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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
FIG. 7 contains an unlabeled, curved arrow at the top right of element 122.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 3: reference character 117
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the system comprising: the charged-particle microscope apparatus includes a charged particle beam…” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Suggested correction: “the system comprising: the charged-particle microscope apparatus, wherein the charged-particle microscope apparatus includes a charged particle beam…”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The relevant claims limitations are as follows:
Claims 3 and 10: “an imaging element that images the light emitting element”;
Claims 3 and 10: “an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron”;
Claims 3 and 10: “an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron”;
Claims 4 and 11: “an element that detects light emission in a third detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the third emitted electron”.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed functions are as follows:
A CCD camera (paragraph 0078);
A photomultiplier (paragraphs 0022, 0031);
A photomultiplier (paragraphs 0022, 0031);
A photomultiplier (paragraphs 0022, 0033).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the system” to mean “the processor system”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the amount detected by the first detector” in lines 33-34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the amount detected by the first detector” to mean “[[the]]an amount of the second emitted electron detected by the first detector”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the amount detected by the first detector” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the amount detected by the first detector” to mean “[[the]]an amount of the third emitted electron detected by the first detector”.
Claims 5-6 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the first image” in line 2 and “the second image” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the first image” to mean “[[the]]a first image”, and “the second image” to mean “[[the]]a second image”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the amount detected by the first detector” in lines 34-35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the amount detected by the first detector” to mean “[[the]]an amount of the second emitted electron detected by the first detector”.
Claims 9-15 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the amount detected by the first detector” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the amount detected by the first detector” to mean “[[the]]an amount of the third emitted electron detected by the first detector”.
Claims 12-14 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the first image” in line 2 and “the second image” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the first image” to mean “[[the]]a first image”, and “the second image” to mean “[[the]]a second image”.
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 1-2, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki et al. (WO Patent No. 2021053824 A1), hereinafter Shirasaki (English machine translation provided), in view of Zeidler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,645,740 B2), hereinafter Zeidler.
Regarding claim 1, Shirasaki discloses a processor system (FIGs. 1, 2) that is able to communicate with a charged-particle microscope apparatus (FIG. 1), the system comprising:
the charged-particle microscope apparatus includes
a charged particle beam irradiation system that includes at least one charged particle source (FIG. 1, element 101), and irradiates a first region on a sample surface (page 4, paragraph 4) with a first charged particle beam generated using the charged particle source (FIG. 1, first charged particle beam 251) while irradiating a second region on the sample surface (page 4, paragraph 4) with a second charged particle beam generated using the charged particle source (FIG. 1, second charged particle beam 251),
a detection system including
a correction detector (FIG. 1, element 110) that detects a first emitted electron emitted from the first region and a second emitted electron emitted from the second region (page 5, paragraph 1),
a first detector (FIG. 4A, element 301_1) that detects the first emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a first signal (page 6, paragraph 6), and
a second detector (FIG. 4A, element 301_2) that detects the second emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a second signal (page 6, paragraph 6), and
a controller that generates a first pixel (FIG. 4B, first pixel 351_1) corresponding to a first position within the first region based on the first signal (page 7, paragraph 2) and generates a second pixel (FIG. 4B, second pixel 351_2) corresponding to a second position within the second region based on the second signal (page 7, paragraph 2), wherein
the processor system includes one or more memory resources (FIG. 2, elements 122, 123) and one or more processors (FIG. 2, element 121), and
the processor
(A) stores the first intensity and an output of the correction detector (FIG. 10) acquired from the charged-particle microscope apparatus in the memory resource (page 5, last paragraph),
(B) specifies a first crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraphs 4-6) from the second emitted electron (FIG. 12, second emitted electron 281_2) to the first signal, regarding the amount detected by the first detector (FIG. 12, first detector 301_1), based on the output of the correction detector (page 13, paragraphs 4-6), and
(C) corrects the first intensity based on the first crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraph 3).
Shirasaki fails to disclose generating a first brightness of the first pixel and generating a second brightness of the second pixel; storing the first brightness; and correcting the first brightness.
However, Zeidler discloses generating a first brightness of the first pixel and generating a second brightness of the second pixel (column 19, lines 15-25);
storing the first brightness (column 19, lines 15-25); and
correcting the first brightness (column 19, lines 15-25, equalization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki to include generating a first brightness of the first pixel and generating a second brightness of the second pixel; storing the first brightness; and correcting the first brightness, based on the teachings of Zeidler that correcting the image brightness enables more accurate data analysis (Zeidler, column 2, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 2, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler as applied to claim 1 discloses the processor system according to claim 1, including generating the first brightness of the first pixel and generating the second brightness of the second pixel (Zeidler; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the controller generates a first image including the first pixel as generation of the first pixel (FIG. 4B, first image 351_1 comprising first pixel 351_1), and generates a second image including the second pixel as generation of the second pixel (FIG. 4B, second image 351_2 comprising pixel 351_2).
Regarding claim 8, Shirasaki discloses a correction method in a processor system (FIGs. 1, 2) that is able to communicate with a charged-particle microscope apparatus (FIG. 1), wherein
the charged-particle microscope apparatus includes
a charged particle beam irradiation system that includes at least one charged particle source (FIG. 1, element 101), and irradiates a first region on a sample surface (page 4, paragraph 4) with a first charged particle beam generated using the charged particle source (FIG. 1, first charged particle beam 251) while irradiating a second region on the sample surface (page 4, paragraph 4) with a second charged particle beam generated using the charged particle source (FIG. 1, second charged particle beam 251),
a detection system including
a correction detector (FIG. 1, element 110) that detects a first emitted electron emitted from the first region and a second emitted electron emitted from the second region (page 5, paragraph 1),
a first detector (FIG. 4A, element 301_1) that detects the first emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a first signal (page 6, paragraph 6), and
a second detector (FIG. 4A, element 301_2) that detects the second emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a second signal (page 6, paragraph 6), and
a controller that generates a first pixel (FIG. 4B, first pixel 351_1) corresponding to a first position within the first region based on the first signal (page 7, paragraph 2) and generates a second pixel (FIG. 4B, second pixel 351_2) corresponding to a second position within the second region based on the second signal (page 7, paragraph 2), wherein
the processor system includes one or more memory resources (FIG. 2, elements 122, 123) and one or more processors (FIG. 2, element 121), and
the correction method executed by the processor comprises
(A) storing the first intensity and an output of the correction detector (FIG. 10) acquired from the charged-particle microscope apparatus in the memory resource (page 5, last paragraph),
(B) specifying a first crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraphs 4-6) from the second emitted electron (FIG. 12, second emitted electron 281_2) to the first signal, regarding the amount detected by the first detector (FIG. 12, first detector 301_1), based on the output of the correction detector (page 13, paragraphs 4-6), and
(C) correcting the first intensity based on the first crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraph 3).
Shirasaki fails to disclose generating a first brightness of the first pixel and generating a second brightness of the second pixel; storing the first brightness; and correcting the first brightness.
However, Zeidler discloses generating a first brightness of the first pixel and generating a second brightness of the second pixel (column 19, lines 15-25);
storing the first brightness (column 19, lines 15-25); and
correcting the first brightness (column 19, lines 15-25, equalization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki to include generating a first brightness of the first pixel and generating a second brightness of the second pixel; storing the first brightness; and correcting the first brightness, based on the teachings of Zeidler that correcting the image brightness enables more accurate data analysis (Zeidler, column 2, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 9, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler as applied to claim 8 discloses the correction method according to claim 8, including generating the first brightness of the first pixel and generating the second brightness of the second pixel (Zeidler; see claim 8 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the controller generates a first image including the first pixel as generation of the first pixel (FIG. 4B, first image 351_1 comprising first pixel 351_1), and generates a second image including the second pixel as generation of the second pixel (FIG. 4B, second image 351_2 comprising pixel 351_2).
Regarding claim 15, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler as applied to claim 8 discloses the correction method according to claim 8.
In addition, Shirasaki discloses a correction program that causes a processor system to execute the correction method (page 5, last paragraph).
Claims 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki in view of Zeidler as respectively applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Riedesel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,896,800 B2), hereinafter Riedesel.
Regarding claim 3, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler as applied to claim 1 discloses the processor system according to claim 1.
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that an output of the correction detector includes a captured image for correction (FIG. 6, captured image 355), and
specifying the first crosstalk amount in the (B) includes specifying an amount of the second emitted electron included in the first detection range based on the captured image for correction (paragraph spanning the end of page 7 to the beginning of page 8).
Shirasaki in view of Zeidler fails to disclose that the correction detector includes a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with the first emitted electron and a collision position with the second emitted electron, and an imaging element that images the light emitting element, the captured image for correction is captured using the imaging element, the first detector includes an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron, and the second detector includes an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron.
However, Riedesel discloses that the correction detector includes
a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with the first emitted electron and a collision position with the second emitted electron (column 9, lines 25-30), and
an imaging element that images the light emitting element (column 11, lines 10-16),
the captured image for correction is captured using the imaging element (column 11, lines 12-14),
the first detector (column 11, lines 54-65, first detector 296) includes an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron (column 11, lines 50-65), and
the second detector (column 11, lines 54-65, second detector 297) includes an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron (column 11, lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki in view of Zeidler to include that the correction detector includes a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with the first emitted electron and a collision position with the second emitted electron, and an imaging element that images the light emitting element, the first detector includes an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron, and the second detector includes an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron, based on the teachings of Riedesel that this enables easy determination of required system adjustments (Riedesel, column 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 4, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 3 discloses the processor system according to claim 3, including the first and second detection ranges of the light emitting element (Riedesel; see claim 3 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the charged particle beam irradiation system further irradiates a third region on the sample surface (page 4, paragraph 4) with a third charged particle beam (FIG. 1, third charged particle beam 251),
the detection system further includes a third detector (FIG. 4A, element 301_3) that detects a third emitted electron emitted from the third region (page 5, paragraph 1) through a part of the correction detector and outputs a third signal (page 6, paragraph 6),
the processor
(D) specifies a second crosstalk amount from the third emitted electron to the first signal based on an output of the correction detector (page 13, paragraphs 4-6), regarding the amount detected by the first detector (FIG. 11, row A) and
(E) corrects the first intensity based on the second crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraph 3), and
specifying the second crosstalk amount in the (D) includes specifying an amount of the third emitted electrons included in the first detection range based on the captured image for correction (paragraph spanning the end of page 7 to the beginning of page 8).
In addition, Riedesel discloses that the third detector (column 11, lines 54-65, third detector 298) includes an element that detects light emission in a third detection range of the light emitting element for detecting the third emitted electron (column 11, lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel to include that the third detector includes an element that detects light emission in a third detection range of the light emitting element for detecting the third emitted electron, based on the additional teachings of Riedesel that this enables easy determination of required system adjustments (Riedesel, column 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 5, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 4 discloses the processor system according to claim 4, including the first, second, and third detection ranges of the light emitting element (Riedesel; see claims 3-4 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the captured image for correction (FIG. 5B, image 355) has
a first image region (FIG. 5B, region 356_1) corresponding to the first detection range (page 7, paragraph 4),
a second image region (FIG. 5B, region 356_2) corresponding to the second detection range (page 7, paragraph 4), and
a third image region (FIG. 5B, region 356_3) corresponding to the third detection range (page 7, paragraph 4), and
the processor
in the (B), specifies the first crosstalk amount to a value greater than zero when a first light emitting region extending from the second image region into the first image region exists (FIG. 7C: non-zero values outside of the diagonal of the matrix), and
in the (D), specifies the second crosstalk amount to a value greater than zero when a second light emitting region extending from the third image region into the first image region exists (FIG. 7C: non-zero values outside of the diagonal of the matrix).
Regarding claim 6, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 5 discloses the processor system according to claim 5, including storing the brightness and correcting the brightness (Zeidler; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the processor
(F) stores the second intensity acquired from the charged-particle microscope apparatus (FIG. 10) in the memory resource (page 5, last paragraph), and
(G) corrects the second intensity based on at least the first crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 10, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler as applied to claim 8 discloses the correction method according to claim 8.
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that an output of the correction detector includes a captured image for correction (FIG. 6, captured image 355), and
specifying the first crosstalk amount in the (B) includes specifying an amount of the second emitted electron included in the first detection range based on the captured image for correction (paragraph spanning the end of page 7 to the beginning of page 8).
Shirasaki in view of Zeidler fails to disclose that the correction detector includes a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with the first emitted electron and a collision position with the second emitted electron, and an imaging element that images the light emitting element, the captured image for correction is captured using the imaging element, the first detector includes an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron, and the second detector includes an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron.
However, Riedesel discloses that the correction detector includes
a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with the first emitted electron and a collision position with the second emitted electron (column 9, lines 25-30), and
an imaging element that images the light emitting element (column 11, lines 10-16),
the captured image for correction is captured using the imaging element (column 11, lines 12-14),
the first detector (column 11, lines 54-65, first detector 296) includes an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron (column 11, lines 50-65), and
the second detector (column 11, lines 54-65, second detector 297) includes an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron (column 11, lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki in view of Zeidler to include that the correction detector includes a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with the first emitted electron and a collision position with the second emitted electron, and an imaging element that images the light emitting element, the first detector includes an element that detects light emission in a first detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the first emitted electron, and the second detector includes an element that detects light emission in a second detection range of the light emitting element in order to detect the second emitted electron, based on the teachings of Riedesel that this enables easy determination of required system adjustments (Riedesel, column 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 11, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 10 discloses the correction method according to claim 10, including the first and second detection ranges of the light emitting element (Riedesel; see claim 10 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the charged particle beam irradiation system further irradiates a third region on the sample surface (page 4, paragraph 4) with a third charged particle beam (FIG. 1, third charged particle beam 251),
the detection system further includes a third detector (FIG. 4A, element 301_3) that detects a third emitted electron emitted from the third region (page 5, paragraph 1) through a part of the correction detector and outputs a third signal (page 6, paragraph 6),
the correction method executed by the processor further comprises
(D) specifying a second crosstalk amount from the third emitted electron to the first signal based on an output of the correction detector (page 13, paragraphs 4-6), regarding the amount detected by the first detector (FIG. 11, row A) and
(E) correcting the first intensity based on the second crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraph 3), and
specifying the second crosstalk amount in the (D) includes specifying an amount of the third emitted electrons included in the first detection range based on the captured image for correction (paragraph spanning the end of page 7 to the beginning of page 8).
In addition, Riedesel discloses that the third detector (column 11, lines 54-65, third detector 298) includes an element that detects light emission in a third detection range of the light emitting element for detecting the third emitted electron (column 11, lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel to include that the third detector includes an element that detects light emission in a third detection range of the light emitting element for detecting the third emitted electron, based on the additional teachings of Riedesel that this enables easy determination of required system adjustments (Riedesel, column 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 12, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 11 discloses the correction method according to claim 11, including the first, second, and third detection ranges of the light emitting element (Riedesel; see claims 10-11 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the captured image for correction (FIG. 5B, image 355) has
a first image region (FIG. 5B, region 356_1) corresponding to the first detection range (page 7, paragraph 4),
a second image region (FIG. 5B, region 356_2) corresponding to the second detection range (page 7, paragraph 4), and
a third image region (FIG. 5B, region 356_3) corresponding to the third detection range (page 7, paragraph 4),
the correction method executed by the processor further comprises
in the (B), specifying the first crosstalk amount to a value greater than zero when a first light emitting region extending from the second image region into the first image region exists (FIG. 7C: non-zero values outside of the diagonal of the matrix), and
in the (D), specifying the second crosstalk amount to a value greater than zero when a second light emitting region extending from the third image region into the first image region exists (FIG. 7C: non-zero values outside of the diagonal of the matrix).
Regarding claim 13, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 12 discloses the correction method according to claim 12, including storing the brightness and correcting the brightness (Zeidler; see claim 8 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the correction method executed by the processor further comprises
(F) storing the second intensity acquired from the charged-particle microscope apparatus (FIG. 10) in the memory resource (page 5, last paragraph), and
(G) correcting the second intensity based on at least the first crosstalk amount (page 13, paragraph 3).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as respectively applied to claims 3 and 11 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0329085 A1), hereinafter Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 7, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 3 discloses the processor system according to claim 3, including generating the first brightness of the first pixel and generating the second brightness of the second pixel (Zeidler; see claim 1 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the controller generates the first image including the first pixel as generation of the first pixel (FIG. 4B, first image 351_1 comprising first pixel 351_1), and generates the second image including the second pixel as generation of the second pixel (FIG. 4B, second image 351_2 comprising pixel 351_2).
Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel fails to disclose that an imaging period of the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector is a period matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image by the first detector or a period of detection of the first signal corresponding to the first pixel.
However, Kikuchi discloses that an imaging period of the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector is a period matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image by the first detector or a period of detection of the first signal corresponding to the first pixel (paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel to include that an imaging period of the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector is a period matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image by the first detector or a period of detection of the first signal corresponding to the first pixel, based on the teachings of Kikuchi that matching time periods improves the precision of crosstalk correction (Kikuchi, paragraph 0126).
Regarding claim 14, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel as applied to claim 11 discloses the correction method according to claim 11, including generating the first brightness of the first pixel and generating the second brightness of the second pixel (Zeidler; see claim 8 supra).
In addition, Shirasaki discloses that the controller generates the first image including the first pixel as generation of the first pixel (FIG. 4B, first image 351_1 comprising first pixel 351_1), and generates the second image including the second pixel as generation of the second pixel (FIG. 4B, second image 351_2 comprising pixel 351_2).
Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel fails to disclose that an imaging period of the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector is a period matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image by the first detector or a period of detection of the first signal corresponding to the first pixel.
However, Kikuchi discloses that an imaging period of the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector is a period matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image by the first detector or a period of detection of the first signal corresponding to the first pixel (paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel to include that an imaging period of the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector is a period matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image by the first detector or a period of detection of the first signal corresponding to the first pixel, based on the teachings of Kikuchi that matching time periods improves the precision of crosstalk correction (Kikuchi, paragraph 0126).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kasai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0134288 A1), hereinafter Kasai, teaches a controller that generates a first brightness of a first pixel and a second brightness of a second pixel; and a processor that stores the first brightness and an output of a correction detector acquired from a charged-particle microscope apparatus in a memory resource, specifies a first crosstalk amount from the second emitted electron to the first signal based on the output of the correction detector, and corrects the first brightness based on the first crosstalk amount.
Fang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0301811 A1), hereinafter Fang, teaches a processor system that is able to communicate with a charged-particle microscope apparatus, the system comprising: the charged-particle microscope apparatus includes a charged particle beam irradiation system that includes at least one charged particle source, and irradiates a first region on a sample surface with a first charged particle beam generated using the charged particle source while irradiating a second region on the sample surface with a second charged particle beam generated using the charged particle source, a detection system including a correction detector that detects a first emitted electron emitted from the first region and a second emitted electron emitted from the second region, a first detector that detects the first emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a first signal, and a second detector that detects the second emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a second signal, and a controller that generates an image comprising pixels, wherein the processor corrects crosstalk generated in the images.
Iwanaka et al. (WO Patent No. 2021176513 A1), hereinafter Iwanaka (English machine translation provided), teaches reducing crosstalk in a processor system comprising a charged-particle microscope, wherein the processor system includes a correction detector including a light emitting element that emits light at a collision position with a first emitted electron and a collision position with a second emitted electron, and an imaging element that images the light emitting element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881