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 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 8) that the cited disclosures of Gerling describe expected or simulated distributions used to determine the detector’s geometry – not any acquisition of a secondary beam spot projection pattern by a controller while moving a beam along a sample; Gerling discloses that “The images generated by the image generator 114 may be analyzed by the image analyzer 116, e.g., to determine a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036]. Images are generated from the detector signal pattern obtained by scanning in a first direction and scanning in a second direction (“the primary beam scans across the sample 101 in one direction with the beam scanner driver 108 and beam scanner coils 106 (or deflector plates) and the detector signal as a function of beam position is converted into a line of the image as is well known in the art. At an end of the scan of the beam in one direction (e.g., the X-direction), the beam location may be adjusted by a small amount (e.g., an amount comparable to a size of the beam spot on the sample) in a different direction (e.g., the Y-direction) and another scan may be performed to generate another line of the image. By repeating this process an image of part of the sample may be generated” [0039]). By the step of “determine a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036], Gerling teaches “determine a parameter” (“a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036]) of secondary beam spot on the detector based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern.
The citation of paragraph [0050] of Gerling in the Non-Final Rejection 11/19/2025 discusses a pattern projection on a detector. Although the cited portion is primarily concerned with the simulation-based projection, it is clear in the context of the description of Gerling (see the cited portions above) that a pattern projection is positively formed on the detector (“the primary beam scans across the sample 101 in one direction with the beam scanner driver 108 and beam scanner coils 106 (or deflector plates) and the detector signal as a function of beam position is converted into a line of the image as is well known in the art. At an end of the scan of the beam in one direction (e.g., the X-direction), the beam location may be adjusted by a small amount (e.g., an amount comparable to a size of the beam spot on the sample) in a different direction (e.g., the Y-direction) and another scan may be performed to generate another line of the image. By repeating this process an image of part of the sample may be generated” [0039]), and a parameter of the secondary beam spot on the detector is determined based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern (“The images generated by the image generator 114 may be analyzed by the image analyzer 116, e.g., to determine a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036]).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 9) that Gerling merely describes movement of a stage via a scanner driver in the context of system operation, it does not disclose any acquisition of a secondary beam spot projection pattern; Gerling discloses that “the primary beam scans across the sample 101 in one direction with the beam scanner driver 108 and beam scanner coils 106 (or deflector plates) and the detector signal as a function of beam position is converted into a line of the image as is well known in the art. At an end of the scan of the beam in one direction (e.g., the X-direction), the beam location may be adjusted by a small amount (e.g., an amount comparable to a size of the beam spot on the sample) in a different direction (e.g., the Y-direction) and another scan may be performed to generate another line of the image. By repeating this process an image of part of the sample may be generated” [0039]. At least the “line of the image” is “a secondary beam spot projection pattern” as claimed, but the image formed by scanning the X-direction and scanning the Y-direction is also a secondary beam spot projection pattern, since either or both are patterns of discrete spots on a detector where secondary electrons are detected (although figure 4 is concerned with a simulated projection, figure 4 illustrates a type of projection that will be detected by the detector, and this is clearly, as illustrated, “a secondary beam spot projection pattern”).
Additionally, Applicant’s characterization that Gerling merely describes movement of a stage via a scanner driver is an inaccurate characterization, as Gerling additionally and/or alternatively describes scanning via beam scanner coils or deflection plates: “the primary beam scans across the sample 101 in one direction with the beam scanner driver 108 and beam scanner coils 106 (or deflector plates)… At an end of the scan of the beam in one direction (e.g., the X-direction), the beam location may be adjusted by a small amount… in a different direction (e.g., the Y-direction)” [0039].
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 8-13; Applicant does not provide additional arguments with respect to these claims and no additional response is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerling et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0069234.
Regarding claim 1, Gerling discloses a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a charged particle beam source 115 configured to generate a primary charged particle beam (“the beam optics 135 extract electrons from the source 115 and form them into a primary beam that travels in the direction of the target 101” [0034]); a detector 110; and a controller 120 having circuitry (“the controller 120 may be a general purpose computer configured to include a central processor unit (CPU) 122, memory 124 (e.g., RAM, DRAM, ROM, and the like) and well-known support circuits 128 such as power supplies 121, input/output (I/O) functions 123, clock 126, cache 134, and the like, coupled to a control system bus 130” [0044]) configured to: detect beam intensity (“a detector 110, which generates a signal proportional to the amount of backscattering or secondary emission” [0036]) as the primary charged particle beam moves along a first direction of a sample (“A variable electrostatic or magnetic field deflects the primary electron beam to scan it over a region of a specimen. When the primary beam strikes the specimen, secondary electrons are generated… Thereafter these secondary electrons are imaged onto the detection device” [0004]); acquire a secondary beam spot projection pattern on the detector (“The active portion 220 of detector 110 is the area that can capture secondary electrons emitted from the surface of a sample. The active portion 220 is shaped to accommodate an expected asymmetrical pattern of the secondary electrons at the detector location” [0050]) as the primary charged particle beam moves along a second direction of the sample (“stage scanner driver 119 configured to move the target along X-Y plane parallel to the surface of the target 101 in one or more directions relative to the optical column 102” [0035]); and determine a parameter of a secondary beam spot on the detector based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern (“The expected pattern and location of the secondary electrons at the location of the detector 110 can be determined by computer simulation utilizing knowledge of the electron optic performance, e.g., deflection and rotation of electrons, in a charged particle system” [0050]).
Gerling discloses that “The images generated by the image generator 114 may be analyzed by the image analyzer 116, e.g., to determine a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036]. Images are generated from the detector signal pattern obtained by scanning in a first direction and scanning in a second direction (“the primary beam scans across the sample 101 in one direction with the beam scanner driver 108 and beam scanner coils 106 (or deflector plates) and the detector signal as a function of beam position is converted into a line of the image as is well known in the art. At an end of the scan of the beam in one direction (e.g., the X-direction), the beam location may be adjusted by a small amount (e.g., an amount comparable to a size of the beam spot on the sample) in a different direction (e.g., the Y-direction) and another scan may be performed to generate another line of the image. By repeating this process an image of part of the sample may be generated” [0039]). By the step of “determine a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036], Gerling teaches “determine a parameter” (“a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036]) of secondary beam spot on the detector based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Gerling discloses that the parameter of the secondary beam spot includes size, shape, or location (“The expected pattern and location of the secondary electrons at the location of the detector 110 can be determined by computer simulation utilizing knowledge of the electron optic performance, e.g., deflection and rotation of electrons, in a charged particle system” [0050]). Gerling teaches a step of “The images generated by the image generator 114 may be analyzed by the image analyzer 116, e.g., to determine a measure of quality of the modified surface or shape and size of resulting formed structures” [0036].
Regarding claim 8, Gerling discloses that the secondary beam spot projection pattern includes a portion of sensing elements 220 included in a detector 110.
Regarding claim 9, Gerling discloses that the secondary beam spot projection pattern includes a region of interest 220 (“The active portion 220 of detector 110 is the area that can capture secondary electrons emitted from the surface of a sample. The active portion 220 is shaped to accommodate an expected asymmetrical pattern of the secondary electrons at the detector location” [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Gerling discloses that the region of interest 220 includes an outer peripheral region of the secondary beam spot (“the active portion 220 may be shaped to cover an expected area where the secondary electrons may land at the detector plane” [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Gerling discloses that the region of interest 220 includes an inner peripheral region of the secondary beam spot (“the active portion 220 may be shaped to cover an expected area where the secondary electrons may land at the detector plane” [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Gerling discloses that the region of interest 220 includes a row of sensing elements adjacent to an edge of the secondary beam spot (since the region of interest 220 includes the entirety of the secondary beam spot [0051], sensing elements which are adjacent to the edge of the beam spot are necessarily included in the region of interest 220).
Regarding claim 13, Gerling discloses that the controller further comprises circuitry configured to: adjust the region of interest based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern (“One alternative solution to reduce the signal loss is to modify the scan pattern to keep the secondary electrons from landing in the dead zone or the aperture” [0049]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerling et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0069234 in view of Langer et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0219906.
Regarding claim 3, Gerling discloses the claimed invention except that while Gerling discloses (“The expected pattern and location of the secondary electrons at the location of the detector 110 can be determined by computer simulation utilizing knowledge of the electron optic performance, e.g., deflection and rotation of electrons, in a charged particle system” [0050]), there is no explicit disclosure that the controller further comprises circuitry configured to: determine a boundary of the secondary beam spot based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern.
Langer discloses an electron microscopy device that determines a boundary of a secondary beam spot based on an acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern (“By determining edges in the image produced by the secondary electron detector, a corresponding distance and thus CD of the feature may be estimated” [0008]).
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 Gerling with the edge detection of Langer in order to provide an automated measurement of features on a sample surface so as to inform an operator during a semiconductor manufacturing process as to the efficacy of the manufacturing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4; Gerling et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0069234 discloses a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a charged particle beam source 115 configured to generate a primary charged particle beam (“the beam optics 135 extract electrons from the source 115 and form them into a primary beam that travels in the direction of the target 101” [0034]); a detector 110; and a controller 120 having circuitry (“the controller 120 may be a general purpose computer configured to include a central processor unit (CPU) 122, memory 124 (e.g., RAM, DRAM, ROM, and the like) and well-known support circuits 128 such as power supplies 121, input/output (I/O) functions 123, clock 126, cache 134, and the like, coupled to a control system bus 130” [0044]) configured to: detect beam intensity (“a detector 110, which generates a signal proportional to the amount of backscattering or secondary emission” [0036]) as the primary charged particle beam moves along a first direction of a sample (“A variable electrostatic or magnetic field deflects the primary electron beam to scan it over a region of a specimen. When the primary beam strikes the specimen, secondary electrons are generated… Thereafter these secondary electrons are imaged onto the detection device” [0004]); acquire a secondary beam spot projection pattern on the detector (“The active portion 220 of detector 110 is the area that can capture secondary electrons emitted from the surface of a sample. The active portion 220 is shaped to accommodate an expected asymmetrical pattern of the secondary electrons at the detector location” [0050]) as the primary charged particle beam moves along a second direction of the sample (“stage scanner driver 119 configured to move the target along X-Y plane parallel to the surface of the target 101 in one or more directions relative to the optical column 102” [0035]); and determine a parameter of a secondary beam spot on the detector based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern (“The expected pattern and location of the secondary electrons at the location of the detector 110 can be determined by computer simulation utilizing knowledge of the electron optic performance, e.g., deflection and rotation of electrons, in a charged particle system” [0050]). However, Gerling does not disclose that the controller further comprises circuitry configured to: determine a group of sensing elements associated with the secondary beam spot; and update the group of sensing elements associated with the secondary beam spot based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a charged particle beam source configured to generate a primary charged particle beam; a controller having circuitry configured to: acquire a secondary beam spot projection pattern on the detector as the primary charged particle beam moves along a second direction of the sample; and determine a parameter of a secondary beam spot on the detector based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern; wherein the controller further comprises circuitry configured to: determine a group of sensing elements associated with the secondary beam spot; and update the group of sensing elements associated with the secondary beam spot based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern.
Regarding claims 5-7; these claims would be allowable at least for their dependence upon claim 4.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 16; Ishii et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0214221 discloses a method of detecting charged particles, the method comprising: detecting beam intensity (“the value of contrast between the figure pattern 13 and the surrounding portion of the figure pattern 13 is calculated from the secondary electron image of the corresponding figure pattern 13 detected by each detection pixel 223. For example, the difference value between detected intensities is calculated” [0048]) as a primary charged particle beam moves along a first direction using a first group of sensing elements (“scanning the inspection substrate with electron beams and detecting secondary electrons emitted from the inspection substrate by irradiation with the electron beams” [0006]); acquiring a secondary beam spot projection pattern (“When each primary electron beam of the multiple beams 20 scans a corresponding figure pattern 13, the shape of the pattern 13 is recognized as an image reconstructed from the information acquired in time series in each detection pixel 223” [0046]) as [[the]] a primary charged particle beam moves along a second direction (“the sub deflector 209 collectively deflects all of the multiple beams 20 so that each beam may scan a corresponding region” [0037]) using a second group of sensing elements different from the first group (“a plurality of detection pixels each of which receives irradiation of a corresponding secondary electron beam in the multiple secondary electron beams” [0007]); and determining a parameter of a secondary beam spot (shape of the pattern) based on the acquired secondary beam spot projection pattern (“When each primary electron beam of the multiple beams 20 scans a corresponding figure pattern 13, the shape of the pattern 13 is recognized as an image reconstructed from the information acquired in time series in each detection pixel 223” [0046]). However, Ishii images each of a plurality of secondary beams, each corresponding to each of a plurality of primary beams, but the claim requires that detected intensity and acquired secondary beam spot projection are formed from the same primary beam.
Kadowaki et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0245989 discloses a method of imaging secondary electrons emitted by irradiating a primary electron beam to a sample (“scanning a pattern on a substrate with a charged particle beam, detecting secondary charged particles emitted from the substrate by using a detector” [Abstract]), wherein a detector detects intensity (“the computer 13 executes signal processing in which intensity is defined in accordance with a function f(θ) of the angle θ with respect to each signal output from the detector 601” [0022]) and shape of a pattern of secondary electrons (“a region having sensitivity with respect to secondary charged particles on the surface of the detector may have a shape different from the detector shape” [0022]) emitted from a single primary electron beam. However, Kadowaki does not disclose that detecting beam intensity as a primary charged particle beam moves along a first direction using a first group of sensing elements; and acquiring a secondary beam spot projection pattern as the primary charged particle beam moves along a second direction using a second group of sensing elements different from the first group.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method of detecting charged particles, the method comprising: detecting beam intensity as a primary charged particle beam moves along a first direction using a first group of sensing elements; and acquiring a secondary beam spot projection pattern as the primary charged particle beam moves along a second direction using a second group of sensing elements different from the first group.
Regarding claims 17-20; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence upon independent claim 16.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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