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 4 August 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 4 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive for the reasons set forth below. Applicant’s argument regarding claim 8 is persuasive, and the rejection of claim 8 and its depends under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
4. Applicant identified on pg. 14-15 a fundamental technical distinction that “a marker at the outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to the observation visual field of the separate magnifying device with the ROI at the scaling center” and the references fail to teach features of the amended claims. The argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s reading of a size-identity/calculation requirement leaves out the “or similar” part of the claim. Yashima [0043] places marks at the four vertices of a square surrounding the defect. See more details in the rejection below.
5. Applicant argues on pg. 18 that Endo’s parameters are indenter pressing parameters, not line parameters. The argument is not persuasive. Claim 5 requires changing only “one or more of” the listed conditions, and Endo [0011] teaches varying marking depth. Endo is pertinent to the problem being solved, i.e. well-shaped marks suitable for investigation of defect. Baralia already teaches forming microstructured angles with direct writing. An angle is by definition two linear segments meeting at a vertex. Endo is supplied to teach that the depth of the mark can be changed for better investigation.
6. Applicant argues on pg. 19-20 that there’s no teaching of the pre-scanning structure feature. Baralia’s piezo-actuated probe ([0021]) scans the defect a plurality of times to obtain topography data ([0158]) before the mark is produced within that same scan region ([0082] teaches that the at least one mark is produced 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. Also see [0201]-[0202], fig. 13, steps 1310 and 1315).
7. Applicant argues on pg. 22-24 that Ohtaki does not have the driving unit configured to perform the recited functions in amended claims 11 and 12. The argument is not persuasive. The specification assigns region specification and marker formation to the combined device/control unit ([0045] and [0026]). The driving units are defined as elements 111 to 113 or 211 to 213 ([0047], which are piezo elements as taught in [0059]). Ohtaki teaches piezo-driven conductive probe ([0077], [0087]) capable of the recited interaction.
8. Applicant argues on pg. 24 that there’s no motivation to combine Ohtaki and Yaeshima. The argument is not persuasive. Tomita teaches that inspection and marking are performed “with one cantilever.” In addition, Ohtaki nowhere criticizes or discourages marking for downstream analysis.
9. Applicant argues on pg. 24 that Yaeshima would contradict Ohtaki’s design principle. The argument is not persuasive. The test is what the combined teachings suggest, not whether features may be bodily incorporated. Nevertheless, with teachings of Tomita, the marking is performed by the probe itself.
Claim Interpretation
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
11. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a separate magnifying observation processing device in claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11-12, 14-17.
a driving unit in claims 11-12.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a separate “magnifying observation processing device”, is taken to include a scanning electron microscope (according to [0032] in the instant specification).
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a “driving unit”, is taken to include a piezo element (according to [0059] in the instant specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
12. Claims 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
13. Regarding claims 5, 14, and 15:
Amended claims 5, 14, and 15 each recite that “the control unit is configured to change, based on a material of the sample. The specification provides no written description of changing any marker condition on the basis of a material of the sample. The term “material” does not appear anywhere in the spec as originally filed in connection with the sample or with the setting of marker conditions.
The functions performed by the control unit are not fully supported by the original filing. Specifically, the specification does not describe the control unit with the function of changing the marker conditions. Instead, user inputs the conditions ([0033] teaches that the user can designate a marker shape. [0034] teaches that the user can set a condition for optimizing visibility of the marker). The recitation that the control unit is configured to change the recited conditions is therefore not described.
Claims 3 and 9 depend from claim 5 and are also rejected for the same reason.
14. Regarding claim 6:
Amended claim 6 recites that “the scanning unit is configured to, prior to forming the marker, perform scanning a plurality of times at a marker formation location on the sample with the needle in a condition that the marker is not formed on the sample by the needle, thereby reducing distortion of a marker shape arising from hysteresis of the piezoelectric element.” The specification does not describe performing the pre-scanning at a marker formation location, or at any particular location. [0029] states only “it is preferable to perform scanning a plurality of times with the needle 114 by the scanners.” The specification does not attribute the distortion of the marker shape to hysteresis. The term hysteresis does not appear in the specification. Reciting a specific physical mechanism that the specification never identifies does not reasonably convey possession of that mechanism at the time of filing.
Claims 14 and 16 depend from claim 6 and are rejected for the same reason.
15. Regarding claims 11 and 12:
Amended claims 11 and 12 each recite that “wherein the driving unit is further configured to: specify a region that contains the region of interest and has the region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a separate magnifying observation processing device that is separate from the electric characteristic evaluation device; and form, by an interaction between the needle and the sample, a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device that is observed or processed when the separate magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker.” The specification does not describe a driving unit that perform all the functions as recited. The specification defines the driving unit solely as a positioning element ([0047]). The specification assigns the recited functions to the device as a whole and to the control unit ([0045] and [0026]). The assignment of the recited functions to the driving unit is not described in the specification and constitutes new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply. Applicant’s reply of August 4, 2026 does not identify where support for the above limitations may be found in the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
17. Claims 8-9, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
18. Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 recites “display within the rectangle a selectable marking location designation portion at each corner of the rectangle.” The two requirements are contradictory as written. A position “at each corner of the rectangle” is a position on the boundary of the rectangle, not a position within it. It is unclear whether the designation portion are required to be inside the rectangle, on its corners, or both.
Claim 15 and 17 depend from claim 8 and are rejected as indefinite.
19. Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites “the separate sample observation processing system is configured to locate the marker on the sample” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites “a sample observation processing system.” No separate sample observation processing system has been introduced. It is further unclear which element is intended to perform the recited functions. The claimed system comprises the scanning probe microscope and the separate magnifying observation processing device, it is unclear what structure performs the function.
The limitation is also grammatically inconsistent, reciting “is configured to locate the marker”, “matches one or more of corners”, “increase a magnification”. It is unclear whether the matching and increasing are functions performed by the same element or separate elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia (US 20210247336) in view of Yaeshima (US 20140084159), further in view of Endo (US 20130134308).
23. Regarding claim 5:
Baralia teaches a scanning probe microscope ([0117] fig. 2 teaches a scanning probe microscope) including a scanning unit configured to scan a sample and a needle ([0119] teaches that the measuring tip 240 of the probe 230 scans over the sample 220. [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
a control unit ([0123] teaches the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the scanning probe microscope) configured to acquire a region of interest obtained in a result of scanning the sample and then perform observation or 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. [0161] teaches that the control unit may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing), and
wherein, the control unit is configured to receive information about a separate magnifying observation processing device (the separate magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that a scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that an SBM may comprise an SEM. [0133] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the SPM includes an interface 486 to facilitate data interchange with external apparatuses, such as a scanning particle beam microscope, which is the separate device), and based on the information, the control unit is configured to perform control ([0056]-[0060] teach 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 region is specified that contains the region of interest ([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. [0172] teaches that the marks are arranged within the maximum scan region of the probe); and
a marker, formed by a line and indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle, is formed on the sample by an interaction between the needle and the sample ([0035] teaches that 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. [0174] teaches that four marks 1020 in the form of microstructured angles have been produced around the defect 760, which may be written by the probe 435 using the tip 439 by way of direct writing of depressions into the element of the absorber structure 730. The microstructured angle is a marker formed by a line indicating a corner, i.e. at least a part of an outer edge, of a rectangle. [0037] teaches that 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 into the photolithographic mask or in the wafer).
Baralia does not specifically note that the information including at least one of a visual field size, a visual field aspect ratio, a visual field magnification, and an observation angle of an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device. The region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the separate magnifying observation processing device; and that the rectangle is identical or similar to the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device.
However, Yaeshima teaches that wherein the information used to control marker formation includes at least one of a visual field size, a visual field aspect ratio, a visual field magnification, and an observation angle of an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device ([0041] teaches that the position of the marking center is determined from the center of the field of view of the SEM image, i.e., the marking geometry is determined from field-of-view information of the magnifying observation processing device. [0043] teaches that the EB mark is formed with high positional precision because it can be formed in a size according to the magnification of the SEM, and can hence indicate an accurate cross section producing position even in an image captured with an imaging device provided in the analysis apparatus, i.e., the magnification information is used to set the mark so that the mark is usable in the separate analysis apparatus. [0046] teaches that the distances D1 and D2 and the distance between the EB marking position and the marking center are tabulated and stored in the memory in the controller 110, and that the stage control unit 1105 reads the table in the memory, i.e., the control unit receives the stored information and controls marker formation on the basis thereof). The region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the separate magnifying observation processing device ([0037] teaches that automatic defect review (ADR) is performed such 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); and
wherein the marker indicates at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle that is identical or similar to the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device ([0043] teaches that the first impression marks 502 are placed at the four vertices of a square surround the defect, and that an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square. The square is centered on the marking center, which according to [0041] is the center of the field of view of the SEM image; the square is therefore a rectangle similar to the square observation visual field of the SEM, with the defect, i.e., the region of interest, at its center. [0044] further teaches that the distance D2 is determined to be smaller than the size that fits in a specimen holder of the analysis apparatus and that the marks are so placed that the size thereof is as large as possible for good visibility, i.e., the extent of the marked rectangle is set on the basis of parameters of the separate apparatus that will search for the marks).
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 such that the control unit receives a visual field magnification or visual field size of the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device and, based on that information, specifies a region having the region of interest at a scaling center and forms the marker at the outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to that observation visual field. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect with out actually marking the center of the defect, thereby avoiding affecting the defect itself (Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]), and would ensure that the marks are placed as large as possible for good visibility while remaining locatable by the separate apparatus that searches for them (Yaeshima [0043] and [0044]). Sizing a marker array to the field of view of the instrument that must find it amounts to no more than the routine selection of a known parameter to obtain a predictable result, i.e., that the marker and the region of interest appear together in a single field of view of that instrument.
Baralia in view of Yaeshima does not specifically note that the control unit is configured to change, based on a material of the sample, 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 so as to optimize visibility of the marker in the separate magnifying observation processing device.
However, Endo teaches that changing a marking condition on the basis of a material of the sample, including a depth of the mark ([0011] teaches that 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. Fig. 6B sets out a maximum depth for each material. [0037] teaches that a scanning electron microscope image 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, such that the control unit changes, based on a material of the sample, at least a depth of the line of the marker written by the probe. Such modification allows for creating marks suitable for different materials (Endo [0011]) and making well-shaped marks, thereby enabling early defect cause investigation and yield improvement (Endo [0012]-[0013]).
24. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the scanning probe microscope according to claim 6. Baralia in view of Yaeshima does not specifically note that wherein the control unit is configured to change, based on a material of the sample, 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 so as to optimize visibility of the marker in the separate magnifying observation processing device.
However, Endo teaches that changing a marking condition on the basis of a material of the sample, including a depth of the mark ([0011] teaches that 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. Fig. 6B sets out a maximum depth for each material. [0037] teaches that a scanning electron microscope image 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, such that the control unit changes, based on a material of the sample, at least a depth of the line of the marker written by the probe. Such modification allows for creating marks suitable for different materials (Endo [0011]) and making well-shaped marks, thereby enabling early defect cause investigation and yield improvement (Endo [0012]-[0013]).
25. Claims 3 are 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).
26. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the scanning probe microscope according to claim 5, Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo does not specifically 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 that a rotational direction of the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device relative to the marker is determinable when the marker is searched for by the separate magnifying observation processing device.
Tomita teaches 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 that a rotational direction of the observation visual field relative to the marker is determinable when the marker is searched ([0026] FIGS. 4B and 4C, four or more dot marking marks 62 are arranged so as to sandwich the abnormal portion 61 of the test sample 60, and further, the abnormal portion 61 and the dot marking mark 62 are arranged. By making the distance and the number of marking marks 62 non-identical on the top and bottom and on the left and right, the direction of the abnormal part 61 can be more easily recognized).
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 Tomita such that the markers produced by the probe are disposed non-rotationally-symmetrically about the center of the region of interest. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the direction for the abnormal part 61 can be more easily recognized, and that the measurement position can be easily specified when the abnormal portion 61 is further analyzed by another analyzer (Tomita [0026]).
27. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia in view of Yaeshima.
28. Regarding claim 6:
Baralia teaches a scanning probe microscope ([0117] fig. 2 teaches a scanning probe microscope) comprising: a scanning unit including a piezoelectric element that is configured to scan a sample and a needle ([0119] teaches that the measuring tip 240 of the probe 230 scans over the sample 220. [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
a control unit ([0123] teaches the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the scanning probe microscope) configured to acquire a region of interest obtained in a result of scanning the sample and the perform 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. [0161] teaches that the control unit may determine a repair template, which is a type of processing),
wherein, the control unit is configured to receive information regarding a separate magnifying observation processing device (the separate magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0011] teaches that a scanning probe microscope (SPM) and a scanning particle beam microscope (SBM) have been combined in one apparatus. [0077] teaches that an SBM may comprise an SEM. [0133] teaches that the control unit, fig. 4 element 480, of the SPM includes an interface 486 to facilitate data interchange with external apparatuses, such as a scanning particle beam microscope, which is the separate device), and based on the information, the control unit is configured to perform control ([0056]-[0060] teach 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) a region is specified that contains the region of interest ([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. [0172] teaches that the marks are arranged within the maximum scan region of the probe); and
(b) a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle is formed on the sample by an interaction between the needle and the sample ([0035] teaches that 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. [0174] teaches that four marks 1020 in the form of microstructured angles have been produced around the defect 760, which may be written by the probe 435 using the tip 439 by way of direct writing of depressions into the element of the absorber structure 730. The microstructured angle is a marker formed by a line indicating a corner, i.e. at least a part of an outer edge, of a rectangle. [0037] teaches that 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 into the photolithographic mask or in the wafer); and
wherein the scanning unit is configured to, prior to forming the marker, perform scanning a plurality of times at a marker formation location on the sample with the needle in a condition that the marker is not formed on the sample by the needle. thereby reducing distortion of a marker shape arising from hysteresis of the piezoelectric element, and then form the marker on the sample by the needle (fig. 13 and [0200]-[0202] teach the ordered sequence recited. [0201] teaches that the method starts at step 1305. At step 1310, a defect of a photomask or a wafer is analyzed with the aid of a probe, i.e., the sample is scanned with the needle at step 1310. [0202] teaches that thereafter at step 1315, one or more marks are produced on the photomask or the wafer by way of the SPM 300. Accordingly, the scanning performed at step 1310 is performed in a condition in which no marker has yet been formed on the sample by the needle, because the marker is not produced until step 1315. The scanning step is performed a plurality of times. [0157] teaches that the phase defect 750 is analyzed by use of the probe 415 of the SPM 300 by virtue of two-dimensional scanning by use of the measuring tip 419, i.e., the measuring tip traverses the region in a plurality of passes. [0158] also teaches scanning multiple times. [0082] teaches that the scanning occurs at the marker formation location that the at least one mark is produced so close to the at least one defect. [0172] teaches that the marks are arranged within the maximum scan region of the probe).
Baralia does not specifically note that the information including at least one of a visual field size, a visual field aspect ratio, and a visual field magnification of an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device; the region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the separate magnifying observation processing device; and that the rectangle is identical or similar to the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device.
However, Yaeshima teaches that wherein the information used to control marker formation includes at least one of a visual field size, a visual field aspect ratio, a visual field magnification, and an observation angle of an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device ([0041] teaches that the position of the marking center is determined from the center of the field of view of the SEM image, i.e., the marking geometry is determined from field-of-view information of the magnifying observation processing device. [0043] teaches that the EB mark is formed with high positional precision because it can be formed in a size according to the magnification of the SEM, and can hence indicate an accurate cross section producing position even in an image captured with an imaging device provided in the analysis apparatus, i.e., the magnification information is used to set the mark so that the mark is usable in the separate analysis apparatus. [0046] teaches that the distances D1 and D2 and the distance between the EB marking position and the marking center are tabulated and stored in the memory in the controller 110, and that the stage control unit 1105 reads the table in the memory, i.e., the control unit receives the stored information and controls marker formation on the basis thereof). The region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with the separate magnifying observation processing device ([0037] teaches that automatic defect review (ADR) is performed such 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); and
wherein the marker indicates at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle that is identical or similar to the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device ([0043] teaches that the first impression marks 502 are placed at the four vertices of a square surround the defect, and that an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square. The square is centered on the marking center, which according to [0041] is the center of the field of view of the SEM image; the square is therefore a rectangle similar to the square observation visual field of the SEM, with the defect, i.e., the region of interest, at its center. [0044] further teaches that the distance D2 is determined to be smaller than the size that fits in a specimen holder of the analysis apparatus and that the marks are so placed that the size thereof is as large as possible for good visibility, i.e., the extent of the marked rectangle is set on the basis of parameters of the separate apparatus that will search for the marks).
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 such that the control unit receives a visual field magnification or visual field size of the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device and, based on that information, specifies a region having the region of interest at a scaling center and forms the marker at the outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to that observation visual field. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect with out actually marking the center of the defect, thereby avoiding affecting the defect itself (Yaeshima [0052] and [0039]), and would ensure that the marks are placed as large as possible for good visibility while remaining locatable by the separate apparatus that searches for them (Yaeshima [0043] and [0044]). Sizing a marker array to the field of view of the instrument that must find it amounts to no more than the routine selection of a known parameter to obtain a predictable result, i.e., that the marker and the region of interest appear together in a single field of view of that instrument.
29. Claim 9 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 Seiko (US 20030001109).
30. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the scanning probe microscope according to claim 5. Baralia further teaches a sample observation processing system ([0059] teaches a measuring system used for observation and processing) comprising: the separate magnifying observation processing device configured to perform observation or processing of the region of interest (the magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 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),
wherein the separate sample observation processing system is configured to locate the marker on the sample ([0203] teaches that the marks are detected by a scanning particle beam microscope. [0034] teaches the position of a defect is known by way of the relationship thereof to the at least one mark in the coordinate system of the mask or of the wafer. By way of example, this renders it possible to localize the position of a defect for the purposes of correcting the latter, even if the defect (e.g., a phase defect of a photolithographic mask) is not visible in an image produced by the particle beam) and
Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo does not specifically note matching one or more of corners of the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest and the observation visual field are matched, increasing a magnification, and then performing observation or processing of the region of interest.
Seiko teaches that the controller forms at least three alignment marks 88 in the four corners of the processing area 86, which is the observation area, with the region of interest at the center 90 of that observation area (fig. 5, [0044], [0047]). Seiko further teaches that the marks are then used to register the field of a second imaging modality where the SIM image of the processing area is acquired and the SIM image includes images of the alignment marks 88 ([0051]). Enlargement and reduction of the magnification, and modification of the rotation, of the optical microscope image is performed, to adjust the optical microscope image such that superposition on the SIM image is possible. The two images are then superposed based on the alignment marks ([0054]). The modification of rotation to effect superposition based on corner marks is a matching of the angle of the region of interest with the angle of the observation visual field. The enlargement of the magnification to effect that superposition, followed by FIB irradiation at the processing position detected from the superposed images (step S26 [0055]), is an increase in magnification followed by observation or processing of 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 Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Seiko to configure the measuring system of Baralia such that the separate magnifying observation processing device locates the marks, aligns the corners of its observation visual field to the marks so that the angular orientation of the region of interest and the observation visual field are matched, and then increases magnification to observe or process the region of interest. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to align the observation field based on the alignment marks for proper observation in a suitable magnification. Locating a feature at low magnification by means of marks and thereafter increasing magnification to observe it is the ordinary and expected way of operating a magnifying observation apparatus and yields the predictable result of bringing the region of interest into high magnification field.
31. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtaki (US 20210025936) in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Tomita.
32. Regarding claim 11:
Ohtaki teaches an electric characteristic evaluation device that evaluates electric characteristics of a sample ([0075] fig. 1 teaches an electrical characteristic evaluation apparatus), the electric characteristic evaluation device comprising:
a conductive needle ([0087] teaches tungsten probes, which are conductive. [0083] teaches a robe module 201 including a tungsten probe 120);
a driving unit configured to change a relative position relation between the sample and the needle ([0077] teaches that the sample stage 102 is driven by a motor in the X, Y, and Z axis directions, and that the probe driving mechanism 107 uses a piezoelectric element and can drive the probe 106 at nano-order in the X, Y, and Z axis directions);
an electric characteristic evaluation unit connected to the needle and configured to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample ([0079]-[0082] teach the current and voltage detection unit 114b electrically connected to each of the probes of the probe cartridge 106, which acquires a value of the current or voltage detected by each probe and supplies current or voltage as needed when each probe comes into contact with an electrode pad or wiring formed on the sample 101. [0082] teaches the control computer 114d connected to the probe driving mechanism 107 and the remaining units to control the same collectively); and
a charged particle beam irradiation unit configured to irradiate the sample with a charged particle beam ([0075]-[0076] teaches a scanning electron microscope that generates an electron beam to scan the sample 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 the probe cartridge 106 brought into contact with the sample 101 to evaluate electric characteristics. [0081] teaches that as the sample is irradiated during scanning of the electron beam, the current and voltage image acquisition unit acquires a current or voltage signal obtained from each probe and generates a current and voltage image of the sample) 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 wirings, may be found as an image by acquiring an absorption current image; the defective portion is the region of interest),
Ohtaki does not teach that wherein the driving unit is further configured to:
specify a region that contains the region of interest and has the region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a separate magnifying observation processing device that is separate from the electric characteristic evaluation device; and
form, by an interaction between the needle and the sample, a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device that is observed or processed when the separate magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker.
Yaeshima teaches specifying a region that contains the region of interest and has the region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a separate magnifying observation processing device that is separate from the electric characteristic evaluation device (the separate magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0037] teaches that automatic defect review (ADR) is performed such 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); and
form, by an interaction between an impression marking unit and the sample, a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device that is observed or processed when the separate magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker ([0043] teaches that the first impression marks 502 are placed at the four vertices of a square surround the defect, and that an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square. The square is centered on the marking center, which according to [0041] is the center of the field of view of the SEM image; the square is therefore a rectangle similar to the square observation visual field of the SEM, with the defect, i.e., the region of interest, at its center. [0044] further teaches that the distance D2 is determined to be smaller than the size that fits in a specimen holder of the analysis apparatus and that the marks are so placed that the size thereof is as large as possible for good visibility, i.e., the extent of the marked rectangle is set on the basis of parameters of the separate apparatus that will search for the marks), wherein the driving unit affects the specifying and the marker placement ([0042] teaches that the marking target defect extraction unit 1104 determines the marking coordinates and transmits them to the impression marking unit control unit 1102, which controls the impression marking unit 109 to actually place a mark at the determined coordinates. [0046] teaches that the distances D1 and D2 are tabulated in relation to a defect characteristic value and stored in the memory in the controller 110, and that the stage control unit 1105 reads the table in the memory and moves the stage in such a way that a marking target position comes under the impression marking unit).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima such that the probe driving mechanism 107 positions the tungsten probe to specify a region containing the identified defective portion with that portion at the scaling center of the separate device’s observation visual field, and forms a marker at the outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to that observation visual field. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without marking the center of the defect itself, thereby avoiding affecting the region of interest (Yaeshima [0039], [0052]) and would allow the marks to be placed as large as possible for good visibility while remaining locatable by the separate apparatus that searches for them (Yaeshima [0043]-[0044]).
Yaeshima forms the marker with an impression marking unit rather than with the needle used for evaluation. However, Tomita teaches forming the marker by an interaction between the evaluation needle and the sample ([0025] teaches that a voltage is applied to the cantilever 30 so that a discharge is generated between the probe 31 and the inspection sample 60 and the marking material is transferred to the sample surface to become a marking mark 62. [0027] further teaches that the surface inspection of the sample and the formation of the marking trace can be performed with one cantilever so that system can be simplified and downsizing can be achieved).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Tomita such that the marker is formed by interaction between the needle and the sample. Such modification would allow for simplified apparatus and that further downsizing can be achieved (Tomita [0027]).
33. Regarding claim 12:
Ohtaki teaches an electric characteristic evaluation device that evaluates electric characteristics of a sample ([0075] fig. 1 teaches an electrical characteristic evaluation apparatus), the electric characteristic evaluation device comprising:
a conductive needle ([0087] teaches tungsten probes, which are conductive. [0083] teaches a robe module 201 including a tungsten probe 120);
a driving unit configured to change a relative position relation between the sample and the needle ([0077] teaches that the sample stage 102 is driven by a motor in the X, Y, and Z axis directions, and that the probe driving mechanism 107 uses a piezoelectric element and can drive the probe 106 at nano-order in the X, Y, and Z axis directions);
an electric characteristic evaluation unit connected to the needle and configured to evaluate the electric characteristics of the sample ([0079]-[0082] teach the current and voltage detection unit 114b electrically connected to each of the probes of the probe cartridge 106, which acquires a value of the current or voltage detected by each probe and supplies current or voltage as needed when each probe comes into contact with an electrode pad or wiring formed on the sample 101. [0082] teaches the control computer 114d connected to the probe driving mechanism 107 and the remaining units to control the same collectively); and
a charged particle beam irradiation unit configured to irradiate the sample with a charged particle beam ([0075]-[0076] teaches a scanning electron microscope that generates an electron beam to scan the sample 101),
wherein the needle configured to be brought into contact with the sample within a visual field of the charged particle beam irradiation unit ([0075] teaches that the probe cartridge 106 to be in contact with the sample 101 and displaying SEM images of the sample 101 and the probe cartridge. Since SEM images display the sample ad the probe cartridge, they are within a visual field of the SEM. [0079] and [0081] teach that the SEM image and the current and voltage image are acquired from the electron-beam scan of the sample while the probes are in contact, i.e., the contact position lies within the field scanned by the charged particle beam.).
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 the probe cartridge 106 brought into contact with the sample 101 to evaluate electric characteristics. [0081] teaches that as the sample is irradiated during scanning of the electron beam, the current and voltage image acquisition unit acquires a current or voltage signal obtained from each probe and generates a current and voltage image of the sample) 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 wirings, may be found as an image by acquiring an absorption current image; the defective portion is the region of interest),
Ohtaki does not teach that wherein the driving unit is further configured to:
specify a region that contains the region of interest and has the region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a separate magnifying observation processing device that is separate from the electric characteristic evaluation device; and
form, by an interaction between the needle and the sample, a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device that is observed or processed when the separate magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker.
Yaeshima teaches specifying a region that contains the region of interest and has the region of interest located at a scaling center when the region is observed with a separate magnifying observation processing device that is separate from the electric characteristic evaluation device (the separate magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to an SEM. [0037] teaches that automatic defect review (ADR) is performed such 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); and
form, by an interaction between an impression marking unit and the sample, a marker indicating at least a part of an outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to an observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device that is observed or processed when the separate magnifying observation processing device searches for the marker ([0043] teaches that the first impression marks 502 are placed at the four vertices of a square surround the defect, and that an operator of the failure analysis apparatus may search for the defect within the square. The square is centered on the marking center, which according to [0041] is the center of the field of view of the SEM image; the square is therefore a rectangle similar to the square observation visual field of the SEM, with the defect, i.e., the region of interest, at its center. [0044] further teaches that the distance D2 is determined to be smaller than the size that fits in a specimen holder of the analysis apparatus and that the marks are so placed that the size thereof is as large as possible for good visibility, i.e., the extent of the marked rectangle is set on the basis of parameters of the separate apparatus that will search for the marks), wherein the driving unit affects the specifying and the marker placement ([0042] teaches that the marking target defect extraction unit 1104 determines the marking coordinates and transmits them to the impression marking unit control unit 1102, which controls the impression marking unit 109 to actually place a mark at the determined coordinates. [0046] teaches that the distances D1 and D2 are tabulated in relation to a defect characteristic value and stored in the memory in the controller 110, and that the stage control unit 1105 reads the table in the memory and moves the stage in such a way that a marking target position comes under the impression marking unit).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima such that the probe driving mechanism 107 positions the tungsten probe to specify a region containing the identified defective portion with that portion at the scaling center of the separate device’s observation visual field, and forms a marker at the outer edge of a rectangle identical or similar to that observation visual field. Such modification would allow identifying the center of the defect without marking the center of the defect itself, thereby avoiding affecting the region of interest (Yaeshima [0039], [0052]) and would allow the marks to be placed as large as possible for good visibility while remaining locatable by the separate apparatus that searches for them (Yaeshima [0043]-[0044]).
Yaeshima forms the marker with an impression marking unit rather than with the needle used for evaluation. However, Tomita teaches forming the marker by an interaction between the evaluation needle and the sample ([0025] teaches that a voltage is applied to the cantilever 30 so that a discharge is generated between the probe 31 and the inspection sample 60 and the marking material is transferred to the sample surface to become a marking mark 62. [0027] further teaches that the surface inspection of the sample and the formation of the marking trace can be performed with one cantilever so that system can be simplified and downsizing can be achieved).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ohtaki in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Tomita such that the marker is formed by interaction between the needle and the sample. Such modification would allow for simplified apparatus and that further downsizing can be achieved (Tomita [0027]).
34. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Seiko.
35. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the scanning probe microscope according to claim 6. Baralia further teaches a sample observation processing system ([0059] teaches a measuring system used for observation and processing) comprising: the separate magnifying observation processing device configured to perform observation or processing of the region of interest (the magnifying observation processing device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 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),
wherein the separate magnifying observation processing device is configured to locate the marker on the sample ([0203] teaches that the marks are detected by a scanning particle beam microscope. [0034] teaches the position of a defect is known by way of the relationship thereof to the at least one mark in the coordinate system of the mask or of the wafer. By way of example, this renders it possible to localize the position of a defect for the purposes of correcting the latter, even if the defect (e.g., a phase defect of a photolithographic mask) is not visible in an image produced by the particle beam)
Baralia in view of Yaeshima does not specifically note and matching one or more corners of the observation visual field of the separate magnifying observation processing device with the marker so that angles of the region of interest and the observation visual field are matched, increasing magnification, and then performing observation or processing of the region of interest.
Seiko teaches that the controller forms at least three alignment marks 88 in the four corners of the processing area 86, which is the observation area, with the region of interest at the center 90 of that observation area (fig. 5, [0044], [0047]). Seiko further teaches that the marks are then used to register the field of a second imaging modality where the SIM image of the processing area is acquired and the SIM image includes images of the alignment marks 88 ([0051]). Enlargement and reduction of the magnification, and modification of the rotation, of the optical microscope image is performed, to adjust the optical microscope image such that superposition on the SIM image is possible. The two images are then superposed based on the alignment marks ([0054]). The modification of rotation to effect superposition based on corner marks is a matching of the angle of the region of interest with the angle of the observation visual field. The enlargement of the magnification to effect that superposition, followed by FIB irradiation at the processing position detected from the superposed images (step S26 [0055]), is an increase in magnification followed by observation or processing of 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 Baralia in view of Yaeshima, further in view of Endo, further in view of Seiko to configure the measuring system of Baralia such that the separate magnifying observation processing device locates the marks, aligns the corners of its observation visual field to the marks so that the angular orientation of the region of interest and the observation visual field are matched, and then increases magnification to observe or process the region of interest. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to align the observation field based on the alignment marks for proper observation in a suitable magnification. Locating a feature at low magnification by means of marks and thereafter increasing magnification to observe it is the ordinary and expected way of operating a magnifying observation apparatus and yields the predictable result of bringing the region of interest into high magnification field.
Conclusion
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