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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument II. A. (beginning on page 9) that an effective principal plane of an objective lens (as described in Ose) is fundamentally different from the claimed principal plane of an objective lens. Applicant provides no evidence to support this assertion, does not point to any part of Ose which makes a special definition of the term "effective principal plane", and does not point to any language of the claims of the immediate application (or the specification of the immediate application), which makes such a distinction. Therefore, it is interpreted that the "effective principal plane" of Ose, is a type of "principal plane", as claimed in the current application.
Additionally, Applicant's argument is undercut by the language of the claims, as the deflector of claim 1, for example, is not located at the principal plane, but "substantially" at a principal plane.
On page 10, Applicant defines that "an effective principal plane of the cited art is a modeling construct used to approximate the behavior of a magnetic objective lens as an equivalent thin lens for purposes such as calculating working distance and magnification. Applicant fails to provide evidence that Ose relies upon such a definition, or that such a definition differs from the claimed invention.
Applicant contends, on page 10, that the claimed "principal plane" is a "physically defined optical plane tied to the structure of the objective lens", but Applicant does not cite any portion of the claims, specification, or prior art to support such a definition.
As such, it is impossible to say that an "effective principal plane", as defined in Ose, is anything other than a specific type of "principal plane", as claimed in the present application.
Further, since the claims actually require that the deflector be located "substantially" at a principal plane of an objective lens, even if the deflector of Ose were considered to be located at a location other than the principal plane itself, then the "effective principal plane" of Ose can reasonably be considered to be "substantially" at the principal plane.
Applicant contends, on page 10, that "the cited art's effective principal plane of an objective lens, in this context, refers to an excitation-dependent plane that varies depending on operating conditions such as lens excitation, beam energy, and applied fields". Applicant provides no evidence of explanation in Ose, the specification of the immediate application, or the prior art, to support such an assertion, and therefore, such a narrow definition cannot be applied to this language.
Applicant contends, on page 11, that the "effective principal plane" of Ose is a variable position that changes based on the excitation of the objective lens; however, Applicant does not provide any evidence, in either the claims or the specification of the immediate application, to suggest that the claimed principal plane is independent of excitation of the objective lens.
Further, since the claims actually require that the deflector be located "substantially" at a principal plane, it is not clear that the claimed deflector location is a defined point, but is instead a variable position including a range of positions other than the principal plane itself.
Regarding Applicant's argument (on page 12) that the Office's conclusion that the cited references could be read as disclosing a deflected "located substantially at a principal plane of an objective lens" relies upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction; the rejection does not, as Applicant alleges, rely upon Applicant's disclosure, at least because, as described above, Applicant's disclosure does not support the flexibility of excitation-dependent deflector locations. Rather, as purported by Applicant, such a construction is derived from the teaching of the primary reference Goldenshtein that “the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [Goldenstein: 0029] and of the secondary reference Ose, that "The SEM in this embodiment employs a multipole electrostatic deflector as the lower image shifting deflector and forms the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective to achieve the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [Ose: 0029].
As stated above, since the immediate application fails to provide any special definition of the term "principal plane", as required by the claims, it is understood that the "effective principal plane" of Ose is a type of "principal plane" and therefore anticipates this claim limitation.
In summary: Applicant relies upon a narrow definition of the term "principal plane", where such a definition is not supported by either the claims or specification of the immediate application.
Regarding Applicant's argument II. B. (beginning on page 13), with respect to the Frosien and Kawasaki references - Applicant contends that neither of these references teach the limitation "located substantially at a principal plane of an objective lens", as recited in claim 1, as described above, and in the rejection of claim 1, Ose is relied upon for teaching this limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s argument III. (beginning on page 14) that Goldenshtein is silent regarding the overlapping between the deflection field and the objective lens field; Goldenshtein discloses that “the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [Goldenshtein: 0029]. At least a substantial portion of the deflection field generated by the deflector must therefore also be included within the field of the objective lens since the electric field of and electrode is strongest near the electrode itself, as evidenced by Jandhyala et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2010/0057408: “the strength of the electric field intensity is strongest near the edges of the electrodes” [Jandhyala: 0028], and by Centanni et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2010/0154634: “the electric field is strongest near the outer surface of electrode 322” [Centanni: 0061], and by McLoughlin et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0117602: “the regions within the device with the strongest electric field, are near to the electrodes, and in particular near the edges of the electrodes” [McLoughlin: 0027].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenshtein et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0116164 in view of Ose et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2001/0010357.
Regarding claim 1, Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, although Goldenshtein discloses that “the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [0029], there is no explicit disclosure that the first deflector is located substantially at a principal plane of an objective lens.
Ose discloses a scanning electron microscope wherein “The SEM in this embodiment employs a multipole electrostatic deflector as the lower image shifting deflector and forms the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective to achieve the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [0029].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein with the specific deflector location of Ose in order to appropriately correct aberrations of the electron image (as suggested in paragraph [0029] of Goldenshtein and in paragraph [0029] of Ose), thereby providing a high-quality electron beam image, and since paragraph [0029] of Ose describes that forming “the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective… [achieves] the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [Ose: 0029].
Regarding claim 2, Goldenshtein discloses that the objective lens is configured to focus the charged-particle beam on the surface of the sample at an off-axis location, the charged- particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“The electron beam 4 then enters the field of the deflector 7A which deflects the electron beam 4 away from its path along the optical axis of the objective lens 10… the objective lens 10 that focuses the electron beam 4 onto the specimen 8” [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Goldenshtein discloses a second deflector located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens (“the embodiment shown in FIG. 3 uses the pre-lens deflector 7A and the in-lens deflector 7B in combination” [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Goldenshtein discloses that the second deflector 7A is located between a condenser lens 5 and the first deflector 7B along the primary optical axis (as illustrated in figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Goldenshtein discloses a method for imaging a sample using a tilted charged-particle beam (“The different view angles (angles of incidence) are achieved by tilting the beam between the two images and moving the specimen to a new position so that the displacement of the beam caused by the tilting of the beam is compensated” [Abstract]), the method comprising: generating a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and deflecting, using a first deflector 7B, the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2) and at an off-axis location (“The electron beam 4 is displaced from the optical axis by a distance d” [0039]). However, although Goldenshtein discloses that “the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [0029], there is no explicit disclosure that the first deflector is located substantially at a principal plane of an objective lens.
Ose discloses a scanning electron microscope wherein “The SEM in this embodiment employs a multipole electrostatic deflector as the lower image shifting deflector and forms the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective to achieve the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [0029].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein with the specific deflector location of Ose in order to appropriately correct aberrations of the electron image (as suggested in paragraph [0029] of Goldenshtein and in paragraph [0029] of Ose), thereby providing a high-quality electron beam image, and since paragraph [0029] of Ose describes that forming “the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective… [achieves] the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [Ose: 0029].
Regarding claim 21, Goldenshtein discloses that a deflection field of the first deflector substantially overlaps a lens field of the objective lens (“the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [0029]).
Ose additionally discloses that a deflection field of the first deflector substantially overlaps a lens field of the objective lens (“a deflecting electric field in a region corresponding to an effective principal plane of the objective” [0006]).
Regarding claim 22, Goldenshtein discloses that a deflection field of the first deflector substantially overlaps a lens field of the objective lens (“the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [0029]).
Ose additionally discloses that a deflection field of the first deflector substantially overlaps a lens field of the objective lens (“a deflecting electric field in a region corresponding to an effective principal plane of the objective” [0006]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenshtein et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0116164 in view of Ose et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2001/0010357 in further view of Frosien U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0018402.
Regarding claim 3; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, Goldenshtein does not disclose that the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component.
Frosien discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source configured to generate a charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis (“source” [0037]); and a first deflector configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]), wherein the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used” [0025]), wherein: the static component is configured to cause the charged-particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]) land on the surface at an off-axis location (“The first electrostatic deflection element 330 is configured to deflect the charged particle beam 320 away from the optical axis 2 to a first off-axis position 334” [0045]); and the dynamic component is configured to cause the beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B), wherein an adjustment of the dynamic component causes an adjustment of a size of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and an adjustment of the static component is configured to enable an adjustment of the off-axis location and the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 4; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, Goldenshtein does not disclose that the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component.
Frosien discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source configured to generate a charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis (“source” [0037]); and a first deflector configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]), wherein the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used” [0025]), wherein: the static component is configured to cause the charged-particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]) land on the surface at an off-axis location (“The first electrostatic deflection element 330 is configured to deflect the charged particle beam 320 away from the optical axis 2 to a first off-axis position 334” [0045]); and the dynamic component is configured to cause the beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B), wherein an adjustment of the dynamic component causes an adjustment of a size of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and an adjustment of the static component is configured to enable an adjustment of the off-axis location and the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 5; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, Goldenshtein does not disclose that the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component.
Frosien discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source configured to generate a charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis (“source” [0037]); and a first deflector configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]), wherein the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used” [0025]), wherein: the static component is configured to cause the charged-particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]) land on the surface at an off-axis location (“The first electrostatic deflection element 330 is configured to deflect the charged particle beam 320 away from the optical axis 2 to a first off-axis position 334” [0045]); and the dynamic component is configured to cause the beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B), wherein an adjustment of the dynamic component causes an adjustment of a size of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and an adjustment of the static component is configured to enable an adjustment of the off-axis location and the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 8; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, although Goldenshtein discloses a second deflector located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens (“the embodiment shown in FIG. 3 uses the pre-lens deflector 7A and the in-lens deflector 7B in combination” [0032]), there is no explicit disclosure that the second deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) based on a dynamic component of a second electrical excitation signal, and wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location.
Frosien discloses applying a dynamic component of an electrical excitation signal to multiple deflectors (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used… The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]) to deflect the charged-particle beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B); and adjusting a dynamic component of the second electrical excitation signal applied to the second deflector to adjust a size and an orientation of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and adjusting a static component of a first electrical excitation signal to adjust a center of the FOV (“The static beam tilt allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0057]), wherein the second deflector 340 is located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens 370.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 9; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, although Goldenshtein discloses a second deflector located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens (“the embodiment shown in FIG. 3 uses the pre-lens deflector 7A and the in-lens deflector 7B in combination” [0032]), there is no explicit dislcsoure that the second deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) based on a dynamic component of a second electrical excitation signal, and wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location.
Frosien discloses applying a dynamic component of an electrical excitation signal to multiple deflectors (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used… The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]) to deflect the charged-particle beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B); and adjusting a dynamic component of the second electrical excitation signal applied to the second deflector to adjust a size and an orientation of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and adjusting a static component of a first electrical excitation signal to adjust a center of the FOV (“The static beam tilt allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0057]), wherein the second deflector 340 is located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens 370.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 11; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, Goldenshtein does not disclose that the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component.
Frosien discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source configured to generate a charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis (“source” [0037]); and a first deflector configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]), wherein the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used” [0025]), wherein: the static component is configured to cause the charged-particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]) land on the surface at an off-axis location (“The first electrostatic deflection element 330 is configured to deflect the charged particle beam 320 away from the optical axis 2 to a first off-axis position 334” [0045]); and the dynamic component is configured to cause the beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B), wherein an adjustment of the dynamic component causes an adjustment of a size of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and an adjustment of the static component is configured to enable an adjustment of the off-axis location and the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 12; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, Goldenshtein does not disclose that the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component.
Frosien discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source configured to generate a charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis (“source” [0037]); and a first deflector configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]), wherein the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used” [0025]), wherein: the static component is configured to cause the charged-particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]) land on the surface at an off-axis location (“The first electrostatic deflection element 330 is configured to deflect the charged particle beam 320 away from the optical axis 2 to a first off-axis position 334” [0045]); and the dynamic component is configured to cause the beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B), wherein an adjustment of the dynamic component causes an adjustment of a size of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and an adjustment of the static component is configured to enable an adjustment of the off-axis location and the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 13; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, Goldenshtein does not disclose that the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component.
Frosien discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source configured to generate a charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis (“source” [0037]); and a first deflector configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]), wherein the first deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam based on a first electrical excitation signal comprising a static component and a dynamic component (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used” [0025]), wherein: the static component is configured to cause the charged-particle beam having the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]) land on the surface at an off-axis location (“The first electrostatic deflection element 330 is configured to deflect the charged particle beam 320 away from the optical axis 2 to a first off-axis position 334” [0045]); and the dynamic component is configured to cause the beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B), wherein an adjustment of the dynamic component causes an adjustment of a size of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and an adjustment of the static component is configured to enable an adjustment of the off-axis location and the beam-tilt angle (“a static beam tilt can be used which allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Regarding claim 14; Goldenshtein discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus, comprising: a charged-particle source 2 configured to generate a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and a first deflector 7B configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle θ (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2). However, although Goldenshtein discloses a second deflector located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens (“the embodiment shown in FIG. 3 uses the pre-lens deflector 7A and the in-lens deflector 7B in combination” [0032]), there is no explicit dislcsoure that the second deflector is configured to deflect the charged-particle beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) based on a dynamic component of a second electrical excitation signal, and wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location.
Frosien discloses applying a dynamic component of an electrical excitation signal to multiple deflectors (“A tilting of the charged particle beam with respect to the optical axis 2 can be used, for example, for top views and views from different directions. A static tilt as well as dynamic tilt (e.g., in a rocking beam imaging) can be used… The charged particle beam is tilted by the deflection elements in a pivot point which is located in z-direction on the optical axis 2” [0025]) to deflect the charged-particle beam to scan a field-of-view (FOV) on the surface (“dynamically scanning the charged particle beam over the specimen 10” [0048]), wherein a center of the FOV substantially coincides with the off-axis location (as illustrated in figure 3B); and adjusting a dynamic component of the second electrical excitation signal applied to the second deflector to adjust a size and an orientation of the FOV (“a dynamic beam tilt can use a scan (“rocking beam method”) which overlays scan and beam tilt” [0025]), and adjusting a static component of a first electrical excitation signal to adjust a center of the FOV (“The static beam tilt allows for an observation (e.g., beam scanning) under a constant observation angle” [0057]), wherein the second deflector 340 is located substantially at a front focal plane of the objective lens 370.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the deflector control scheme of Frosien in order to improve control over the electron beam so as to enable multiple modes of imaging using a single device, thereby providing a greater amount of information about a sample.
Claim(s) 15 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenshtein et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0116164 in view of Ose et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2001/0010357 in further view of Kawasaki et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2010/0033560.
Regarding claim 15, Goldenshtein discloses a method for imaging a sample using a tilted charged-particle beam (“The different view angles (angles of incidence) are achieved by tilting the beam between the two images and moving the specimen to a new position so that the displacement of the beam caused by the tilting of the beam is compensated” [Abstract]), the method comprising: generating a charged-particle beam 4 along a primary optical axis (as illustrated in figures 1 and 2); and deflecting, using a first deflector 7B, the charged-particle beam to land on a surface of a sample at a beam-tilt angle (“a parameter setting (for example for the deflector 7B, the objective lens 10, the beam energy, etc.) so that electron beam 4 hits the reference target 40 with predetermined angle of incidence” [0030]; “in order to achieve a predetermined angle of incidence only small deflections caused by the beam shift coils 7A and 7B are necessary “ [0037] – see also figures 1 and 2) and at an off-axis location (“The electron beam 4 is displaced from the optical axis by a distance d” [0039]). However, although Goldenshtein discloses that “the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [0029], there is no explicit disclosure that the first deflector is located substantially at a principal plane of an objective lens.
Ose discloses a scanning electron microscope wherein “The SEM in this embodiment employs a multipole electrostatic deflector as the lower image shifting deflector and forms the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective to achieve the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [0029]. It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein with the specific deflector location of Ose in order to appropriately correct aberrations of the electron image (as suggested in paragraph [0029] of Goldenshtein and in paragraph [0029] of Ose), thereby providing a high-quality electron beam image, and since paragraph [0029] of Ose describes that forming “the electrostatic deflector on the effective principal plane of the objective… [achieves] the efficient detection of the secondary electrons without causing significant deterioration of resolution” [Ose: 0029]. Goldenshtein and Ose disclose the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure that the method is performed by a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of the charged-particle beam apparatus to cause the charged-particle beam apparatus to perform the method.
Kawasaki discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium 40 storing a set of instructions (in at least memory 41) that is executable by one or more processors 44 of a charged-particle beam apparatus to cause the charged-particle beam apparatus (“The detected signals are accumulated as image data in an external memory 41 serving as the memory unit upon receiving a command from the computer 40 serving as the control unit” [0054]) to perform a method of electron beam imaging by tilting an electron beam (“A high resolution tilt image of a specimen is obtained by extracting the blurring on the scanning spot occurring during beam tilt from the image (step 6) captured by the tilted beam, and the image (step 4) captured from directly above the standard specimen” [Abstract]). It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldenshtein and Ose with the computer controller of Kawasaki in order to provide a reliable, repeatable control mechanism for controlling specific parameters of a scanning electron microscope.
Regarding claim 23, Goldenshtein discloses that a deflection field of the first deflector substantially overlaps a lens field of the objective lens (“the deflector 7B is placed deep inside the field of the objective lens 10 or even partly below the objective lens 10” [0029]).
Ose additionally discloses that a deflection field of the first deflector substantially overlaps a lens field of the objective lens (“a deflecting electric field in a region corresponding to an effective principal plane of the objective” [0006]).
Conclusion
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