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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 and 11-19 in the reply filed on 09/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection on claim 1, applicant argued that Bai’s approach fundamentally differs from the claimed convolution-based approach recited by claim 1, wherein Bai is an iterative deconvolution algorithm or an iterative inverse reconstruction model used to estimate an ideal image f from an observed image g, but claim 1 recites a convolution-based forward model approach where point spread functions corresponding to each SEM image are used in convolution equations to estimate an observed image g based on an ideal image f and the point spread function (PSF). Applicant furthered that Bai fails to address sample charging effects through the claimed mathematical framework.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. First off, “degradation function” of Bai is generally called a point spread function (PSF) in the art. Second off, despite lack of disclosing the term “sample charging effect”, Bai teach reasons describing sample charging effect that cause degradation of resolution (paragraph 0003), which lead to later teachings for solutions. Third off, though applicant argued Bai fails to teach “generating a reduced sample charging effect image based on convolution equations comprising…,” the argued claim language “… based on… comprising…” is insufficient to link all claimed elements in a specific or limited manner for one or ordinary skill in the art to interpret in the way applicant intended. The argued claim lacks limitations such as, inputs and outputs, different possible equation stages, all convolution equations or some convolution equations, claimed elements being related convolution equations directly or indirectly, etc. Lots of details or features that describe “the claimed mathematical framework” applicant argued are missing. Yet, Bai does teach techniques to solve issues described in paragraph 0003, wherein images are generated throughout Bai’s processing, convolution equations are applied in somewhere of the processing, and image representations and corresponding degradation functions (or PSFs) are involved. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bai does teach argued claim.
Thus, the rejection is proper and maintained.
Regarding 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments are based on the argument against claim 1 rejection.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the argued independent claim is sufficiently broad, wherein one of ordinary skill can read Bai’s teaching on the argued independent claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Thus, rejections are proper and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (US2011/0187847).
To claim 1, Bai teach a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions recorded thereon (Fig. 2), the instructions when executed by a computer implementing operations comprising:
obtaining a first SEM image from a first electron beam scan with a parameter being a first quantity (4a of Fig. 6, Iin,1; paragraph 0088);
obtaining a second SEM image from a second electron beam scan with the parameter being a second quantity different from the first quantity (4b of Fig. 6, Iin,x>1; paragraph 0088); and
generating a reduced sample charging effect image (paragraph 0089) based on convolution equations (paragraphs 0111, 0114) comprising a representation of the first SEM image (Figs. 4-5; paragraph 0085; g1 of Fig. 16b), a representation of the second SEM image (g2 of Fig. 16b), a first point spread function corresponding to the first SEM image (A1 of Fig. 16b) and a second point spread function corresponding to the second SEM image (A2 of Fig. 16b).
To claim 14, Bai teach a system (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 15, Bai teach a method of reducing a sample charging effect in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 12, Bai teach claim 1.
Bai teach wherein the operations further comprise obtaining one or more additional SEM images from additional electron beam scans with the parameter for each of the additional electron beam scans being quantities different from the first and second quantities (Fig. 1).
To claim 13, Bai teach claim 1.
Bai teach wherein the operations further comprise: performing the first electron beam scan using a scanning electron microscope; and performing the second electron beam scan using the scanning electron microscope (Figs. 1-2).
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) 2, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US2011/0187847).
To claims 2 and 16, Bai teach claims 1 and 15.
Bai teach wherein generating the reduced sample charging effect image comprises relating the first point spread function to the second point spread function in dependence on a difference in sample charging effect between the first electron beam scan and the second electron beam scan (obvious in scenarios of Figs. 4-5, 7, paragraphs 0085-0086, 0091-0092).
To claim 11, Bai teach claim 1.
Bai teach wherein the reduced sample charging effect image is generated in dependence on one or more equations comprising one or more Fourier transform operations (1302 of Fig. 18, converting images into frequency space, obvious to use Fourier transform operation for implementation, which is also well-known in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
Claim(s) 3-5, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US2011/0187847) in view of Nakahira et al. (US2008/0251719).
To claims 3 and 17, Bai teach claims 1 and 15.
But, Bai do not expressly disclose wherein generating the reduced sample charging effect image comprises retrieving one or both of the first and second point spread functions from the first and second SEM images using the convolution equations.
Nakahira teach generating the reduced sample charging effect image comprises retrieving one or both of the first and second point spread functions from the first and second SEM images using the convolution equations (Figs. 1, 4, 14 and 16; paragraph 0015), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Bai, in order to enhance calculations.
To claims 4 and 18, Bai and Nakahira teach claims 3 and 17.
Bai and Nakahira teach wherein retrieving one or both of the first and second point spread functions comprises expressing the point spread function in a parameterized form (Bai, paragraph 0108).
To claims 5 and 19, Bai and Nakahira teach claims 3 and 17.
Bai and Nakahira taech wherein generating the reduced sample charging effect image comprises using the retrieved point spread functions to generate the reduced sample charging effect image (Bai, Fig. 16b).
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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 January 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights