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 Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 12 November 2025. Claims 1-24 are pending in the instant application where claims 4, 12-14, 16-19, and 23 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 16 July 2025. Those rejections overcome are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remark regarding the interpretation of “means for characterizing” corresponding to a contact surface mounted movably in the lateral direction, examiner agrees and the interpretation has been updated.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 1 and 17 (remarks page 2 paragraphs 1-2 (claim 1) and page 3 paragraph 6 – page 4 paragraph 1 (claim 17)) rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 17. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of “a shielding element of a particle beam source for shielding an electric field” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. In this case, the body of the claim provides details of a method for characterizing a shielding element limited solely to the placement of the shielding element in reference to a sample position. While Richardson does not necessarily state that the edge ring 106 is used to shield an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source, Richardson still reads on the method step since “shielding an electric field” and “particle beam source”, being recited only in the preamble, are non-limiting in this instance. As above, recitations in the preamble do not provide a distinct definition of the invention’s limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 4 – page 3 paragraph 3 (claim 1) and page 4 paragraphs 2-3 (claim 17)) that Singh is directed to plasma etching and not a particle beam source and therefore would not make obvious “a method for characterizing a shielding element of a particle beam device for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source”, examiner points to the above paragraph regarding limitations in the preamble being non-limiting in this case. Applicant states that Singh does not provide any suggestion that would prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art to characterize the plasma grid 150 on a side of the plasma grid 150 facing a sample position, examiner notes that the grid 150 with its slotted geometry effectively shields the upper/lower chambers by preventing undesired current flow around and within the grid, and protect aspects of the chamber by enduring hot electron collisions from plasma coils or other plasma source (col 7 ll. 23-53); these characteristics exemplify shielding characteristics of the grid, and one of ordinary skill would recognize the need/benefit for characterizing components which are used in this way. Regarding Singh not disclosing characterizing the side of the grid which faces the sample, Singh has been cited to teach the limitation in the preamble “particle beam device for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source”, where Richardson has been cited to teach the step of positioning a means for characterizing the shielding element on the side of a shielding element facing a sample position; Singh is not relied upon to teach the plasma grid facing the sample position, only that the grid shields an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source. With regards to the plasma grid 150 of Singh not being a consumable part, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the inherent benefit of ensuring proper health of components within processing environments even if those components are not traditionally “consumable”.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 10 December 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Within the claims: a plurality of claims in the instant application recite the limitation “means for characterizing” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and are not preceded by a structural modifier. Any claim that recites the limitation “means for characterizing” will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Accordingly, the limitation “means for characterizing” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to “a sensor, designed as a confocal sensor” (applicant’s specification page 20 ll. 1-3), “an interferometric sensor” (applicant’s specification page 21 ll. 13-16), “a microstructure comprising [at least] a base” (applicant’s specification page 21 ll. 27-30 and page 23 ll. 19-22), or “a contact surface which is mounted movably in a lateral direction” (applicant’s specification page 8 ll. 13-14), and any equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the lateral direction” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any lateral direction will read on the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0053819 A1 by Brett C. Richardson (“Richardson”) in view of US 9,245,761 B2 by Harmeet Singh et al. (“Singh”). Examiner notes that the reference Richardson was cited in the IDS filed 12 March 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Richardson discloses a method for characterizing a shielding element of a particle beam device (Richardson [0005] discloses a methods of using plasma for the etching of substrates where the etching process removes materials not covered by a photoresist [i.e. not shielded]; [0029] discloses determining the amount of wear of an edge ring [shielding element]; while Richardson does not explicitly disclose a particle beam device, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plasma device of Richardson as being analogous to a particle beam device since both are used to etch samples (applicant’s specification page 14 ll. 8-10)), the method comprising:
positioning a means for characterizing the shielding element on a side of the shielding element which is facing the sample position (Richardson [0052] and fig. 2C-2D shows a distance measurement probe 112 positioned between a substrate 102 [sample position] and an edge ring 106 [shielding element], where the probe 112 is on a side of the edge ring 106 which faces the substrate102).
Richardson is silent to a particle beam device for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source.
However, Singh does address this limitation. Richardson and Singh are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the etching of semiconducting substrates (masks, wafers, etc.).
Singh discloses “a particle beam device for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source” (Singh fig. 1 and col 16 ll. 38-51 disclose a semiconducting wafer [sample at a sample position] and a grid 150 [a shielding element]; figs. 4 and 5 show fixed and movable shields (an embodiment of the grid 150) between the semiconducting wafer and a gas injection port 160; fig. 1 shows a region 102 where the gas is ionized to plasma [injection port 160 and ionization portion of the chamber 102 are considered as analogous to a particle beam source] – the presence of plasma indicates the presence of electric fields and since the grid 150 shields the substrate at least partially from the plasma, the grid 150 is a shield for electric field between the sample and the particle beam source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to incorporate a particle beam device for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source as suggested by Singh for the advantage of selectively etching features of the semiconducting substrate (Singh col 17 ll. 49-51).
Regarding claim 2, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 1, and Richardson further teaches the method further comprising: characterizing the side of the shielding element, which is facing the sample position, at least in part with the means for characterizing (Richardson fig. 2C-2D shows distances d1 and d2 between distance probe 112 and the edge ring 106 at two locations; the second location corresponding with distance d2 is determined for a chuck 104 where the chuck 104 and the corner of the edge ring typically covered by the substrate 102 (see fig. 2A-2B for a sample sitting on the corner of the edge ring); [0029] a distance is determined which corresponds to the amount of wear of the edge ring [determining the wear of the edge ring is considered as characterizing the shielding element]).
Regarding claim 3, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 2, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the characterizing comprises capturing a topology of the shielding element, wherein the topology is captured on the side of the shielding element facing the sample position (Richardson figs. 2C-2D shows distances d1 and d2 indicating information about the topology of the edge ring 106 [shielding element]; figs. 2A and 2B show the difference in topology of the edge ring 106 when the ring is degraded by the plasma; the side of the edge ring 106 where topological information is being obtained via distance d1 is shown as facing the wafer 102; even if the substrate 102 is in an etching position (figs. 2A-2B), there is still a surface of the edge ring which faces the substrate).
Regarding claim 4, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 2, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the characterizing comprises determining an anomaly in the topology, at least in part on a basis of a target state of the topology and the captured topology (Richardson [0029] discloses that the amount of wear is determined based on the distances d1 and d2 since the difference between the two distances is indicative of the wear of the edge ring; a threshold exists where if the wear exceeds the threshold, the edge ring is replaced [the threshold is indicative of an anomaly in the topology where the threshold is a “target state topology”]).
Regarding claim 5, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 2, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the characterizing further comprises: determining if the shielding element extends into the sample position (Richardson [0029] has been disclosed above as determining the amount of wear of the edge ring based on the difference between two distances d1 and d2; fig. 2A-2B show a situation where the edge ring has extended below a sample position when the sample 102 is being processed by plasma – that is, the worn down edge ring (corresponding to a smaller difference between d1 and d2) extends into the sample position).
Regarding claim 6, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 3, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the means for characterizing comprises a sensor for measuring the topology, and the capturing of the topology is at least in part based on a measurement of the topology using the sensor (as discussed in claim 1, a distance probe 112 is used to take distance measurements [indicative of a topology of the edge ring]; the captured topology is at least in part based on a measurement using the sensor).
Regarding claim 7, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 6, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the sensor comprises a confocal sensor, and the measurement of the topology is at least in part based on a confocal measurement principle (Richardson [0053] discloses that the distance sensor 112 is an optical distance measurement device such as a confocal measurement system; the topology determined from the distances measured are therefore based on a confocal measurement principle).
Regarding claim 8, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 6, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the sensor comprises an interferometric sensor, and the measurement of the topology is at least in part based on an interferometric measurement principle (Richardson [0053] discloses that the distance sensor 112 is an optical distance measurement device such as an interferometric device; the topology determined from the distances measured are therefore based on a interferometric measurement principle).
Regarding claim 9, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 1, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the means for characterizing is positioned at a predetermined distance from the shielding element; wherein the predetermined distance corresponds to a target distance between a sample and the shielding element (Richardson [0056] discloses that a controller which carries out the method knows the exact position of the transfer arm 108 (on which the distance sensor is located) when the distance sensor takes measurements of the edge ring 106 [the means for characterizing is positioned at a predetermined distance, predetermined since the controller is aware of its position]; “target distance” is not defined by the claim, so the predetermined distance corresponds to a distance between the sample and the shielding element since the substrate 102 is situated on the arm 108 and the distance between the sensor and shielding element is predetermined).
Regarding claim 10, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 9, and Richardson further teaches the method further including detecting a presence or absence of a contact of the means for characterizing with the shielding element (Richardson [0074] discloses that the distance sensor does not come into contact with any other parts of the chamber [during normal function, there is a detectable absence of contact between the means for characterizing and the shielding element] – if contact was detected, there would be a malfunction of the distance sensor as the distance sensor is a non-contact distance measurement device (see Richardson claims 5 and 17)).
Regarding claim 12, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 9, and Richardson further teaches the method, further including moving the means for characterizing in a lateral direction which is parallel to a surface of the sample in the sample position (Richardson fig. 2C-2D show the distance sensor 112 at two lateral positions which are along a line parallel to the surface of the sample in the position of the sample shown in fig. 2C-2D on top of the arm 108, but also parallel to the sample resting on the chuck 104).
Regarding claim 13, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 12, and Richardson further teaches the method wherein the means for characterizing comprises a contact surface, which is mounted movably in the lateral direction (Richardson fig. 2C-2D shows a transfer arm 108 [contact surface]; the figures show a lateral movement between 2C and 2D relative to the edge ring and the chuck 104 [contact surface is mounted movably in the lateral direction]), wherein the capturing of the topology further comprises:
moving the means for characterizing from a first position to a second position by a predetermined distance in the lateral direction (Richardson fig. 2C-2D shows the first distance measurement d1 being obtained at a first position, the transfer arm 108 moving to a second position and capturing the second distance measurement d2; since the second distance d2 must be obtained at a position over the chuck 104 instead of the edge ring (since the edge ring is subject to wear), the distance between the first and second positions is predetermined in the lateral direction – i.e. must move at least a predetermined distance into the region above the chuck ); and
ascertaining a distance of the contact surface caused by a movement of the means for characterizing in the lateral direction (Richardson [0056] discloses that the exact position of the transfer arm 108 is known [i.e. is known as the transfer arm moves from the first position to the second position; since the exact position of the transfer arm is known as it moves, the distance that the contact surface [transfer arm] moves in the lateral direction is ascertained by the controller).
Regarding claim 14, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 13, and Richardson further teaches the method furthermore including: if the contact surface has shifted by the predetermined distance, detecting an absence of a contact of the means for characterizing with the shielding, and if the contact surface has not shifted by the predetermined distance, detecting a presence of a contact of the means for characterizing with the shielding element (Richardson figs. 2C-2D show the distances d1 and d2 being obtained; here, the contact surface is the transfer arm 108 being shown at two lateral locations; “contact” is interpreted here as the detection of the edge ring 106; in the case of fig. 2C, the contact surface has not shifted by a predetermined distance (i.e. has not shifted laterally) and detects a presence of the contact [i.e. the detection of the edge ring via distance sensor 112]; in the case of fig. 2D, the contact surface has shifted by a predetermined distance (has shifted laterally compared with fig. 2C) and thus detects an absence of the contact [i.e. the distance measurement is taken by detecting the chuck 104 not the edge ring 106]).
Regarding claim 17, Richardson discloses a means for characterizing a shielding element of a particle beam device (Richardson [0005] discloses the use of plasma for the etching of substrates where the etching process removes materials not covered by a photoresist [i.e. not shielded]; [0029] discloses determining the amount of wear of an edge ring [shielding element]; [0052] and figs. 2C-2D disclose an edge ring 106 [shielding element]; while Richardson does not explicitly disclose a particle beam device, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plasma device of Richardson as being analogous to a particle beam device since both are used to etch samples (applicant’s specification page 14 ll. 8-10)), the means comprising: a sensor for capturing a topology of the shielding element and/or a movable, contact surface for contacting the shielding element (Richardson [0052] and fig. 2C-2D shows a distance measurement probe 112 [sensor for capturing a topology of the shielding element] positioned between a substrate 102 [sample position] and an edge ring 106 [shielding element]; figs. 2C-2D shows distances d1 and d2 indicating information about the topology of the edge ring 106 [shielding element]; figs. 2A and 2B show the difference in topology of the edge ring 106 when the ring is degraded by the plasma; the side of the edge ring 106 where topological information is being obtained via distance d1 is shown as facing the wafer 102; even if the substrate 102 is in an etching position (figs. 2A-2B), there is still a surface of the edge ring which faces the substrate; the second limitation is not considered here due to the and/or statement after the “sensor for capturing a topology of the shielding element”); wherein the means is configured to be mounted on a sample holder of the particle beam device (Richardson [0052] and fig. 2C disclose the distance sensor 112 mounted on a transfer arm 108 where the transfer arm is holding a substrate 102 [transfer arm is a sample holder] shown in the figure; an equivalence has been drawn between Richardson and a particle beam device above).
Richardson is silent to wherein the shielding element is arranged for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source.
However, Singh does address this limitation. Richardson and Singh are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the etching of semiconducting substrates (masks, wafers, etc.).
Singh discloses “wherein the shielding element is arranged for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source” (Singh fig. 1 and col 16 ll. 38-51 disclose a semiconducting wafer [sample at a sample position] and a grid 150 [a shielding element]; figs. 4 and 5 show fixed and movable shields (an embodiment of the grid 150) between the semiconducting wafer and a gas injection port 160; fig. 1 shows a region 102 where the gas is ionized to plasma [injection port 160 and ionization portion of the chamber 102 are considered as analogous to a particle beam source] – the presence of plasma indicates the presence of electric fields and since the grid 150 shields the substrate at least partially from the plasma, the grid 150 is a shield for electric field between the sample and the particle beam source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to incorporate wherein the shielding element is arranged for shielding an electric field between a sample position and a particle beam source as suggested by Singh for the advantage of selectively etching features of the semiconducting substrate (Singh col 17 ll. 49-51).
Regarding claim 18, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the means for characterizing of claim 17, and Richardson further teaches the means further comprising: a base (Richardson fig. 1 and [0036] disclose a chuck 104 [equivalent to a base]), wherein the contact surface is movably coupled to the base perpendicular to the contact surface (based on the and/or statement within claim 17, the rejection is in regards to the “sensor for capturing topology of the shielding element” and not the “movable contact surface for contacting the shield element”, therefore, the contact surface is non-limiting based on the rejection of independent claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the means for characterizing of claim 17, and Richardson further teaches the means wherein the contact surface is movably coupled to the base along a plane of the contact surface (based on the and/or statement within claim 17, the rejection is in regards to the “sensor for capturing topology of the shielding element” and not the “movable contact surface for contacting the shield element”, therefore, the contact surface is non-limiting based on the rejection of independent claim 17).
Regarding claim 20, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the means for characterizing of claim 17, and Richardson further teaches the means wherein the contact surface has a first plane and a second plane with reference to the base; wherein the first plane lies below the second plane, and wherein the second plane is dimensioned such that it coincides with a peripheral region of the shielding element (based on the and/or statement within claim 17, the rejection is in regards to the “sensor for capturing topology of the shielding element” and not the “movable contact surface for contacting the shield element”, therefore, the contact surface is non-limiting based on the rejection of independent claim 17).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Singh, and further in view of US 2024/0118310 A1 by Antoine Niguès et al. (“Antoine”).
Regarding claim 11, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 10. Richardson when modified by Singh is silent to the method of claim 10, wherein the means for characterizing is at least in part electrically conductive, and the detection comprises a detection of an electrical current that flows through the means for characterizing and the shielding element in presence of the contact.
However, Antoine does address this limitation. Richardson, Singh, and Antoine are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the detection or modification of the surface of a sample, and characterizing said surface based on the detection.
Antoine discloses the method of claim 10, “wherein the means for characterizing is at least in part electrically conductive, and the detection comprises a detection of an electrical current that flows through the means for characterizing and the shielding element in presence of the contact” (Antoine [0156] and fig. 10 illustrate a current which flows between the first probe 15 [means for characterizing] and a surface [i.e. a sample under investigation, equivalent to the shielding element of Richardson]; therefore, a current flows through the means for characterizing and the shielding element; since a current flows through the means for characterizing, said means for characterizing must be at least in part electrically conductive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson in view of Singh to incorporate wherein the means for characterizing is at least in part electrically conductive, and the detection comprises a detection of an electrical current that flows through the means for characterizing and the shielding element in presence of the contact as suggested by Antoine for the advantage of incorporating a means for detecting the shielding element in an embodiment alternative to a light based distance sensor, where the electric current based detection method can yield additional topological data about the surface, and enabling increased resolution of topological data (Antoine [0003]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Singh, and further in view of US 2012/0225518 A1 by Luigi De Santi et al. (“Santi”).
Regarding claim 15, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the method of claim 13. Richardson when modified by Singh is silent to the method of claim 13, wherein the ascertainment of the distance comprises: recording a first image of a reference structure of the contact surface in the first position of the means for characterizing; recording a second image of the reference structure of the contact surface in the second position of the means for characterizing; and determining a distance between the reference structure in the first image and the reference structure in the second image to ascertain the distance of the contact surface.
However, Santi does address this limitation. Richardson, Singh, and Santi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to detecting the orientation of a sample or shielding element, and characterizing said sample or shielding element.
Santi discloses the method of claim 13, “wherein the ascertainment of the distance comprises:
recording a first image of a reference structure of the contact surface in the first position of the means for characterizing (Santi [0038] and fig. 2 disclose video camera 21 which captures an image of a sample [equivalent to the claimed contact surface] with reference points 22; tracks 15 and 16 at their crossings generate the reference points [the tracks being considered the reference structure]; the recording of the image of the sample is considered analogous to recording an image of the transfer arm 108 in Richardson);
recording a second image of the reference structure of the contact surface in the second position of the means for characterizing (Santi [0040] and fig. 3 disclose a video camera 23 which captures a second image of the sample [again equivalent to the contact surface] with the tracks 15 and 16 appearing again [reference structure]; the image captured by video camera 23 shows the sample at a different location relative to the first sample location); and
determining a distance between the reference structure in the first image and the reference structure in the second image to ascertain the distance of the contact surface (Santi [0045] discloses by comparing the images detected by cameras 21 and 23, a deviation between reference points 22 [generated by tracks 15 and 16 as reference structures] is determined [where the deviation is a distance between the reference structures], therefore, allowing the distance of the contact surface to be ascertained; as mentioned before, the means for obtaining the images of the sample within Santi can be utilized to obtain images of the transfer arm of Richardson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson in view of Singh to incorporate wherein the ascertainment of the distance comprises: recording a first image of a reference structure of the contact surface in the first position of the means for characterizing; recording a second image of the reference structure of the contact surface in the second position of the means for characterizing; and determining a distance between the reference structure in the first image and the reference structure in the second image to ascertain the distance of the contact surface as suggested by Santi for the advantage of eliminating the need for a fiducial element or marker to determine the deviation of the sample, where the reference points are identified using features on the sample itself (Santi [0038]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Singh, in view of Antoine, and further in view of US 2008/0141764 A1 by Osamu Takaoka (“Takaoka”).
Regarding claim 16, Richardson when modified by Singh and Antoine discloses the method of claim 11. Richardson when modified by Singh and Antoine is silent to the method of claim 11, further including: detecting a scratch on the means for characterization caused by the movement in the lateral direction.
However, Takaoka does address this limitation. Richardson, Singh, Antoine, and Takaoka are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the detection or modification of the surface of a sample, and characterizing said surface based on the detection.
Takaoka discloses the method of claim 11, “further including: detecting a scratch on the means for characterization caused by a movement in the lateral direction” (Takaoka [0010] discloses that a determination is made whether a tip 1 seen in fig. 1A is worn sufficiently to necessitate a resharpening of the tip [i.e. a “scratch” is detected, in the form of a worn tip]; movement in a lateral direction is inherent within the tip of the device of Takaoka as such movement is characteristic in an AFM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson in view of Singh and Antoine to incorporate detecting a scratch on the means for characterization caused by a movement in the lateral direction as suggested by Takaoka for the advantage of enabling measures to be taken to resharpen the tip to full operating potential, and therefore increasing the resolution of detection capable with the contact detector (Takaoka [0027]).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Singh, and further in view of US 11,232,924 B2 by Dieter Winkler (“Winkler”).
Regarding claim 21, Richardson when modified by Singh discloses the means for characterizing according to claim 17, and Richardson further teaches a means for characterizing the shielding element according to claim 17, which is positioned on a side of the shielding element which is facing the sample position (Richardson [0052] and fig. 2C-2D shows a distance measurement probe 112 positioned between a substrate 102 [sample position] and an edge ring 106 [shielding element], where the probe 112 is on a side of the edge ring 106 which faces the substrate 102; Richardson when modified by Singh has been shown to disclose claim 17 above).
Richardson when modified by Singh is silent to a particle beam device for irradiating a sample with a particle beam, comprising: a shielding element for shielding an electric field, wherein the shielding element is arranged between a sample position and a particle beam source.
However, Winkler does address this limitation. Richardson, Singh, and Winkler are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they comprise shielding elements to shield sensitive components from electric fields.
Winkler discloses “a particle beam device for irradiating a sample with a particle beam” (Winkler title; charged particle gun [particle beam device]; fig. 3 and col 10 ll. 56-60 discloses the charged particle gun which radiates a beam on to a specimen 324), comprising: a shielding element for shielding an electric field, wherein the shielding element is arranged between a sample position and a particle beam source (Winkler col 5 ll. 26-34 and fig. 1A disclose a shielding element in the form of anode 152; fig. 1A represents the gun housing, and the entirety of the beam device is shown in fig. 3; col 4 ll. 35-38 discloses the beam source 120, where the shielding element 152 is between the sample 324 and the beam source 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson in view of Singh to incorporate a particle beam device for irradiating a sample with a particle beam, comprising: a shielding element for shielding an electric field, wherein the shielding element is arranged between a sample position and a particle beam source as suggested by Winkler for the advantage of appropriately shielding and achieving a reduction or avoidance of influence of electric potential on components within the device, as desired (Winkler col 5 ll. 35-37).
Regarding claim 22, Richardson when modified by Singh and Winkler discloses the particle beam device of claim 21, and the combination further teaches wherein the particle beam device is designed for the repair of a lithography mask (Under MPEP 2114 II., the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art – "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); the recitation of the particle beam device being designed for the repair of a lithography mask does not further limit the scope of the apparatus, as being designed for the repair of such a mask is considered “what the device does”).
Regarding claim 23, Richardson when modified by Singh and Winkler discloses the particle beam device according to claim 21, and Richardson further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer and/or a particle beam device according to claim 21, cause the computer and/or the particle beam device to carry out a method (Richardson [0009]-[0010] discloses that their method can be implemented in numerous ways including a computer program on a computer readable medium through the configuration of instructions to cause a computer to carry out a particular method; the provisions within Richardson for the enablement of instruction execution via a computer readable medium also apply for the particle beam device of claim 21 taught by Richardson in view of Singh and Winkler, given that Winkler col 6 ll. 11-49 discloses possible forms the controller 190 takes, including executing instructions via computer processor for operating the particle beam device), for characterizing the shielding element of the particle beam device (Richardson [0005] discloses a methods of using plasma for the etching of substrates where the etching process removes materials not covered by a photoresist [i.e. not shielded]; [0029] discloses determining the amount of wear of an edge ring [shielding element]; while Richardson does not explicitly disclose a particle beam device, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plasma device of Richardson as being analogous to a particle beam device since both are used to etch samples (applicant’s specification page 14 ll. 8-10))), comprising positioning the means for characterizing the shielding element on a side of the shielding element which is facing the sample position (Richardson [0052] and fig. 2C-2D shows a distance measurement probe 112 positioned between a substrate 102 [sample position] and an edge ring 106 [shielding element], where the probe 112 is on a side of the edge ring 106 which faces the substrate102).
Regarding claim 24, Richardson when modified by Singh and Winkler discloses the computer program of claim 23. Richardson when modified by Singh is silent to a particle beam device for irradiating a sample with a particle beam, wherein the particle beam device comprises the computer program of claim 23.
However, Winkler does address these limitations. Richardson, Singh, and Winkler are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they comprise shielding elements to shield sensitive components from electric fields.
Winkler discloses “a particle beam device for irradiating a sample with a particle beam” (Winkler title; charged particle gun [particle beam device]; fig. 3 and col 10 ll. 56-60 discloses the charged particle gun which radiates a beam on to a specimen 324), “wherein the particle beam device comprises the computer program of claim 23” (Winkler col 2 ll. 37-46 discloses that the method aspects disclosed within may be performed by a computer programmed by appropriate software [i.e. the computer program of claim 23]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson in view of Singh to incorporate a particle beam device for irradiating a sample with a particle beam, wherein the particle beam device comprises a computer program for the advantage of directing a computer to carry out method steps automatically, removing the need for excessive human intervention and thereby streamlining the process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877