prepared samples exhibiting selected variations with respect to the intended design.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the method of claim 12.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein the set of structural parameters specifies a concentration map quantifying a dependence of a concentration of a target substance, which the inspected sample comprises, at least on the depth (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the method of claim 12.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein the set of structural parameters comprises one or more of:
one or more overall concentrations of one or more substances, respectively, that the inspected sample comprises (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10); and
at least one width of at least one structure, respectively, which is embedded in the inspected sample; and/or
when the inspected sample comprises a plurality of layers, one or more of:
at least one thickness of at least one of the plurality of layers, respectively (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10);
a combined thickness of at least some of the plurality of layers (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 60-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; See claim 10); and
at least one mass density of at least one of the plurality of layers, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the method of claim 14.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein, in the measurement operation, the e- beams are projected so as to impinge on the inspected sample at each of controllably selectable lateral locations thereon (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col 2, Line 4; Col. 5, Lines 59-62; Col. 6, Lines 1-7);
wherein the concentration map is three-dimensional (Col. 6 Lines 35-67; Examiner additionally notes that Boughorbel discusses determining depth resolved measured data at a plurality of lateral locations throughout the disclosure, which would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as reading on the map being ‘three-dimensional’); and
wherein, in the data analysis operation, the concentration map is generated taking into account measured sets of electrons intensities, which are obtained for each of the lateral locations, respectively (Col. 5, Lines 59-62; Col. 6 Lines 35-67).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the method of claim 12.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein, in the data analysis operation, in order to determine the set of structural parameters, executed is a trained algorithm (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col. 2, Line 18; Col. 3, Line 49 – Col. 4, Line 67, describing various algorithm techniques applied (and alternatives), several of which that read on ‘trained’; Embodiment 4, starting Col. 8, Line 45, describing further potentially usable trained algorithm techniques; See also NPL references which are referenced in Boughorbel and were provided via Applicant’s IDS dated 02/21/2025), which is configured to receive as an input the measured set of electron intensities, either raw or following initial processing (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 52 – Col. 2, Line 18; Col. 3, Line 49 – Col. 4, Line 67; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments), which comprises isolating, or at least amplifying, contributions to the raw measured set of electron intensities of the backscattered electrons induced by the projected e-beams (Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Col. 6 Lines 35-67; See also additional embodiments; Examiner notes for completeness that this limitation would not be required in the case of raw data being provided to the algorithm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boughorbel (U.S. Patent No. US 8232523 B2) in view of Houben (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20240054669 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b) issues identified above, Boughorbel teaches the system of claim 8.
Boughorbel further teaches wherein weights of the trained algorithm are determined through training (See for example Embodiment 3, and NPL references which are referenced in Boughorbel and were provided via Applicant’s IDS dated 02/21/2025)
Examiner notes that under the BRI, the claim requires ‘wherein weights of the trained algorithm are determined through training using [item 1] and [item 2], and/or [item 3]’, which Examiner thus understands as requiring either ‘[item 1] and [item 2], and [item 3]’ (requiring all three) or ‘[item 1] and [item 2], or [item 3]’ (requiring one of [item 1 and item 2] or [item 3]).
The prior art Houben teaches typical steps for training Neural Networks (NNs; i.e., trained algorithms), including generating training data by generating calibration data that is real measurement data, using the calibration data to calibrate a computer simulation algorithm that outputs simulated measurement data sets, using the calibrated computer simulation to generate simulated measurement data sets for addition