DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 20 March 2026, with respect to the claims and rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been entered. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
4. Applicant argues, on pg. 10, with respect to claim 6 that Baralia and Yaeshima does not teach or suggest that “marker is formed after scanning is performed a plurality of times in a condition that the sample is not marked by a space or the needle”. The argument is not persuasive. The claim is directed to a scanning probe microscope. Claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. The limitation that “marker is formed after scanning is performed a plurality of times in a condition that the sample is not marked by a space or the needle” is not part of the claimed invention. The patentability of the invention is based on the scanning probe microscope, not the process in which the marker is formed. Because the prior arts disclose the structure of the claimed invention, the process limitation fails to patentably distinguish the claimed device.
5. Applicant argues, on pg. 11-12, that even if the teachings of Baralia and Yaeshima were modified to include the limitations of Endo, the combination would not result in the invention claimed in claim 5 because Endo does not disclose the limitations of claim 5. The argument is not persuasive. The claim is directed to a scanning probe microscope. Claim 5 is a product-by-process claim. The limitation “when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed” is not part of the claimed invention. The patentability of the invention is based on the scanning probe microscope, not the process in which the marker is formed. The combination of Baralia, Yaeshima, and Endo discloses a scanning probe microscope with control units capable of varying marking conditions. Because the prior arts disclose the structure of the claimed invention, the process limitation fails to patentably distinguish the claimed device.
6. Applicant argues, on pg. 12, with respect to claim 8 that Kondo storing a visual field size does not correspond to an inputtable visual field magnification or aspect ratio. The argument is not persuasive. Selecting visual field size defines the boundary, which establishes the aspect ratio of the image. Changing the visual field size is fundamentally a scaling operation, i.e. changing the magnification to ensure a specific area is observed.
7. Applicant argues, on pg. 12-16, that the cited references do not teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 11-13 and that Ohtaki is a standalone evaluation device and lacks the motivation to mark a sample for a subsequent detailed observation/processing procedure. The argument is not persuasive. The structure of the device as claimed is fully taught by the combination of Ohtaki and Yaeshima (a conductive needle, a driving unit, an electric characteristic evaluation unit, a charged particle beam irradiation unit). The applicant’s argument that that Ohtaki is a standalone device relies on the absence of a subsequent process (transferring to an FIB-SEM), which is not structurally claimed. The specific process steps executed upon the sample do not overcome the obviousness of the claimed structural invention.
8. Applicant argues, on pg. 16, with respect to claim 3 that Baralia, Yaeshima and Tomita do not teach or suggest that “the marker is disposed at a position which is not rotationally symmetric when a center of the region of interest is a rotational center” and that the angle uniqueness achieved through the asymmetric arrangement described in claim 3 is significant for the proper functioning and results of the scanning probe microscope. The argument is not persuasive. The claim is directed to a scanning probe microscope. The limitation that “the marker is disposed at a position which is not rotationally symmetric when a center of the region of interest is a rotational center” is not part of the claimed invention. The patentability of the invention is based on the scanning probe microscope, not the process in which the marker is disposed. Because the prior arts disclose the structure of the claimed invention, the process limitation fails to patentably distinguish the claimed device.
9. While applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the previous rejections of the claims 5, 6, 8, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn since the claim scope has changed. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
10. The applicant did not respond to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Therefore, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) as of December 29, 2025 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 5, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia (US 20210247336 A1) in view of Yaeshima (US 20140084159 A1), further in view of Endo (US 20130134308 A1).
14. Regarding claim 5:
Baralia teaches a scanning probe microscope ([0117] fig. 2 teaches a scanning probe microscope) including a scanning unit that relatively scans a sample and a needle and observes the sample by scanning the sample and the needle ([0119] teaches that the measuring tip 240 of the probe 230 scans over the sample 220), the scanning probe microscope comprising a control unit ([0123] teaches the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the scanning probe microscope),
wherein the control unit is a magnifying observation processing device ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing. The magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that a SBM may comprise an SEM) that acquires a region of interest obtained in a result of the scanning and then performs observation or processing or both the observation and the processing ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning), and
wherein, based on information regarding the magnifying observation processing device separated from the scanning probe microscope ([0011] teaches that in order to diffuse the overlay problem of measurement data obtained by various measurement methods, a scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0133] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the SPM, fig. 3 element 300, includes an interface, fig. 4 element 486, to facilitate data interchange with external apparatuses, such as a scanning particle beam microscope, which is the separated device),
the control unit performs control ([0057]-[0060] teaches that the SPM transfers position data of the mark and/or topography data of the defect and/or the repair template to the SBM for use in defect correction) such that a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of an observed or processed region is formed (Abstract teaches producing at least one mark, by use of which the position of the at least one defect is indicated on the mask or on the wafer. [0035] teaches that the control unit may be configured to apply at least two marks on opposite sides of the at least one defect. Further, the control unit may be embodied to produce four marks, which are arranged at the corners of a rectangle which includes the at least one defect. In this case the rectangle is the region) by
specifying a region that is a region where a region observed or processed by the magnifying observation processing device contains the region of interest and is an observed or processed region ([0082] teaches that the at least one mark is produced so close to the at least one defect that at least part of the defect and the at least one mark are arranged in a single scanning region of the scanning probe microscope), and interacting the needle and the sample ([0037] teaches the means for producing the at least one mark may comprise the at least one first probe, which is embodied to produce at least one depression in the photolithographic mask or in the wafer)
Baralia fails to disclose that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device.
However, Yaeshima discloses that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device ([0037] teaches that Automatic Defect Review (ADR) is performed that an accurate position of the defect is detected and an SEM image containing the defect located at the center of the image is acquired. [0041] teaches that the center of the field of view of a SEM image is determined to be the position of the marking center. [0043] teaches that the marking center is set substantially at the center of a defect, fig. 4 element 501).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards locating region of interest that are not reliably detected or observed by scanning microscopes (the abstract pf Baralia teaches producing at least one mark, by use of which the position of the at least one defect is indicated on the mask or on the wafer. Yaeshima [0043] teaches that the first impression marks are placed at the four vertices of a square surrounding the defect, and an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima to include that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without actually marking the center of the defect to avoid affecting the defect itself (as taught in Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]).
Baralia in view of Yaeshima fails to disclose that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed.
Endo does not specifically disclose that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed. However, Endo discloses varying the appropriate marking conditions according to the sample ([0011] teaches marking suited for a film type is performed by varying such indentation marking conditions as the pressing load, descending rate, and marking depth of an indenter of an indentation marking unit on the basis of elemental analysis results obtained with an elemental analysis unit).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards locating region of interest that are not reliably detected or observed by scanning microscopes (Endo [0037] teaches scanning electron microscope image obtained by the scanning electron microscope column is used to identify defect positions and set marking positions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, to include that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed. Such modification allows for creating marks suitable for different materials (as taught in Endo [0011]) and making well-shaped marks, thereby enabling early defect cause investigation and yield improvement (as taught in Endo [0012] and [0013]).
15. Regarding claim 9:
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo discloses the scanning probe microscope according to claim [[1]] 5. Baralia further discloses a sample observation processing system comprising: a magnifying observation processing device (the magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that a SBM may comprise an SEM) configured to perform observation or processing of the sample in which the region of interest is specified ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning and observation) or both the observation and the processing ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing),
and then performs observation or processing of the region of interest ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning and observation) or both the observation and the processing ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing).
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo does not specifically disclose that wherein the sample observation processing system matches one or more of corners of a visual field of the magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest of the scanning probe microscope and an observed or processed region of the magnifying observation processing device are matched using the marker generated by the scanning probe microscope, increases a magnification of the magnifying observation processing device.
However, Baralia discloses producing four marks arranged at the corners of a rectangle which includes the at least one defect (as taught in [0035]) and using the at least one mark to localize the defect with high accuracy (as taught in [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo to include that wherein the sample observation processing system matches one or more of corners of a visual field of the magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest of the scanning probe microscope and an observed or processed region of the magnifying observation processing device are matched using the marker generated by the scanning probe microscope, increases a magnification of the magnifying observation processing device. Such modification involves no technical difficulty and is part of the routine practice performed to localize and observe the defect with high accuracy (as taught in Baralia [0060]).
16. Regarding claim 14:
Baralia in view of Yaeshima discloses the scanning probe microscope according to claim 6. Baralia in view of Yaeshima fails to disclose that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed.
Endo does not specifically disclose that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed. However, Endo discloses varying the appropriate marking conditions according to the sample ([0011] teaches marking suited for a film type is performed by varying such indentation marking conditions as the pressing load, descending rate, and marking depth of an indenter of an indentation marking unit on the basis of elemental analysis results obtained with an elemental analysis unit).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards locating region of interest that are not reliably detected or observed by scanning microscopes (Endo [0037] teaches scanning electron microscope image obtained by the scanning electron microscope column is used to identify defect positions and set marking positions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, to include that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed. Such modification allows for creating marks suitable for different materials (as taught in Endo [0011]) and making well-shaped marks, thereby enabling early defect cause investigation and yield improvement (as taught in Endo [0012] and [0013]).
17. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Tomita (JP 2011064514 A).
18. Regarding claim 3:
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo discloses the scanning probe microscope according to claim [[1]] 5. Baralia in view of Yaeshima fails to disclose that wherein the marker is disposed at a position which is not rotationally symmetric when a center of the region of interest is a rotational center.
Tomita does not specifically disclose that wherein the marker is disposed at a position which is not rotationally symmetric when a center of the region of interest is a rotational center. However, Tomita discloses that there are no particular limitations on the arrangement of the marks (as taught in Tomita [0026] and fig. 4).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards locating region of interest that are not reliably detected or observed by scanning microscopes (Tomita description section teaches making it easy to specify the measurement position when performing further analysis with other analyzers by attaching marking marks in the vicinity of the abnormal part discovered by surface inspection with a scanning probe microscope). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Tomita, to include that wherein the marker is disposed at a position which is not rotationally symmetric when a center of the region of interest is a rotational center. Such modification would allow the direction of the abnormal part to be more easily recognized and that the measurement position can be easily specified when the abnormal portion is further analyzed (as taught in Tomita [0026]).
19. Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia in view of Yaeshima.
20. Regarding claim 6:
Baralia teaches a scanning probe microscope ([0117] fig. 2 teaches a scanning probe microscope) including a scanning unit that relatively scans a sample and a needle and observes the sample by scanning the sample and the needle ([0119] teaches that the measuring tip 240 of the probe 230 scans over the sample 220), the scanning probe microscope comprising a control unit ([0123] teaches the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the scanning probe microscope),
wherein the control unit is a magnifying observation processing device ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing. The magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that a SBM may comprise an SEM) that acquires a region of interest obtained in a result of the scanning and then performs observation or processing or both the observation and the processing ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning), and
wherein, based on information regarding the magnifying observation processing device separated from the scanning probe microscope ([0011] teaches that in order to diffuse the overlay problem of measurement data obtained by various measurement methods, a scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0133] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the SPM, fig. 3 element 300, includes an interface, fig. 4 element 486, to facilitate data interchange with external apparatuses, such as a scanning particle beam microscope, which is the separated device),
the control unit performs control ([0057]-[0060] teaches that the SPM transfers position data of the mark and/or topography data of the defect and/or the repair template to the SBM for use in defect correction) such that a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of an observed or processed region is formed (Abstract teaches producing at least one mark, by use of which the position of the at least one defect is indicated on the mask or on the wafer. [0035] teaches that the control unit may be configured to apply at least two marks on opposite sides of the at least one defect. Further, the control unit may be embodied to produce four marks, which are arranged at the corners of a rectangle which includes the at least one defect. In this case the rectangle is the region) by
specifying a region that is a region where a region observed or processed by the magnifying observation processing device contains the region of interest and is an observed or processed region ([0082] teaches that the at least one mark is produced so close to the at least one defect that at least part of the defect and the at least one mark are arranged in a single scanning region of the scanning probe microscope), and interacting the needle and the sample ([0037] teaches the means for producing the at least one mark may comprise the at least one first probe, which is embodied to produce at least one depression in the photolithographic mask or in the wafer),
wherein the scanning unit is configured with a piezoelectric element ([0021] teaches that the scanning region of the scanning probe microscope or the field of view thereof is the area over which a measuring tip of a probe may pass by actuating an actuator of the probe, preferably a piezo-actuator), and wherein the marker is formed after scanning is performed a plurality of times ([0158] teaches the scanning is performed a plurality of times. Specifically, scanning the defect with the probe, fig. 4 element 415, only supplies a rough image of the surface contour of the defect, fig. 7 element 745. Therefore, the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the SPM, fig. 3 element 300, guides the second analysis probe, fig. 4 element 420, over the defects, fig. 7 element 745, in order to determine the topography of the defects, fig. 7 element 745, more accurately) in a condition that the sample is not marked by a space or the needle (the patentability of the invention is based on the scanning probe microscope, not the condition in which the marker is disposed. Because the prior arts disclose the structure of the claimed invention, the process limitation fails to patentably distinguish the claimed device).
Baralia fails to disclose that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device.
However, Yaeshima discloses that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device ([0037] teaches that Automatic Defect Review (ADR) is performed that an accurate position of the defect is detected and an SEM image containing the defect located at the center of the image is acquired. [0041] teaches that the center of the field of view of a SEM image is determined to be the position of the marking center. [0043] teaches that the marking center is set substantially at the center of a defect, fig. 4 element 501).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards locating region of interest that are not reliably detected or observed by scanning microscopes (the abstract pf Baralia teaches producing at least one mark, by use of which the position of the at least one defect is indicated on the mask or on the wafer. Yaeshima [0043] teaches that the first impression marks are placed at the four vertices of a square surrounding the defect, and an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima to include that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without actually marking the center of the defect to avoid affecting the defect itself (as taught in Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]).
21. Regarding claim 16:
Baralia in view of Yaeshima discloses the scanning probe microscope according to claim 6. Baralia further discloses a sample observation processing system ([0059] teaches a measuring system used for observation and processing) comprising: a magnifying observation processing device (the magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that a SBM may comprise an SEM) configured to perform observation or processing of the sample in which the region of interest is specified ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning and observation) or both the observation and the processing ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing),
and then performs observation or processing of the region of interest ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning and observation) or both the observation and the processing ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing).
Baralia in view of Yaeshima does not specifically disclose that wherein the sample observation processing system matches one or more of corners of a visual field of the magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest of the scanning probe microscope and an observed or processed region of the magnifying observation processing device are matched using the marker generated by the scanning probe microscope, increases a magnification of the magnifying observation processing device.
However, Baralia discloses producing four marks arranged at the corners of a rectangle which includes the at least one defect (as taught in [0035]) and using the at least one mark to localize the defect with high accuracy (as taught in [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima to include that wherein the sample observation processing system matches one or more of corners of a visual field of the magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest of the scanning probe microscope and an observed or processed region of the magnifying observation processing device are matched using the marker generated by the scanning probe microscope, increases a magnification of the magnifying observation processing device. Such modification involves no technical difficulty and is part of the routine practice performed to localize and observe the defect with high accuracy (as taught in Baralia [0060]).
22. Claims 8, 15, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo (US 20190266713 A1).
23. Regarding claim 8:
Baralia teaches a scanning probe microscope ([0117] fig. 2 teaches a scanning probe microscope) including a scanning unit that relatively scans a sample and a needle and observes the sample by scanning the sample and the needle ([0119] teaches that the measuring tip 240 of the probe 230 scans over the sample 220), the scanning probe microscope comprising a control unit ([0123] teaches the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the scanning probe microscope),
wherein the control unit is a magnifying observation processing device ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing. The magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that a SBM may comprise an SEM) that acquires a region of interest obtained in a result of the scanning and then performs observation or processing or both the observation and the processing ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning), and
wherein, based on information regarding the magnifying observation processing device separated from the scanning probe microscope ([0011] teaches that in order to diffuse the overlay problem of measurement data obtained by various measurement methods, a scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0133] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the SPM, fig. 3 element 300, includes an interface, fig. 4 element 486, to facilitate data interchange with external apparatuses, such as a scanning particle beam microscope, which is the separated device),
the control unit performs control ([0057]-[0060] teaches that the SPM transfers position data of the mark and/or topography data of the defect and/or the repair template to the SBM for use in defect correction) such that a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of an observed or processed region is formed (Abstract teaches producing at least one mark, by use of which the position of the at least one defect is indicated on the mask or on the wafer. [0035] teaches that the control unit may be configured to apply at least two marks on opposite sides of the at least one defect. Further, the control unit may be embodied to produce four marks, which are arranged at the corners of a rectangle which includes the at least one defect. In this case the rectangle is the region) by
specifying a region that is a region where a region observed or processed by the magnifying observation processing device contains the region of interest and is an observed or processed region ([0082] teaches that the at least one mark is produced so close to the at least one defect that at least part of the defect and the at least one mark are arranged in a single scanning region of the scanning probe microscope), and interacting the needle and the sample ([0037] teaches the means for producing the at least one mark may comprise the at least one first probe, which is embodied to produce at least one depression in the photolithographic mask or in the wafer), further comprising a monitor display unit ([0185] teaches a monitor which is connected to the computer system, fig. 11 element 1140, may display the calculated image).
Baralia fails to disclose that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device, wherein the monitor display unit displays a marking setting screen including a scanner movable range display portion, wherein the scanner movable range display portion displays a selectable marking location designation portion in a corner of the rectangle, and wherein the marker is formed in the sample based on a selection state of the marking location designation portion
However, Yaeshima discloses that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device ([0037] teaches that Automatic Defect Review (ADR) is performed that an accurate position of the defect is detected and an SEM image containing the defect located at the center of the image is acquired. [0041] teaches that the center of the field of view of a SEM image is determined to be the position of the marking center. [0043] teaches that the marking center is set substantially at the center of a defect, fig. 4 element 501),
wherein the monitor display unit displays a marking setting screen ([0058] fig. 7 teaches the GUI displayed on the monitor) including a scanner movable range display portion ([0058] teaches that a marking target image display section, fig. 7 element 707),
wherein the scanner movable range display portion displays a selectable marking location designation portion in a corner of the rectangle, and wherein the marker is formed in the sample based on a selection state of the marking location designation portion ([0058] teaches a marking target selection button, fig. 7 element 709, and a marking target deselection button, fig. 7 element 710. [0059] teaches that after all marking target images, fig. 7 element 8, the marking operation is initiated by pressing the marking execution button, fig. 7 element 711).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima to include that where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the magnifying observation processing device, wherein the monitor display unit displays a marking setting screen including a scanner movable range display portion and a marking condition display portion, wherein the scanner movable range display portion displays a selectable marking location designation portion in a corner of the rectangle, and wherein the marker is formed in the sample based on a selection state of the marking location designation portion. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without actually marking the center of the defect to avoid affecting the defect itself (as taught in Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]) and allow for an operator to set conditions under which the defect review is performed or set inspection recipes (as taught in Yaeshima [0030]).
Baralia in view of Yaeshima fails to disclose a marking condition display portion.
Endo discloses a marking condition display portion ([0039] teaches a monitor on which a GUI used to set operating conditions for defect review or an inspection recipe is displayed. [0011] teaches marking suited for a film type is performed by varying such indentation marking conditions as the pressing load, descending rate, and marking depth of an indenter of an indentation marking unit on the basis of elemental analysis results obtained with an elemental analysis unit).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the reliability and efficiency of observation of a sample using scanning microscope (Endo [0037] teaches scanning electron microscope image obtained by the scanning electron microscope column is used to identify defect positions and set marking positions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, to include a marking condition display portion. Such modification would allow setting operating conditions for defect review or an inspection recipe is displayed (as taught in Endo [0039]).
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, fails to disclose that wherein the marking setting screen is configured such that a visual field magnification or a visual field aspect ratio in the marker search of the magnifying observation processing device is inputtable, wherein, based on an input of the visual field magnification or the visual field aspect ratio to the marking condition display portion the scanner movable range display portion displays a rectangle identical or similar to a visual field size when the magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker.
Kondo discloses that wherein the marking setting screen is configured such that a visual field magnification or a visual field aspect ratio in the marker search of the magnifying observation processing device (The magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0043] teaches that the wafer device includes an SEM that captures an image) is inputtable ([0047] teaches that a recipe storage unit, fig. 2 element 207, that stores visual-field size as a capture condition. [0055] teaches that in a case where the recipe for the process and the type of the object to be observed is present in the recipe storage unit 207, wafer alignment is performed with the recipe, and the wafer is observed), wherein, based on an input of the visual field magnification or the visual field aspect ratio to the marking condition display portion the scanner movable range display portion displays a rectangle identical or similar to a visual field size ([0074] teaches that in the alignment image display portion, fig. 10 element 1002, the alignment image is displayed as an image. [0078] teaches that the wafer to be observed uses the image capture conditions that the user input, and an alignment image of the wafer is acquired. The alignment image of the wafer is displayed as a rectangle similar to the visual field size) when the magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker ([0061] teaches an alignment mark, fig. 6 element 602, having a known relative positional relationship to the reference point of the chip, fig. 6 element 501, in an image, fig. 6 element 601).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the reliability and efficiency of observation of a sample using scanning microscope (Kondo [0055] teaches using a recipe for the observation process and that the dimensions of a defect part are examined in the observation of the wafer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo, to include that wherein the marking setting screen is configured such that a visual field magnification or a visual field aspect ratio in the marker search of the magnifying observation processing device is inputtable, wherein, based on an input of the visual field magnification or the visual field aspect ratio to the marking condition display portion the scanner movable range display portion displays a rectangle identical or similar to a visual field size when the magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker. Such modification would allow for input of visual field size as part of the recipe for inspection so that the recipe-creation man-hour of the user can be reduced (as taught in Kondo [0041]).
24. Regarding claim 15:
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo discloses the scanning probe microscope according to claim 8. Baralia in view of Yaeshima fails to disclose that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed.
Endo does not specifically disclose that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed. However, Endo discloses varying the appropriate marking conditions according to the sample ([0011] teaches marking suited for a film type is performed by varying such indentation marking conditions as the pressing load, descending rate, and marking depth of an indenter of an indentation marking unit on the basis of elemental analysis results obtained with an elemental analysis unit).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards locating region of interest that are not reliably detected or observed by scanning microscopes (Endo [0037] teaches scanning electron microscope image obtained by the scanning electron microscope column is used to identify defect positions and set marking positions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo, to include that wherein, when the marker is formed by a line, one or more of conditions of a direction of the line of the marker, a length of the line of the marker, a thickness of the line of the marker, the number of times the line of the marker is overwritten, a depth or height of the line of the marker, and a drawing speed of the line of the marker are changed. Such modification allows for creating marks suitable for different materials (as taught in Endo [0011]) and making well-shaped marks, thereby enabling early defect cause investigation and yield improvement (as taught in Endo [0012] and [0013]).
25. Regarding claim 17:
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo discloses the scanning probe microscope according to claim 8.
Baralia further discloses a sample observation processing system ([0059] teaches a measuring system used for observation and processing) comprising: a magnifying observation processing device (the magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that a SBM may comprise an SEM) configured to perform observation or processing of the sample in which the region of interest is specified ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning and observation) or both the observation and the processing ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing),
and then performs observation or processing of the region of interest ([0024] teaches analyzing the at least one defect comprises determining topography data of the at least one defect and position data of the at least one mark by use of the control unit. The "topography data of the defect" is an acquisition of a specific "region of interest" found via scanning and observation) or both the observation and the processing ([0161] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing).
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo does not specifically disclose that wherein the sample observation processing system matches one or more of corners of a visual field of the magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest of the scanning probe microscope and an observed or processed region of the magnifying observation processing device are matched using the marker generated by the scanning probe microscope, increases a magnification of the magnifying observation processing device.
However, Baralia discloses producing four marks arranged at the corners of a rectangle which includes the at least one defect (as taught in [0035]) and using the at least one mark to localize the defect with high accuracy (as taught in [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Kondo to include that wherein the sample observation processing system matches one or more of corners of a visual field of the magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest of the scanning probe microscope and an observed or processed region of the magnifying observation processing device are matched using the marker generated by the scanning probe microscope, increases a magnification of the magnifying observation processing device. Such modification involves no technical difficulty and is part of the routine practice performed to localize and observe the defect with high accuracy (as taught in Baralia [0060]).
26. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtaki (US 20210025936 Al) in view of Yaeshima.
27. Regarding claim 11:
Ohtaki discloses an electric characteristic evaluation device that evaluates electric characteristics of a sample, the electric characteristic evaluation device ([0075] fig. 1 teaches an electrical characteristic evaluation apparatus) comprising: a conductive needle ([0087] teaches tungsten probes, which is conductive); a driving unit configured to change a relative position relation between the sample and the needle ([0077] teaches that the sample stage, fig. 1 element 102, is driven by a motor. The probe driving mechanism, fig. 1 element 107, uses a piezoelectric element and can drive the probe); an electric characteristic evaluation unit connected to the needle and configured to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample ([0079]-[0082] teaches the current and voltage detection unit, fig. 1 element 114b, connected to the probes, to acquire a value of the current or voltage to be used to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample); and a charged particle beam irradiation unit configured to irradiate the sample with a charged particle beam ([0075] teaches a scanning electron microscope that can generate an electron beam to scan the sample, fig. 1 element 101), wherein, by irradiating the sample with the charged particle beam while bringing the needle in contact with the sample, the electric characteristics of the sample are evaluated ([0075] teaches a probe cartridge, fig. 1 element 106, to be in contact with the sample, fig. 1 element 101 to evaluate electric characteristic) and a region of interest is specified on the basis of a result of the evaluation ([0166] teaches that the defective portion of the wiring, such as the disconnection of the wiring or the short circuit between the wirings, may be found as an image by acquiring an absorption current image. The defection portion is the region of interest).
Ohtaki fails to disclose that wherein a region that is a region containing the region of interest and is an observed or processed region where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a magnifying observation processing device is specified, and wherein a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of the observed or processed region is formed by interacting the needle and the sample.
However, Yaeshima discloses that wherein a region that is a region containing the region of interest and is an observed or processed region where the region of interest is located at a scaling center ([0037] teaches that Automatic Defect Review (ADR) is performed that an accurate position of the defect is detected and an SEM image containing the defect located at the center of the image is acquired. [0041] teaches that the center of the field of view of a SEM image is determined to be the position of the marking center. [0043] teaches that the marking center is set substantially at the center of a defect, fig. 4 element 501) when the region is observed with a magnifying observation processing device is specified (the magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0053] teaches that the defects can be observed with a SEM), and wherein a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of the observed or processed region is formed ([0043] teaches that the first impression marks are placed at the four vertices of a square surrounding the defect, and an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square) by interacting the needle and the sample ([0035] teaches that the indenter, fig. 2 element 209, attached to the tip of a shaft, fig. 2 element 208, presses the specimen to form an impression mark on the specimen).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards using SEM to evaluate a sample to identify characteristics in the region of interest (Ohtaki [0166] teaches that the defective portion of the wiring, such as the disconnection of the wiring or the short circuit between the wirings, may be found as an image by acquiring an absorption current image. Yaeshima [0028] teaches that an SEM is used to identify the position of a defect and set a marking position). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima to include that wherein a region that is a region containing the region of interest and is an observed or processed region where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a magnifying observation processing device is specified, and wherein a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of the observed or processed region is formed by interacting the needle and the sample. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without actually marking the center of the defect to avoid affecting the defect itself (as taught in Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]).
28. Regarding claim 12:
Ohtaki discloses an electric characteristic evaluation device that evaluates electric characteristics of a sample, the electric characteristic evaluation device ([0075] fig. 1 teaches an electrical characteristic evaluation apparatus) comprising: a conductive needle ([0087] teaches tungsten probes, which is conductive); a driving unit configured to change a relative position relation between the sample and the needle ([0077] teaches that the sample stage, fig. 1 element 102, is driven by a motor. The probe driving mechanism, fig. 1 element 107, uses a piezoelectric element and can drive the probe); an electric characteristic evaluation unit connected to the needle and configured to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample ([0079]-[0082] teaches the current and voltage detection unit, fig. 1 element 114b, connected to the probes, to acquire a value of the current or voltage to be used to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample); and
a charged particle beam irradiation unit configured to irradiate the sample with a charged particle beam ([0075] teaches a scanning electron microscope that can generate an electron beam to scan the sample, fig. 1 element 101), wherein the needle is able to be brought into contact with the sample within a visual field of the charged particle beam irradiation unit ([0076] teaches displaying SEM images of the sample, fig. 1 element 101, and the probe cartridge, fig. 1 element 106. Since SEM images display the sample and the probe cartridge, they are within a visual field of the SEM),
wherein, by irradiating the sample with the charged particle beam while bringing the needle in contact with the sample ([0075] teaches a probe cartridge, fig. 1 element 106, to be in contact with the sample, fig. 1 element 101 to evaluate electric characteristic), the electric characteristics of the sample are evaluated and a region of interest is specified on the basis of a result of the evaluation ([0166] teaches that the defective portion of the wiring, such as the disconnection of the wiring or the short circuit between the wirings, may be found as an image by acquiring an absorption current image. The defection portion is the region of interest).
Ohtaki fails to disclose that wherein a region that is a region containing the region of interest and is an observed or processed region where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a magnifying observation processing device is specified, and wherein a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of the observed or processed region is formed by interacting the needle and the sample.
However, Yaeshima discloses that that wherein a region that is a region containing the region of interest and is an observed or processed region where the region of interest is located at a scaling center ([0037] teaches that Automatic Defect Review (ADR) is performed that an accurate position of the defect is detected and an SEM image containing the defect located at the center of the image is acquired. [0041] teaches that the center of the field of view of a SEM image is determined to be the position of the marking center. [0043] teaches that the marking center is set substantially at the center of a defect, fig. 4 element 501) when the region is observed with a magnifying observation processing device is specified (The magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0053] teaches that the defects can be observed with a SEM), and wherein a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of the observed or processed region is formed ([0043] teaches that the first impression marks are placed at the four vertices of a square surrounding the defect, and an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square) by interacting the needle and the sample ([0035] teaches that the indenter, fig. 2 element 209, attached to the tip of a shaft, fig. 2 element 208, presses the specimen to form an impression mark on the specimen).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards using SEM to evaluate a sample to identify characteristics in the region of interest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima to include that wherein a region that is a region containing the region of interest and is an observed or processed region where the region of interest is located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a magnifying observation processing device is specified, and wherein a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of the observed or processed region is formed by interacting the needle and the sample. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without actually marking the center of the defect to avoid affecting the defect itself (as taught in Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]).
29. Regarding claim 13:
Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima discloses the electric characteristic evaluation device according to claim 11. Ohtaki further discloses that wherein observation or processing and both of the observation and the processing are performed on the region of interest of the sample ([0166] teaches that the defective portion of the wiring, such as the disconnection of the wiring or the short circuit between the wirings, may be found as an image by acquiring an absorption current image, which is a type of observation on the region of interest. [0079]-[0082] teach processing the acquired current or voltage signal to generate a current and voltage image) of which electric characteristics are evaluated by the electric characteristic evaluation device ([0075] fig. 1 teaches an electrical characteristic evaluation apparatus. [0079]-[0082] teaches the current and voltage detection unit, fig. 1 element 114b, connected to the probes, to acquire a value of the current or voltage to be used to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample).
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 LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights