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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-16, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112.
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 7-13 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 7 recites the limitation "generating a new SEM image of the sample”. However, the claim does not recite generating an SEM image of the sample, and so this limitation is unclear because it cannot be ascertained whether a first SEM image of the sample has been generated prior to “generating a new SEM image of the sample”. Although the claim establishes “an SEM image of the wafer”, it is clear from Applicant’s arguments and specification, and from the amended language of claim 7, that the wafer is a structurally different element from the sample.
Claims 8-13 inherit the limitations of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding independent claim 7; Goto et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0071688 discloses a pattern inspection method comprising: inspecting a sample 108 with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (“the SEM image acquired from the reference sample 108 irradiated with the electron beam 103” [0056]); inspecting a wafer 109 (“an etched wafer sample is loaded as the sample 109 “ [0090]) with the SEM (“an SEM image acquired from the sample 109” [0057]); and inspecting a quality of an SEM image of the wafer (“the sample 109 including concave portions (observation target portions) to be actually observed is observed by the scanning electron microscope at any acceleration voltage. The scanning electron microscope generates an image at the acceleration voltage and calculates brightness ratios of the concave portions and their neighboring portions” [0053]), wherein the sample 108 comprises a plurality of holes having thicknesses that are different from each other (“the holes 301 have different, depths (H1, H2, H3, and H4). In addition, the holes 301 have different diameters (D1, D2, and D3). In this example, the depths of the hole sample A have a relationship of H1<H2<H3<H4. The diameters of the hole sample A have a relationship of D1>D2>D3” [0060]).
Goto discloses that “the operator re-evaluates the etching conditions (at 811). A wafer sample is prepared in the re-evaluated etching conditions, and the process is repeated from step 801 once again. Steps 801 to 808 are repeated until no defect is detected” [0094], this method of figure 8 includes this repeated imaging of the observation target sample 109, which is “a wafer sample having the same structure as the reference sample 108” [0090]. The reference sample 108 of Goto is equivalent to the claimed “sample” while the observation target sample 109 is equivalent to the claimed “wafer”. Goto does not disclose any repeated imaging of the reference sample 108, much less repeated imaging of the reference sample 108 based on a result of inspecting a quality of an SEM image of the observation target sample 109.
Since Goto teaches that the observation target sample 108 is a wafer (as discussed in paragraph [0090]), a broad interpretation of the claim that the claimed “sample” and “wafer” are a same element would be unreasonable since the claimed requires that “the pattern inspection method further comprises reinspecting the sample based on a result of the inspecting of the quality of the SEM image of the wafer”, thereby requiring that the “sample” and the “wafer” are different elements, such that the reinspecting the sample is based on inspecting the quality of the wafer. Therefore, Goto does not anticipate the limitations of the claim.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a pattern inspection method comprising: inspecting a quality of an SEM image of a wafer; and generating a new SEM image of a sample based on a result of the inspecting the quality of the SEM image of the wafer.
Regarding dependent claims 8-13; these claims would be allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 7.
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 14; claim 14 includes substantially similar limitations to those of independent claim 7 and is allowable at least for the reasons indicated with respect to independent claim 7.
Regarding dependent claims 15-20; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights