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 argues that Winkler does not use different amplification strengths to amplify the signals from the different detector segments and thus does not use a second amplification strength that is higher than a first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more.
“"[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) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (See MPEP 2114 II).” Winkler teaches all the structural limitations of claim 6 necessary to use a second amplification strength that is higher than a first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more. Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026, regarding claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2 4-5, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (US 11183361), hereinafter referred to as Winkler.
Regarding claim 1, Winkler teaches a detector device for detecting signal electrons, comprising: an electron detector, comprising a central opening for a passage of a primary electron beam (The detection surface 125 may be annular and may extend around a hole that is provided in the first detector, e.g. centrally in the detection surface 125. The primary charged particle beam and axial signal particles can propagate through the hole 123 in opposite directions (col. 10, lines 23-30));
one or more radially inner detector segments that at least partially surround the central opening (The detection surface 125 may be annular and may extend around a hole 123 that is provided in the first detector, e.g. centrally in the detection surface 125 (col. 10, lines 25-28)) (fig. 4b as annotated below);
and one or more radially outer detector segments that at least partially surround the central opening (fig. 4b as annotated below),
wherein the detector device is configured to amplify one or more first detector signals caused by a first group of signal electrons (the first detector 120 may have a detection surface 125 sized for detecting charged particles backscattered from the sample in a range between a first angle (α1) of 15° or less and a second angle (α2) of 30° or more (col. 8, lines 35-39)) impinging on the one or more radially inner detector segments (fig. 4b as annotated below) with a first amplification strength (If the first detector 120 is a multi-channel backscattered electron detector including a plurality of detection segments 126, the pre-amplifier 121 may be a multi-channel preamplifier and/or the main amplifier may be a multi-channel amplifier. For example, the first detector 120 includes four (or more) detection segments and the pre-amplifier 121 includes a 4-channel (or >4-channel) amplifier for pre-amplifying the signals of the four detection segments (col. 13, lines 63-68)) while amplifying one or more second detector signals caused by a second group of signal electrons (the first detector 120 may have a detection surface 125 sized for detecting charged particles backscattered from the sample in a range between a first angle … and a second angle (α2) of 30° or more (col. 8, lines 35-39)) impinging on the one or more radially outer detector segments (fig. 4b as annotated below).
As shown above, and in figure 4b below, Winkler teaches a detector device with one or more radially inner segments and one or more radially outer segments surrounding a central opening in an annular fashion. These segments are provided with a multi-channel pre-amplifier with which each segment can be individually amplified (Winkler; col. 16, lines 18-19). This pre-amplifier provides the inner detector segment, shown in figure 4b below, with a first amplification strength. This pre-amplifier is also configured to amplify the outer detector segment shown in figure 4b below.
Winkler does not explicitly teach a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more.
However, Winkler describes all of the structure necessary for providing the amplification configuration supra, and suggests a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more. Winkler explains that the first detector may include a plurality of detector segments, and the pre-amplifier may be a multi-channel pre-amplifier. Further, Winkler notes that each detector segment may be associated to a respective amplification channel, such that the signals of the detector segments can be individually amplified before evaluation (col. 16, lines 16-19). In this disclosure, Winkler presents the baseline information of the capabilities of the detector, and they appear to match those disclosed in the instant application. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these capabilities, in other words configuration, to include manipulating the separate amplification channels, which correspond to separate segments, to any preferred amplification. This would include the ability to provide a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler such that the second amplification strength is higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more. Winkler discloses all the structure of the present disclosure, including inner and outer detector segments for detecting a first group and second group of signal electrons respectively. Each detection segment is associated to a respective amplification channel of an electronic amplifier “such that the signals of the detector segments can be individually amplified before evaluation (col. 16, lines 16-19)”. Therefore, Winkler teaches a device configured such that the second amplification strength can be set higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more. Doing so allows for signal particles detected at, for example, an “angular range from 20° to 30° (Winkler; Col. 10, line 38),” to have an increased collection efficiency and improved signal to noise ratio (Winkler; Col. 14, lines 66-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Winkler teaches the detector device of claim 1, comprising an amplifying device with one or more first amplification circuits connected to the one or more radially inner detector segments and configured to amplify the one or more first detector signals with the first amplification strength and with one or more second amplification circuits connected to the one or more radially outer detector segments and configured to amplify the one or more second detector signals with the second amplification strength (If the first detector 120 is a multi channel backscattered electron detector including a plurality of detection segments 126, the pre-amplifier 121 may be a multi-channel preamplifier and/or the main amplifier may be a multi-channel amplifier. For example, the first detector 120 includes four (or more) detection segments and the pre-amplifier 121 includes a 4-channel (or >4-channel) amplifier for pre-amplifying the signals of the four detection segments (col. 13, lines 62-67)) (Each detector segment may be associated to a respective amplification channel, such that the signals of the detector segments can be individually amplified before evaluation (col. 16, lines 16-19)).
Regarding claim 4, Winkler teaches the detector device of claim 2, wherein the amplifying device is a pre- amplifier connected to the electron detector, wherein the pre-amplifier is at least one of integrated with the electron detector and arranged adjacent to the electron detector (and a pre-amplifier for amplifying a signal of the first detector, wherein the pre-amplifier is at least one of (i) integrated with the first detector, (ii) arranged adjacent to the first detector inside a vacuum housing of the charged particle beam device (col. 2, lines 31-37)).
Regarding claim 5, Winkler does not explicitly teach the detector device according to claim 1, wherein the first amplification strength and the second amplification strength are invariable.
However, Winkler teaches the detector device according to claim 1, wherein the first amplification strength and the second amplification strength are invariable (In some implementations, the pre-amplifier 121 may be an electronic amplifier, particularly an operational amplifier (col. 13, lines 36-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler such that the first and second amplification strength are invariable. Winkler teaches all the structure of the detector device according to claim 5, including an electronic or operational amplifier. Fixing the first and second amplification strength of such amplifiers allows samples to be evaluated under consistent conditions and improves ease of operation.
Regarding claim 9, Winkler teaches the detector device of claim 1, wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments comprise two or more inner segments surrounding the central opening in an annular arrangement, and the one or more radially outer detector segments comprise two or more outer segments surrounding the central opening in an annular arrangement (fig. 4b as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Winkler teaches the detector device of claim 1, wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments comprise four inner segments surrounding the central opening in an annular four-quadrant-configuration, and the one or more radially outer detector segments comprises four outer segments surrounding the four inner segments in an annular four-quadrant-configuration (According to some embodiments, for topography contrast detection, a 4-quadrant detector may be a possible choice. In some embodiments, different ring zones (which might be additionally segmented) may be used to detect specific parts of the angular backscattered particle distribution (such as angular and polar segmentation (col. 17, lines 54-57)).
Regarding claim 12, Winkler does not explicitly teach the detector device of claim 1, wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments are configured for a first maximum detection speed and the one or more radially outer detector segments are configured for a second maximum detection speed, the first maximum detection speed being faster than the second maximum detection speed.
Winkler teaches wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments are configured for a first maximum detection speed and the one or more radially outer detector segments are configured for a second maximum detection speed, the first maximum detection speed being faster than the second maximum detection speed. (The first detector may include a plurality of detector segments, and the pre-amplifier may be a multi-channel pre-amplifier. Each detector segment may be associated to a respective amplification channel, such that the signals of the detector segments can be individually amplified before evaluation (col. 16, lines 14-19)) (In some implementations, the pre-amplifier 121 may be an electronic amplifier, particularly an operational amplifier (col. 13, lines 36-38)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler such that the radially inner detector segments are configured for a first maximum detection speed, and the radially outer detector segments are configured for a second maximum detection speed, where the first maximum detection speed is faster than the second maximum detection speed. According to the specification of the present disclosure, “the maximum detection speed (or bandwidth) of a detector segment may depend on the amplification strength applied to the signal of the detector segment. Accordingly, a detector segment with a high amplification strength may be operable at a lower bandwidth than a detector segment with a low amplification strength.” Because Winkler is configured to individually amplify each segment, Winkler is capable of obtaining a first maximum detection speed for the inner detector and a second maximum detection speed for the outer detector segment, since the detection speed is inversely proportional to the amplification strength. So, by modifying Winkler, as shown in claim 1 above, so the radially outer detection segment has a higher amplification strength, the inner segment will consequently have a higher bandwidth. Doing provides the advantage of when particles are detected only on the first segment of detection surface 25, the bandwidth is higher than when particles are detected on both annular segments of detection surface 25.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler in view of Bjoern Gamm (US 10103002 B1), hereinafter referred to as Gamm, and Albertus Victor Gerardus (US 20230005706 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gerardus.
Regarding claim 14, Winkler teaches an electron beam apparatus, comprising: an electron source for generating a primary electron beam propagating along an optical axis (In some embodiments, which can be combined with other embodiments described herein, the beam emitter 150 is adapted for emitting a primary electron beam, and the charged particle beam device includes electron beam optical devices for guiding the primary electron beam along the optical axis 101 to the sample (col. 13, lines 13-21));
a sample stage for supporting a sample (sample stage 50);
an objective lens configured to focus the primary electron beam on the sample for releasing signal electrons (The method includes: emitting a primary charged particle beam; guiding the primary charged particle beam along an optical axis to the sample for generating signal particles; focusing and retarding the primary charged particle beam with a retarding field device that includes an objective lens and a proxy electrode arranged between the objective lens and the sample (col. 3, lines 29-36));
and a detector device, comprising: an electron detector comprising a central opening (hole 123) for the primary electron beam (The primary charged particle beam and axial signal particles can propagate through the hole 123 in opposite directions (col. 10, lines 28-30)), one or more radially inner detector segments that at least partially surround the central opening, and one or more radially outer detector segments that at least partially surround the central opening (fig. 4b as annotated below),
wherein the detector device is configured to amplify one or more first detector signals caused by a first group of signal electrons (the first detector 120 may have a detection surface 125 sized for detecting charged particles backscattered from the sample in a range between a first angle (α1) of 15° or less (col. 8, lines 35-39)) impinging on the one or more radially inner detector segments (fig. 4b as annotated below) with a first amplification strength (If the first detector 120 is a multi-channel backscattered electron detector including a plurality of detection segments 126, the pre-amplifier 121 may be a multi-channel preamplifier and/or the main amplifier may be a multi-channel amplifier. For example, the first detector 120 includes four (or more) detection segments and the pre-amplifier 121 includes a 4-channel (or >4-channel) amplifier for pre-amplifying the signals of the four detection segments (col. 13, lines 63-68)) while amplifying one or more second detector signals caused by a second group of signal electrons (the first detector 120 may have a detection surface 125 sized for detecting charged particles backscattered from the sample in a range between a first angle … and a second angle (α2) of 30° or more (col. 8, lines 35-39)) impinging on the one or more radially outer detector segments (fig. 4b as annotated below).
As shown above, and in figure 4b below, Winkler teaches a detector device with one or more radially inner segments and one or more radially outer segments surrounding a central opening in an annular fashion. These segments are provided with a multi-channel pre-amplifier with which each segment can be individually amplified (Winkler; col. 16, lines 18-19). This pre-amplifier provides the inner detector segment, shown in figure 4b below, with a first amplification strength. This pre-amplifier is also configured to amplify the outer detector segment shown in figure 4b below.
Winkler does not explicitly teach a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more.
However, Gamm teaches a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength (The contrast in the image may be increased if an amplification factor of an amplifier of the first detector 116 and/or of the second detector 117 is increased. The amplifier amplifies the detection signals generated by the first detector 116 and/or the second detector 117 (col. 23, lines 5963)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Gamm by increasing the second amplification factor such that it is higher than the first amplification strength. Doing so improves image contrast.
Further, optimizing amplification strength is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Gamm teaches that “The contrast in the image may be increased if an amplification factor of an amplifier of the first detector 116 and/or of the second detector 117 is increased…. Similarly, the contrast may be decreased if the amplification factor of the amplifier is decreased (col. 25, lines 59-65).” Next, Gerardus teaches “The optimization of the noise performance for example in terms of bandwidth and noise optimization and balance between the blur and the noise can be enabled by making sure an amplification factor of the trans impedance amplifier is programmable (para. [0160]).” As such, Gamm and Gerardus identify amplification strength as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., increasing and decreasing the contrast of an image and optimizing noise performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize amplification strength in Winkler such that the second amplification strength is higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Winkler teaches the electron beam apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more first detector signals and the one or more second detector signals are amplified with a pre-amplifier of the detector device that is connected to the electron detector and is at least one of (i) integrated with the electron detector, (ii) arranged directly adjacent to the electron detector inside a vacuum chamber of the electron beam apparatus, and (iii) fixedly mounted in a vacuum chamber of the electron beam apparatus (In implementations, the signal of the first detector may be pre-amplified with a pre-amplifier mounted adjacent to the first detector in a vacuum environment of the charged particle beam device, particularly in the vacuum housing that is provided by the column. The pre-amplifier may be at least one or more of (i) integrated with the first detector, e.g. by being provided on a common support with the first detector, (ii) arranged at a distance of 3 cm or less from a detection surface of the first detector inside the vacuum housing of the charged particle beam device, and (iii) fixedly mounted in the vacuum housing of the charged particle beam device. In some implementations, the first detector includes a support, e.g. a plate, extending between the objective lens and the sample or mounted at the objective lens, and the pre-amplifier is mounted on the support (col. 19, lines 19-33)).
Regarding claim 16, Winkler teaches the electron beam apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising a main amplifier for amplifying pre-amplified detector signals provided by the pre- amplifier (the pre-amplified signal provided by the pre-amplifier is further amplified by a main amplifier arranged outside vacuum (col. 13, lines 59-61)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (WO2019233991A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Winkler teaches wherein the one or more first amplification circuits and the one or more second amplification circuits (fig. 4A as annotated below).
However, Winkler does not teach wherein the one or more first amplification circuits and the one or more second amplification circuits are transimpedance amplification circuits.
Wang teaches wherein the one or more first amplification circuits and the one or more second amplification circuits are transimpedance amplification circuits. (Detection system 1300 may include a detector element 1330, a first circuit 1340, and a second circuit 1350. Detector element 1330 may include a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) (para. [00227])). (Detection system 1300A may further include a sensing element 1332 and a third circuit 1334. Third circuit 1334 may include front-end electronics, such as a pre-amplifier. Third circuit 1334 may include a transimpedance amplifier (para. [00230])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teaching of Wang such that the multi-channel pre-amplifier is a transimpedance amplifier. Doing so, allows a current pulse signal to be converted to a voltage pulse signal and amplified to form an event signal where “pulse heigh of event signals may correspond to energy of incident electrons (para. [00184])”. This method provides high speed and low noise detection.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Germany “Transimpedance amplifier integrates 4 channels on a single chip” hereinafter referred to as Germany.
Regarding claim 11, Winkler teaches the detector device of claim 1, wherein the electron detector is a segmented semiconductor detector (For example, the first detector 120 may be a backscattered electron detector, particularly a semiconductor detector, particularly a PIN diode. In particular, the first detector 120 may be a multi- channel backscattered electron detector including a plurality of detection segments whose signals can be individually processed (col. 7, lines 65-67)) connected to a multi-channel transimpedance amplifier integrated with or arranged adjacent to the segmented semiconductor detector, with a first subset of channels configured to apply the first amplification strength and a second subset of channels configured to apply the second amplification strength (fig. 4b as annotated below).
Winkler does not teach a multi-channel transimpedance amplifier.
However, Germany teaches a multi-channel transimpedance amplifier (The MTI04CS/CQ integrates 4 channels on a single chip. It is possible to increase the number of channels to more than 4 (i.e. 8, 16, 32 etc.). Combined with ‘naked’ chip (die) manufacturing and corresponding sensors, surface optimized receiver modules are possible (para. [0001])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Germany such that the multi-channel pre amplifier disclosed in Winkler is a multi-channel transimpedance amplifier, as taught by Germany. Doing so, increases input sensitivity and minimizes noise.
PNG
media_image4.png
482
905
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Adamec (US 20130270439 A1), hereinafter referred to as Adamec.
Regarding claim 7, Winkler teaches wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments cover a first surface area and the one or more radially outer detector segments cover a second surface area (fig. 4B as annotated below).
Winkler does not explicitly teach a ratio between the second surface area and the first surface area being from 0.7 to 2.
However, Adamec teaches wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments cover a first surface area and the one or more radially outer detector segments cover a second surface area, a ratio between the second surface area and the first surface area being from 0.7 to 2. (The diameter (or a corresponding dimension for other shapes) of the inner electrode can be in the range of 1 mm to 5 mm. The diameter, or a corresponding dimension of the outer electrode 204, can be in the range of 3 mm to 20 mm (para. [0048])).
Adamec teaches a much broader range with sufficient specificity to make the claimed range obvious. For example, if the diameter of the radially inner detector segment is 5 mm in diameter and the radially outer segment is 6 mm in diameter, as taught by Adamec, the ratio of the surface areas is 1.44. 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 the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Adamec such that the inner detection segment and outer detection segment (fig 4b as annotated below) can have a surface area such that the ratio between the surface area of the segments can lie between 0.7 and 2. Doing so allows the different portions of the secondary electron beam to be guided to different areas on the detector. For example, Adamec explains, “an inner portion of the secondary electron beam is guided to the central area within the central electrode 202 and an outer portion is provided in the outer area between central electrode 202 and the at least one outer electrode 204 (Adamec; para. [0048]).”
PNG
media_image5.png
265
471
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Adamec, and Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Winkler teaches the detector device of claim 1, wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments extend from a first radius to a second radius, and the one or more radially outer detector segments extend from the second radius to a third radius (fig. 4b as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
337
471
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Winkler does not explicitly teach wherein the second radius is between 7 mm and 11 mm, and the third radius is larger than 12 mm.
However, Adamec teaches wherein the second radius is between 7 mm and 11 mm, and the third radius is larger than 12 mm (The diameter (or a corresponding dimension for other shapes) of the inner electrode can be in the range of 1 mm to 5 mm. The diameter, or a corresponding dimension of the outer electrode 204, can be in the range of 3 mm to 20 mm (para. [0048])).
Optimizing detector segment size is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Wang (2019) teaches that “The total size of the detector may be based on the geometric spread of secondary electrons such that all or substantially all electrons may be captured by the detector (Wang; para [00171])”. Further, Wang explains, “Therefore, in some applications, if a certain field of view (FOV) of an SEM image is required, the required size of an in-lens PIN detector may be substantially large. Typically, a detector may be 10 mm in diameter, or larger, for example (Wang; para [00134])”. As such, Wang (2019) identifies detector size as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving experimental conditions. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting detector size such as method of optimizing the field of view of the SEM image, and identifies said such adjustments as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize Winkler in view of Adamec, and Wang, such that both the inner and outer detector segments are made larger, to meet the claimed limitation disclosing “the second radius is between 7 mm and 11 mm, and the third radius is larger than 12 mm”, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hiraki et al. (JP WO2015053262 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hiraki and Parker et al. (8319181), hereinafter referred to as Parker.
Regarding claim 13, Winkler teaches wherein the detector device can be operated in at least two of the following operation modes: in a first operation mode, in which both the first group and the second group of signal electrons are detected with the detector device with a second detection speed (Accordingly, essentially no signal particles that carry valuable information about the sample are blocked by the body of the proxy electrode, and both small-angle backscattered particles and large-angle backscattered particles can be detected downstream of the proxy electrodes in a propagation direction of the signal particles, after having passed through the same opening 131 of the proxy electrode (col. 7, lines 7-9)) (The first detector may include a plurality of detector segments, and the pre-amplifier may be a multi-channel pre-amplifier. Each detector segment may be associated to a respective amplification channel, such that the signals of the detector segments can be individually amplified before evaluation (col. 16, lines 14-19)) (In some implementations, the pre-amplifier 121 may be an electronic amplifier, particularly an operational amplifier (col. 13, lines 36-38)),
As shown above, Winkler teaches a detector device where both small angle and large angle backscattered particles can be detected. The detector device disclosed in Winkler is connected to a pre-amplifier. The amplification factor on the detector segments determines the bandwidth of the detector.
Winkler does not explicitly teach, in a second operation mode, in which the first group of signal electrons is detected with the detector device with a first detection speed faster than the second detection speed, and the second group of signal electrons is not detected, and in an optional third operation mode, in which the second group of signal electrons is detected with the detector device with the second detection speed, and the first group of signal electrons is not detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in Winkler to include an operational mode with a first detection speed faster than a second detection speed, and a third operational mode with the second detection speed. According to the specification of the present disclosure “The maximum detection speed (or bandwidth) of a detector segment may depend on the amplification strength applied to the signal of the detector segment. Accordingly, a detector segment with a high amplification strength may be operable at a lower bandwidth than a detector segment with a low amplification strength (para. [0069]).” Because Winkler is configured to individually amplify each segment, Winkler is capable of obtaining a first detection speed for the inner detector and a second detection speed for the outer detector segment. The detection speed is inversely proportional to the amplification strength. Therefore, if amplification of one of the outer detector segments, is set higher than that of the inner detector (Winkler; detector 125), or vice versa, using the multi-channel preamplifier 121 disclosed in Winkler, then the detector will work with a second detection speed, slower than a first detection speed.
Further, Parker teaches adjusting the size of the detector can affect the bandwidth: “thus the area of detector 320 need not be excessively large--smaller detector areas may increase the detector bandwidth (at least for solid-state detectors) and thus are generally preferred (col. 9, lines 11-14)”. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Parker to make the inner detector segments smaller than those of the outer detector segments. Doing so would increase the bandwidth on the inner detector and in turn, improve signal clarity and spatial resolution.
Winkler does not explicitly teach an operational mode in which the second group of signal electrons is not detected and in a optional third operation mode in which the first group of signal electrons is not detected.
Hiraki teaches in a second operation mode, in which the first group of signal electrons is detected with the detector device with a first detection speed faster than the second detection speed, and the second group of signal electrons is not detected (In the first embodiment, an example in which the backscattered electron detection element is formed in a double concentric ring shape has been described. However, it may be formed in a triple or more ring shape. In this case, for example, when a backscattered electron detecting element near the electron beam 3 is selected in step S503, other backscattered electron detecting elements other than the backscattered electron detecting element arranged on the outermost periphery may be selected (para. [0038])),
And in an optional third operation mode, in which the second group of signal electrons is detected with the detector device with the second detection speed, and the first group of signal electrons is not detected. (In step S603… the backscattered electron detecting elements other than the backscattered electron detecting element arranged at the innermost periphery may be selected (para. [0038]).
Hiraki teaches a method of selecting detection elements to allow for different modes of detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to incorporate the teachings of Hiraki, to adjust the gain on the pre-amplifer 121 disclosed in Winkler, such that “the gain of the amplifier 19 corresponding to the backscattered electron detection element that is not selected may be set to 0 (Hiraki; para. [0037])”. This modification allows the detector device to be operated in such a way where the detector elements 125 are adjusted to allow for different detection speeds (already taught by Winkler), and additionally groups of signal electrons can be excluded from detection. Doing so allows for a user to choose between generating a composition image in which the atomic composition of the sample is emphasized or to generate an uneven image in which the uneven shape of the sample is emphasized.
Claims 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, in view of, Gamm, and Gerardus.
Regarding claim 17, Winkler teaches a method of imaging and/or inspecting a sample, comprising: generating a primary electron beam propagating along an optical axis axis (In some embodiments, which can be combined with other embodiments described herein, the beam emitter 150 is adapted for emitting a primary electron beam, and the charged particle beam device includes electron beam optical devices for guiding the primary electron beam along the optical axis 101 to the sample for generating secondary electrons and backscattered electrons (col. 13, lines 13-19)).
focusing, with an objective lens (The primary electron beam is focused on the sample 140 by the objective lens (col. 16, lines 53-55)),
the primary electron beam on the sample for causing an emission of a first group of signal electrons and of a second group of signal electrons, the second group propagating further from the optical axis than the first group (Specifically, as described herein, the following particles propagate through the same opening of the proxy electrode: (a) the primary charged particle beam, (b) “axial” signal particles including secondary particles and backscattered particles leaving the sample essentially along the optical axis (e.g., at angles between 0° and 5° relative to the optical axis), and (c) “off-axial” signal particles leaving the sample at larger angles relative to the optical axis (e.g., at angles between 5° and 20°), including large-angle backscattered electrons propagating at angles of more than 15° relative to the optical axis (col. 7, lines 1-7));
Winkler does not explicitly teach amplifying one or more first detector signals caused by the first group of signal electrons impinging on one or more radially inner detector segments of an electron detector with a first amplification strength; and amplifying one or more second detector signals caused by the second group of signal electrons impinging on one or more radially outer detector segments of the electron detector with a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more.
However, Gamm teaches amplifying one or more first detector signals caused by the first group of signal electrons impinging on one or more radially inner detector segments of an electron detector with a first amplification strength; and amplifying one or more second detector signals caused by the second group of signal electrons impinging on one or more radially outer detector segments of the electron detector with a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength (The contrast in the image may be increased if an amplification factor of an amplifier of the first detector 116 and/or of the second detector 117 is increased. The amplifier amplifies the detection signals generated by the first detector 116 and/or the second detector 117 (col. 23, lines 59-63)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Gamm such that the gain on the pre-amplifier 121, disclosed in Winkler, is adjusted so the inner segments are provided with a first amplification strength and the outer segments are provided with a second amplification strength. Doing so improves the image contrast.
Further, optimizing amplification strength is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Gamm teaches that “The contrast in the image may be increased if an amplification factor of an amplifier of the first detector 116 and/or of the second detector 117 is increased…. Similarly, the contrast may be decreased if the amplification factor of the amplifier is decreased (col. 25, lines 59-65).” Next, Gerardus teaches “The optimization of the noise performance for example in terms of bandwidth and noise optimization and balance between the blur and the noise can be enabled by making sure an amplification factor of the trans impedance amplifier is programmable (para. [0160]).” As such, Gamm and Gerardus identify amplification strength as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., increasing and decreasing the contrast of an image and optimizing noise performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize amplification strength in Winkler such that the second amplification strength is higher than the first amplification strength by a factor of 2 or more since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Winkler teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the one or more radially inner detector segments comprise two or four inner detector segments that surround a central opening in the electron detector in an annular arrangement, and the one or more radially outer detector segments comprise two, four, or eight outer detector segments that surround the two or four inner detector segments in an annular arrangement (According to some embodiments, for topography contrast detection, a 4-quadrant detector may be a possible choice. In some embodiments, different ring zones (which might be additionally segmented) may be used to detect specific parts of the angular backscattered particle distribution (such as angular and polar segmentation) (col. 17, lines 52-57)) and (fig. 4b as annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
499
865
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Winkler does not explicitly teach the method comprising: amplifying two or four first detector signals provided by the two or four inner detector segments with the first amplification strength, and amplifying two or four second detector signals provided by the two or four outer detector segments with the second amplification strength.
However, Gamm teaches the method comprising: amplifying two or four first detector signals provided by the two or four inner detector segments with the first amplification strength, and amplifying two or four second detector signals provided by the two or four outer detector segments with the second amplification strength (The contrast in the image may be increased if an amplification factor of an amplifier of the first detector 116 and/or of the second detector 117 is increased. The amplifier amplifies the detection signals generated by the first detector 116 and/or the second detector 117 (col. 23, lines 59-63)).
To be clear, Winkler teaches two inner detector segments and two outer detector segments. Gamm teaches increasing the amplification factor on one or both of the detectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Gamm such that the gain on the pre-amplifier disclosed in Winkler is adjusted so the inner segments (fig. 4b as annotated below) are provided with the first amplification strength and the outer segments are provided with the second amplification strength. Doing so improves image contrast.
Regarding claim 22, Winkler teaches a detector device for detecting signal electrons, comprising: an electron detector, comprising a central opening for a passage of a primary electron beam (The detection surface 125 may be annular and may extend around a hole that is provided in the first detector, e.g. centrally in the detection surface 125. The primary charged particle beam and axial signal particles can propagate through the hole 123 in opposite directions (col. 10, lines 23-30));
one or more radially inner detector segments that at least partially surround the central opening (The detection surface 125 may be annular and may extend around a hole 123 that is provided in the first detector, e.g. centrally in the detection surface 125 (col. 10, lines 25-28)) (fig. 4b as annotated below);
and one or more radially outer detector segments that at least partially surround the central opening (fig. 4b as annotated below),
wherein the detector device is configured to amplify one or more first detector signals caused by a first group of signal electrons (the first detector 120 may have a detection surface 125 sized for detecting charged particles backscattered from the sample in a range between a first angle (α1) of 15° or less and a second angle (α2) of 30° or more (col. 8, lines 35-39)) impinging on the one or more radially inner detector segments (fig. 4b as annotated below) with a first amplification strength (If the first detector 120 is a multi-channel backscattered electron detector including a plurality of detection segments 126, the pre-amplifier 121 may be a multi-channel preamplifier and/or the main amplifier may be a multi-channel amplifier. For example, the first detector 120 includes four (or more) detection segments and the pre-amplifier 121 includes a 4-channel (or >4-channel) amplifier for pre-amplifying the signals of the four detection segments (col. 13, lines 63-68)) while amplifying one or more second detector signals caused by a second group of signal electrons (the first detector 120 may have a detection surface 125 sized for detecting charged particles backscattered from the sample in a range between a first angle … and a second angle (α2) of 30° or more (col. 8, lines 35-39)) impinging on the one or more radially outer detector segments (fig. 4b as annotated below).
Winkler does not explicitly teach a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength to increase a contribution of the second group of signal electrons and improve inspection or image generation of complex topographies.
However, Gamm teaches a second amplification strength higher than the first amplification strength to increase a contribution of the second group of signal electrons and improve inspection or image generation of complex topographies (The contrast in the image may be increased if an amplification factor of an amplifier of the first detector 116 and/or of the second detector 117 is increased…. Similarly, the contrast may be decreased if the amplification factor of the amplifier is decreased (col. 25, lines 59-65)).
To be clear, Winkler teaches inner detector segment configured for the application of a first amplification strength and an outer detector segment configured for the application of a second amplification strength. Winkler does not teach the second amplification strength is higher than the first amplification strength to increase a contribution of the second group of signal electrons and improve inspection or image generation of complex topographies. However, Gamm teaches increasing the amplification factor on one detector, and not the other, to increase image contrast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Gamm such that the second amplification strength is higher than the first amplification strength. Doing so improves inspection and image generation by improving the image contrast.
PNG
media_image7.png
499
865
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler in view of Gamm, and Gerardus, and in further view of Hiraki.
Regarding claim 21, Winkler teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising switching between a first operation mode and at least one of a second operation mode and a third operation mode, wherein, in the first operation mode, the primary electron beam impinges on the sample with a first landing energy, and both the first group and the second group of signal electrons are detected; in the second operation mode, the primary beam impinges on the sample with a second landing energy smaller than the first landing energy, and the first group of signal electrons is detected, but not the second group of signal electrons; and in the third operation mode, the second group of signal electrons is detected, but not the first group of signal electrons (The retarding field device may be controlled so as to adjust the operational parameters for the purpose of decelerating the primary charged particle beam and accelerating the secondary particles. For low landing energies, the focal power of the retarding field device is based on the combinatory effects of the objective lens and the proxy electrode that retard the primary electrons before impingement (col. 9, lines 6-13)).
Because the retarding field device may be controlled to adjust operational parameters, the landing energy of the primary electron beam (Winkler; para. [0010]) is taught to adaptable for adjusting the landing energy for different operational modes.
Winkler does not teach the method of claim 17, further comprising switching between a first operation mode and at least one of a second operation mode and a third operation mode, wherein, in the first operation mode, the primary electron beam impinges on the sample with a first landing energy, and both the first group and the second group of signal electrons are detected; in the second operation mode, the primary beam impinges on the sample with a second landing energy smaller than the first landing energy, and the first group of signal electrons is detected, but not the second group of signal electrons; and in the third operation mode, the second group of signal electrons is detected, but not the first group of signal electrons.
Hiraki teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising switching between a first operation mode and at least one of a second operation mode and a third operation mode, wherein, in the first operation mode, the primary electron beam impinges on the sample with a first landing energy, and both the first group and the second group of signal electrons are detected (fig. 2 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image8.png
464
944
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in the second operation mode, the primary beam impinges on the sample with a second landing energy smaller than the first landing energy, (and the first group of signal electrons is detected, but not the second group of signal electrons (In the first embodiment, an example in which the backscattered electron detection element is formed in a double concentric ring shape has been described. However, it may be formed in a triple or more ring shape. In this case, for example, when a backscattered electron detecting element near the electron beam 3 is selected in step S503, other backscattered electron detecting elements other than the backscattered electron detecting element arranged on the outermost periphery may be selected (para. [0038]));
and in the third operation mode, the second group of signal electrons is detected, but not the first group of signal electrons (In step S603… the backscattered electron detecting elements other than the backscattered electron detecting element arranged at the innermost periphery may be selected (para. [0038])).
To be clear, Winkler teaches adjusting the landing energy for different modes of operation. Winkler does not explicitly teach modes of operation in which groups of signal electrons are excluded from detection. Hiraki teaches a method of selecting detection elements such that the user can chose whether to detect a first group of signal electrons (low- angle reflected electrons 201), a second group of signal electrons (high-angle reflected electrons 200), or both. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler, to include the teachings of Hiraki, such that the gain on the pre-amplifier 121 is adjusted so the amplification on the inner detector segment of detector 125 can be made 0, and the first group of electrons are not detected. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Winkler to include the teachings of Hiraki such that the gain on the pre-amplifier 121 is adjusted so the amplification on the outer detector segment of detector 125 can be made 0, and the second group of electrons are not detected. Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler, to include the teachings of Hiraki, such that the gain on the pre-amplifier 121 is adjusted so an amplification factor is provided for both the inner and outer detect segments of detector 125 and both a first group and second group of signal electrons are detected. Incorporating the teachings of Hiraki allows for the exclusion of groups of signal electrons at different landing energies. This way, a user to is able to choose between generating a composition image in which the atomic composition of the sample is emphasized or to generate an uneven image in which the uneven shape of the sample is emphasized.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, in view of Gamm, and Gerardus, as applied to claim 17, and in further view of Wang.
Regarding claim 18, Winkler teaches wherein the one or more first detector signals and the one or more second detector signals are amplified with a pre-amplifier, the pre-amplifier being at least one of integrated with the electron detector and arranged adjacent to the electron detector in a vacuum environment (a first detector for off-axial backscattered particles between the proxy electrode and the objective lens; and a pre-amplifier for amplifying a signal of the first detector, wherein the pre-amplifier is at least one of (i) integrated with the first detector, (ii) arranged adjacent to the first detector inside a vacuum housing of the charged particle beam device, and (iii) fixedly mounted in a vacuum chamber of the charged particle beam device (col. 2, lines 29-37)).
Winkler does not teach, particularly with at least one transimpedance amplification circuit of the pre-amplifier.
However, Wang teaches particularly with at least one transimpedance amplification circuit of the pre-amplifier (Detection system 1300 may include a detector element 1330, a first circuit 1340, and a second circuit 1350. Detector element 1330 may include a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) (para. [00227])). (Detection system 1300A may further include a sensing element 1332 and a third circuit 1334. Third circuit 1334 may include front-end electronics, such as a pre-amplifier. Third circuit 1334 may include a transimpedance amplifier (para. [00230])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Winkler to include the teaching of Wang such that the multi-channel pre-amplifier 121, disclosed in Winkler, is a transimpedance amplifier. Doing so, allows a current pulse signal to be converted to a voltage pulse signal and amplified to form an event signal where “pulse heigh of event signals may correspond to energy of incident electrons (para. [00184])”. This method provides high speed and low noise detection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, in view of Gamm, and Gerardus, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Feuerbaum (US 7586093 B2), hereinafter referred to as Feuerbaum.
Regarding claim 20, Winkler fails to teach wherein a landing energy of the primary electron beam on the sample is 15 keV or more.
However, Feuerbaum teaches wherein a landing energy of the primary electron beam on the sample is 15 keV or more (In the SEM mode, the landing energy on the specimen 12 is preferably between 5 keV to 50 keV or, more preferred, between 0.1 to 30 keV (col. 8, lines 49-51)).
Feuerbaum teaches a range of landing energies that includes the value of the present disclosure with sufficient specificity to make the claimed value obvious. 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 the device described in Winkler to include the teachings of Feuerbaum such that the landing energy can be 15 KeV. Doing so promotes “a higher spatial resolution in SEM mode (col. 10, lines 59-60).”
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.
ny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mica Einhorn whose telephone number is (571) 272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached on (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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights