DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Parker and Naksuji fail to teach “a comparison unit configured to compare the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal to determine whether a defect is present in the sample”; Applicant does not respond to the citation, at the bottom of page 5 of the Non-Final rejection 3/11/2026, of paragraph [0290] of Nakasuji: “This signal processing circuit may be replaced with a defect detector circuit for detecting the presence or absence of defects in patterns formed on the wafer and the positions of defects by comparing the processed signals with reference data on patterns as designed, stored in a storage unit, for example, by a comparator circuit, not shown, to conduct a defect test” [0290].
Regarding Applicant’s argument A. (beginning on page 8), with respect to the Parker reference; Parker teaches comparing images and is not relied upon for teaching the claimed “a comparison unit configured to compare the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal to determine whether a defect is present in the sample”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B. (beginning on page 9), with respect to the Nakasuji reference; as cited above, Nakasuji discloses a direct comparison of electric signals: “This signal processing circuit may be replaced with a defect detector circuit for detecting the presence or absence of defects in patterns formed on the wafer and the positions of defects by comparing the processed signals with reference data on patterns as designed, stored in a storage unit, for example, by a comparator circuit, not shown, to conduct a defect test” [0290]. Key to this portion is the phrase “…comparing the processed signals”. Applicant has not demonstrated how this phrase confers a comparison of processed, stored images that are not signals; rather, it is clear that the signals themselves (whether or not the signals correspond to images) are compared.
Regarding the comparison of images in Nakasuji (in the cited teachings of paragraph [0276]), the cited paragraph [0311] of Nakasuji demonstrates that the “images” are digital signals: “Each of the detectors 31-7 transduces a detected secondary electron beam to an electric signal indicative of the intensity. The electric signal thus output from each detector is amplified by each amplifier 32-7 before received by an image processor 33-7 which converts the electric signal to image data… Defects on the wafer can be detected by comparing the image of the wafer formed in this way with a standard pattern” [0311]. The “image data” is a transitory signal that can be transferred electronically around computer equipment that makes the comparison (as described in paragraph [0151] of Nakasuji).
Applicant cites portions of the specification of the immediate application discussing the complexity of converting signals to images prior to making the comparison for defect determination. The citation of paragraph [0081] of the specification of the immediate application (on page 11) specifies that “Instead of storing the scanning images, the electrical signals are immediately compared”. It is therefore clear that any meaning of the claimed “signal[s]” imparted from the specification relates to a time prior to storage of an image. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the images of Nakasuji follow such a step. Rather, in paragraph [0311], Nakasuji describes that it is the processed image signals that are compared with no apparent additional storage step (as it is this storage that is disparaged in, for example, paragraph [0009] of the specification of the immediate application).
Further, as discussed above, Applicant has provided no argument as to how the signals disclosed in paragraph [0290] of Nakasuji (cited at the bottom of page 5 of the Non-Final rejection 3/11/2026) differ from the claimed signals.
Regarding Applicant’s argument C. (on page 13); as discussed above, the combination of Parker and Nakasuji teaches the claimed “comparison unit configured to compare the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal to determine whether a defect is present in the sample” and, as described on pages 5 and 6 of the Non-Final Rejection 3/11/2026, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the detection scheme of Nakasuji (correlating the electrical signals generated by detecting secondary electrons with images formed from those electrical signals) in order to provide a suitable detection scheme for generating the images of Parker from detected electron signals, using a known, commercially available detector.
Regarding Applicant’s argument D. (on page 13); with respect to claims 19 and 20, as well as to claims 6-8, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, and claims 2-5, 9, 10, 14, and 17, Applicant reiterates the arguments with respect to independent claim 1 and no additional response is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0001178 in view of Nakasuji et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0207475.
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses an inspection tool for identifying defects in a sample (“embodiments of this invention are designed for the detection of defects” [0024]), comprising: a first beam generation device (“an electron gun 225 sits on the top of each column” [0025]) configured to generate a first detector-beam as an electron beam along a first detector-beam path to scan a first area of a sample (“Each column has a footprint, which is the area of the substrate imaged by the column” [0025]); a second beam generation device (“an electron gun 225 sits on the top of each column” [0025]) configured to generate a second detector-beam as an electron beam along a second detector-beam path to scan a second area of the sample (“Each column has a footprint, which is the area of the substrate imaged by the column” [0025]); a first detector configured to generate a first signal based on the scan of the first area by the first detector-beam (“Detector plates 265, to which detectors 270 are already attached, are loosely attached, one per column, to the column assembly” [0046]); a second detector configured to generate a second signal based on the scan of the second area by the second detector-beam (“Detector plates 265, to which detectors 270 are already attached, are loosely attached, one per column, to the column assembly” [0046]); and a comparison unit configured to compare the first and second signals and to determine whether a defect is present in the sample (“Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer. In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die” [0038]).
Figure 6k of Parker illustrates at least three columns, each column including an electron gun 225 for generating a respective electron beam. Each of the columns is spaced apart from an adjacent column so that the electron beam from a respective column is incident on a different portion of the sample (“Ideally, all the columns would have a pitch or spacing that was equal to the die or reticle pitch or spacing” [0038]). Secondary electrons generated by the interaction of an electron beam with the sample at a specific location are detected by a respective detector 270 associated with each column. Paragraph [0038] describes that the images formed by each detector are compared with one another to determine the presence of a defect on a portion of the sample scanned by a respective beam of the plurality of electron beams.
Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker discloses that electron detectors generate a “signal” [0026], and that “Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer” [0038], there is no explicit disclosure that the signal from each detector is an electrical signal and that it is these electrical signals are compared to determine a the presence of a defect.
Nakasuji discloses an electron microscopy device ([0004]) for generating a secondary electron beam from an interaction with the sample (“electron beams are irradiated to a sample, secondary electrons emitted from the sample and varying according to a property of the sample surface are captured” [0001]), and then generating an electric signal by the interaction of secondary electrons with a detector surface, so as to generate an image of the sample (“Each of the detectors 31-7 transduces a detected secondary electron beam to an electric signal indicative of the intensity. The electric signal thus output from each detector is amplified by each amplifier 32-7 before received by an image processor 33-7 which converts the electric signal to image data… Defects on the wafer can be detected by comparing the image of the wafer formed in this way with a standard pattern” [0311]). Nakasuji discloses comparing a first electrical signal (of an image, as described in paragraph [0311]) and a second electrical signal (of an image, as described in paragraph [0311]) to determine whether a defect is present in the sample (“defects on the surface of the wafer are detected by comparing… detected images of dies with one another, and the defects on the surface of the wafer are reviewed by observing an image produced by scanning the beam on a monitor which is synchronized with the primary electron beam scanned on the surface of the wafer” [0276]). Additionally and/or alternatively, Nakasuji discloses: “a defect detector circuit for detecting the presence or absence of defects in patterns formed on the wafer and the positions of defects by comparing the processed signals with reference data on patterns as designed, stored in a storage unit, for example, by a comparator circuit, not shown, to conduct a defect test” [0290].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the detection scheme of Nakasuji (correlating the electrical signals generated by detecting secondary electrons with images formed from those electrical signals) in order to provide a suitable detection scheme for generating the images of Parker from detected electron signals, using a known, commercially available detector.
Regarding claim 6, Parker discloses that the inspection tool is configured to adjust a beam pitch of the detector-beams within a first beam adjustment threshold (“Ideally, all the columns would have a pitch or spacing that was equal to the die or reticle pitch or spacing. (A reticle field is the area printed by a mask which can contain more than one die or chip.) In this case all the columns would be aligned with the same image information. In the case where the column pitch is not equal to the die or reticle field pitch, the image data is electronically aligned in a computer memory” [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Parker discloses corrector arrays, preferably individual beam pitch correctors, configured to adjust the beam pitch within the first beam adjustment threshold (“The alignment deflector 230 steers the beam 232 down the column into the ideal position for the lower column optics. This alignment deflector 230 is an independent deflector for each column in the multi-column inspection tool. In the preferred embodiment, the alignment deflector 230 is a set of double octupole deflectors. The purpose of the alignment deflector 230 is to make every source appear as if it is emitting directly on the optical axis of the column. Two deflectors are required because both trajectory and position may need to be corrected” [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Parker illustrates in figure 6k that each beam generation device 225 is associated with a column.
Regarding claim 11, Parker discloses that the first beam generation device 225 is associated with a first column and the second beam generation device 225 is associated with a second column (as illustrated in figure 6k).
Regarding claim 12, Parker discloses that the first column and the second column are configured to be mutually positionable to adjust a beam pitch within a second beam adjustment threshold (“The alignment deflector 230 steers the beam 232 down the column into the ideal position for the lower column optics. This alignment deflector 230 is an independent deflector for each column in the multi-column inspection tool. In the preferred embodiment, the alignment deflector 230 is a set of double octupole deflectors. The purpose of the alignment deflector 230 is to make every source appear as if it is emitting directly on the optical axis of the column. Two deflectors are required because both trajectory and position may need to be corrected” [0027] – paragraph [0051] describes, with respect to the embodiment of figure 6k that each of the multiple columns includes respective alignment deflectors 230).
Regarding claim 13, Parker discloses that each column has one of the detectors 270 (as illustrated in figure 6k), preferably the detector is a detector array.
Regarding claim 15, Parker discloses a third beam generation device configured to generate a third detector-beam to scan a third area (as illustrated in figure 6k); wherein the third beam generation device is associated with a third column configured to move to adjust a beam pitch within a second beam adjustment threshold (“The alignment deflector 230 steers the beam 232 down the column into the ideal position for the lower column optics. This alignment deflector 230 is an independent deflector for each column in the multi-column inspection tool. In the preferred embodiment, the alignment deflector 230 is a set of double octupole deflectors. The purpose of the alignment deflector 230 is to make every source appear as if it is emitting directly on the optical axis of the column. Two deflectors are required because both trajectory and position may need to be corrected” [0027] – paragraph [0051] describes, with respect to the embodiment of figure 6k that each of the multiple columns includes respective alignment deflectors 230).
Regarding claim 16, Parker illustrates in figure 6k that the multiple columns include at least three columns, and Parker discloses that the comparison unit is configured to compare the first, second and third signals, determine whether a defect is present, and if a defect is detected, determine which of the first, second and third areas is a defect area of the sample based on the comparison of the first, second and third signals (“Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer. In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die” [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Parker discloses that the comparison unit is configured to compare the signals and to determine that a defect is present in the sample if a difference between the signals is above a comparison threshold (“Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer. In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die” [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Parker discloses an inspection method for identifying defects in a sample, the method comprising: scanning a first area of a sample with a first detector beam (“The focusing electrode 260, and field-free tube 262 focus the beam to a small spot on the wafer while the scanning deflectors 240 and 245 scan the beam over the substrate 280 in a raster scan” [0026]) and scanning a second area of the sample with a second detector beam (“In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die… Ideally, all the columns would have a pitch or spacing that was equal to the die or reticle pitch or spacing” [0038]), the first detector beam and the second detector beam being electron beams (“the electron beams 232” [0034]); receiving first and second signals that are derived from the first and second detector-beams (“Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer. In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die” [0038]); comparing the first and second signals ([0038]); and determining whether a defect is present in the sample ([0038]). Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker discloses that electron detectors generate a “signal” [0026], and that “Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer” [0038], there is no explicit disclosure that the signal from each detector is an electrical signal and that it is these electrical signals are compared to determine a the presence of a defect.
Nakasuji discloses an electron microscopy device ([0004]) for generating a secondary electron beam from an interaction with the sample (“electron beams are irradiated to a sample, secondary electrons emitted from the sample and varying according to a property of the sample surface are captured” [0001]), and then generating an electric signal by the interaction of secondary electrons with a detector surface, so as to generate an image of the sample (“Each of the detectors 31-7 transduces a detected secondary electron beam to an electric signal indicative of the intensity. The electric signal thus output from each detector is amplified by each amplifier 32-7 before received by an image processor 33-7 which converts the electric signal to image data… Defects on the wafer can be detected by comparing the image of the wafer formed in this way with a standard pattern” [0311]). Nakasuji discloses comparing a first electrical signal (of an image, as described in paragraph [0311]) and a second electrical signal (of an image, as described in paragraph [0311]) to determine whether a defect is present in the sample (“defects on the surface of the wafer are detected by comparing… detected images of dies with one another, and the defects on the surface of the wafer are reviewed by observing an image produced by scanning the beam on a monitor which is synchronized with the primary electron beam scanned on the surface of the wafer” [0276]). Additionally and/or alternatively, Nakasuji discloses: “a defect detector circuit for detecting the presence or absence of defects in patterns formed on the wafer and the positions of defects by comparing the processed signals with reference data on patterns as designed, stored in a storage unit, for example, by a comparator circuit, not shown, to conduct a defect test” [0290].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the detection scheme of Nakasuji (correlating the electrical signals generated by detecting secondary electrons with images formed from those electrical signals) in order to provide a suitable detection scheme for generating the images of Parker from detected electron signals, using a known, commercially available detector.
Regarding claim 20, Parker discloses an electron-optical tool configured to project a plurality of multi-electron beams towards a sample and to identify defects in a sample, the electron-optical tool comprising: electron-optical columns (“FIG. 6k shows an example of multiple columns within an electron optics assembly” [0051]) configured to project corresponding multi-electron beams towards a sample (“Each column has a footprint, which is the area of the substrate imaged by the column” [0025]); detector arrays 270 configured corresponding to respective electron-optical columns and configured to generate respective signals on detection of secondary electrons generated by interaction of the respective multi-electron beams with the sample (“The secondary electrons created by the beam 232 are captured by the electron detectors 270. The signal from the detectors 270 is passed on to an imaging computer for image processing and defect detection” [0026]); and a comparator (“image computer” [0026]) configured to compare signals generated in the detector arrays and to determine whether a defect is present in the sample (“Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer. In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die” [0038]). Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker discloses that electron detectors generate a “signal” [0026], and that “Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer” [0038], there is no explicit disclosure that the signal from each detector is an electrical signal and that it is these electrical signals are compared to determine a the presence of a defect.
Nakasuji discloses an electron microscopy device ([0004]) for generating a secondary electron beam from an interaction with the sample (“electron beams are irradiated to a sample, secondary electrons emitted from the sample and varying according to a property of the sample surface are captured” [0001]), and then generating an electric signal by the interaction of secondary electrons with a detector surface, so as to generate an image of the sample (“Each of the detectors 31-7 transduces a detected secondary electron beam to an electric signal indicative of the intensity. The electric signal thus output from each detector is amplified by each amplifier 32-7 before received by an image processor 33-7 which converts the electric signal to image data… Defects on the wafer can be detected by comparing the image of the wafer formed in this way with a standard pattern” [0311]). Nakasuji discloses comparing a first electrical signal (of an image, as described in paragraph [0311]) and a second electrical signal (of an image, as described in paragraph [0311]) to determine whether a defect is present in the sample (“defects on the surface of the wafer are detected by comparing… detected images of dies with one another, and the defects on the surface of the wafer are reviewed by observing an image produced by scanning the beam on a monitor which is synchronized with the primary electron beam scanned on the surface of the wafer” [0276]). Additionally and/or alternatively, Nakasuji discloses: “a defect detector circuit for detecting the presence or absence of defects in patterns formed on the wafer and the positions of defects by comparing the processed signals with reference data on patterns as designed, stored in a storage unit, for example, by a comparator circuit, not shown, to conduct a defect test” [0290].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the detection scheme of Nakasuji (correlating the electrical signals generated by detecting secondary electrons with images formed from those electrical signals) in order to provide a suitable detection scheme for generating the images of Parker from detected electron signals, using a known, commercially available detector.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0001178 in view of Nakasuji et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0207475 in view of Watanabe et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0253066.
Regarding claim 2, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker discloses that “Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer” [0038], there is no explicit disclosure of comparing the first and second signals directly in real-time.
Watanabe discloses a defect inspection method wherein “For testing the sample W for defects, images of dies on the sample W may be compared with each other, or may be compared with another reference image to detect such defects” [0096] and “using a test dedicated processing unit (IPE) in accordance with set inspection conditions (an array inspection condition, a random inspection condition, an area under inspection) for inspecting a sample for defects in real time” [0222].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the real time image processing of Watanabe in order to improve throughput of analysis and more quickly determine the presence of defects.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0001178 in view of Nakasuji et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0207475 in view of Ando U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0024082.
Regarding claim 3, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker discloses that “Multi-beam electron beam inspection tools have been proposed as viable in-line inspection tools, where high throughputs are required” [0007], there is no explicit disclosure of a scanner configured to scan simultaneously the first and second areas with the first and second detector beams, respectively.
Ando discloses a multi-electron beam imaging system including a scanner configured to scan simultaneously the first and second areas with the first and second detector beams, respectively (“By using multiple beams in an array of a plurality of beam rows in each of which beams are arranged in a straight line at the same pitch, a large number of beams can be arranged within a limited region, and therefore, it becomes possible to scan many small regions at one time simultaneously” [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the simultaneous scanning of Ando in order to fulfill the goal of Park to improve throughput.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0001178 in view of Nakasuji et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0207475 in view of Harada et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0019097.
Regarding claim 4, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that parker does not disclose re-scanning a detected defect area to acquire data for generating images of the defect area.
Harada discloses an electron beam inspection device wherein “ADR is provided with a function to re-detect the defect from an image obtained by imaging the defect position coordinates with low magnification, and to mainly image the re-detected defect position as a high magnification image for observation” [0099].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the repeated scanning of Harada in order to improve throughout by performing an initial inspection which flags potential defect locations, and then only performing high magnification imaging of identified defect locations, thereby preventing a full high magnification scan, which would consume more time.
Regarding claim 5, Parker discloses that the detectors 270 are configured to transmit the acquired data to an analysis unit configured to classify a type of defect based on the acquired data (“Defects can be detected by comparing an image of the location under inspection with an area that contains the same pattern information that is either generated from a database or acquired from another region on the wafer. In the die-to-die mode the pattern information is acquired from the corresponding area of a neighboring die” [0038]).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0001178 in view of Nakasuji et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0207475 in view of Kruit U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0243717.
Regarding claim 9, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker illustrates a plurality of electron beam columns, each including a beam generation device 225, there is no explicit disclosure that the beam generation devices are disposed on a single column.
Kruit discloses “an assembly for inspecting the surface of a sample” [Abstract], wherein: “two substantially identical multi-beam electron column units 1, 1′. Each unit 1, 1′ comprises a single Schottky field emitter 2 for emitting a diverging electron beam 3 towards a beam splitter 4. The beam splitter 4 comprises a first multi-aperture plate comprising multiple apertures for creating multiple primary electron beams 5” [0094]. In Parker, each aperture of the multi-aperture plate comprises a beam generation device for generating the multiple primary electron beams 5. Therefore, Parker illustrates in figure 1 that each column comprises a plurality of beam generation device disposed a respective single column of the plurality of columns.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the electron beam columns of Kruit in order to improve inspection throughput by inspecting a sample with a greater number of electron beams.
Regarding claim 10, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker illustrates a plurality of electron beam columns, each including a beam generation device 225, there is no explicit disclosure that the inspection tool comprises the column and the beam generation devices are apertures of an aperture array.
Kruit discloses “an assembly for inspecting the surface of a sample” [Abstract], wherein: “two substantially identical multi-beam electron column units 1, 1′. Each unit 1, 1′ comprises a single Schottky field emitter 2 for emitting a diverging electron beam 3 towards a beam splitter 4. The beam splitter 4 comprises a first multi-aperture plate comprising multiple apertures for creating multiple primary electron beams 5” [0094]. In Parker, each aperture of the multi-aperture plate comprises a beam generation device for generating the multiple primary electron beams 5. Therefore, Parker illustrates in figure 1 that each column comprises a plurality of beam generation device disposed a respective single column of the plurality of columns.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the electron beam columns of Kruit in order to improve inspection throughput by inspecting a sample with a greater number of electron beams.
Regarding claim 14, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker illustrates a plurality of electron beam columns, each including a beam generation device 225, there is no explicit disclosure that each of the columns comprises a multi-beam generation device.
Kruit discloses “an assembly for inspecting the surface of a sample” [Abstract], wherein: “two substantially identical multi-beam electron column units 1, 1′. Each unit 1, 1′ comprises a single Schottky field emitter 2 for emitting a diverging electron beam 3 towards a beam splitter 4. The beam splitter 4 comprises a first multi-aperture plate comprising multiple apertures for creating multiple primary electron beams 5” [0094]. In Parker, each aperture of the multi-aperture plate comprises a beam generation device for generating the multiple primary electron beams 5. Therefore, Parker illustrates in figure 1 that each column comprises a plurality of beam generation device disposed a respective single column of the plurality of columns.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the electron beam columns of Kruit in order to improve inspection throughput by inspecting a sample with a greater number of electron beams.
Regarding claim 17, Parker discloses the claimed invention except that while Parker illustrates a plurality of electron beam columns, each including a beam generation device 225, there is no explicit disclosure of multiple beam generation devices disposed in each column.
Kruit discloses “an assembly for inspecting the surface of a sample” [Abstract], wherein: “two substantially identical multi-beam electron column units 1, 1′. Each unit 1, 1′ comprises a single Schottky field emitter 2 for emitting a diverging electron beam 3 towards a beam splitter 4. The beam splitter 4 comprises a first multi-aperture plate comprising multiple apertures for creating multiple primary electron beams 5” [0094]. In Parker, each aperture of the multi-aperture plate comprises a beam generation device for generating the multiple primary electron beams 5. Therefore, Parker illustrates in figure 1 that each column comprises a plurality of beam generation device disposed a respective single column of the plurality of columns.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parker with the electron beam columns of Kruit in order to improve inspection throughput by inspecting a sample with a greater number of electron beams.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights