DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09 June 2026, with respect to the drawings, the abstract, and the claims have been entered. The objections to FIG. 7, the abstract, and claim 1; and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, field 09 June 2026, that the prior art of record fails to teach an imaging period of the captured image for correction matching a period of the first signal corresponding to the first image or the first pixel, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Kikuchi discloses that “[t]he imaging device 44 accumulates signal electric charge for a fixed period in accordance with an image which is created on the light receiving surface” (paragraph 0061, emphasis added), i.e., the period during which the imaging device 44 accumulates a signal is set in accordance with the period of the generated image. Kikuchi further discloses that “the programs to be executed by the CPU can be programs…to be executed to carry out processes concurrently or programs to be invoked with required timings to carry out processes with the timings” (paragraph 0143, emphasis added), i.e., the timings at which the processor executes program steps may match the timings of other program steps.
Furthermore, Shirasaki teaches that “the sample is simultaneously irradiated with a plurality of selected primary beams, and the detection matrix element for the signal electron beam caused by each of the plurality of primary beams is determined at the same time. This makes it possible to shorten the calibration time.” (page 10, paragraph beginning “8A-8C are diagrams…”); and “[t]he multi-beam type SEM can shorten the observation time and improve the throughput by simultaneously observing a wide field of view with a plurality of primary beams” (page 3, paragraph 1). Therefore, Shirasaki identifies the imaging period as a variable which may be optimized to achieve a desirable result, i.e., reduced time required for calibration/correction and improved throughput.
Drawings
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. 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. 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.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the captured image for correction imaged by the imaging element of the correction detector” to mean “[[the]]a captured image for correction imaged by [[the]]an imaging element of the correction detector.”
Claims 3-6 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1. Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 8.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 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 a prior office action), in view of Zeidler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,645,740 B2), hereinafter Zeidler, and Riedesel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,896,800 B2), hereinafter Riedesel.
Regarding claim 1, Shirasaki discloses a processor system (FIGs. 1, 2) configured to communicate with a charged-particle microscope apparatus (FIG. 1), the processor system comprising:
the charged-particle microscope apparatus 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. 5A, element 301_1) that detects the first emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a first signal (page 7, paragraph 3), and
a second detector (FIG. 5A, element 301_2) that detects the second emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a second signal (page 7, paragraph 3), and
a controller that generates a first pixel (FIG. 5B, first pixel 356_1) corresponding to a first position within the first region based on the first signal (page 7, paragraph 4) and generates a second pixel (FIG. 5B, second pixel 356_2) corresponding to a second position within the second region based on the second signal (page 7, paragraph 4), 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 one or more processors
(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 an amount of the first emitted electron 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),
wherein the controller generates a first image including the first pixel as generation of the first pixel (FIG. 5B, first image 356_1 comprising first pixel 356_1), and generates the second image including the second pixel as generation of the second pixel (FIG. 5B, second image 356_2 comprising pixel 356_2), and
wherein an imaging period of the captured image for correction (FIG. 5B, element 355) 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 (FIG. 5B, first pixel 356_1; Shirasaki teaches that “the sample is simultaneously irradiated with a plurality of selected primary beams, and the detection matrix element for the signal electron beam caused by each of the plurality of primary beams is determined at the same time” (page 10, paragraph beginning “8A-8C are diagrams…”) and “[t]he multi-beam type SEM can shorten the observation time and improve the throughput by simultaneously observing a wide field of view with a plurality of primary beams” (page 3, paragraph 1), i.e., each detector receives a signal at the same time; therefore, the period of a signal by one detector is the same as the period of a signal by the correction detector as a whole).
Furthermore, optimizing the duration of an imaging period 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, Shirasaki teaches that “the sample is simultaneously irradiated with a plurality of selected primary beams, and the detection matrix element for the signal electron beam caused by each of the plurality of primary beams is determined at the same time. This makes it possible to shorten the calibration time.” (page 10, paragraph beginning “8A-8C are diagrams…”). Shirasaki further teaches that “[t]he multi-beam type SEM can shorten the observation time and improve the throughput by simultaneously observing a wide field of view with a plurality of primary beams” (page 3, paragraph 1). As such, Shirasaki identifies the imaging period as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reduced time required for calibration/correction and improved throughput. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the duration of an imaging period and identifies said duration as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the duration of the imaging period to meet the claimed duration since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
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; correcting the first brightness; and an imaging element of the correction detector.
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).
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).
Shirasaki in view of Zeidler fails to disclose an imaging element of the correction detector.
However, Riedesel discloses an imaging element of the correction detector (column 11, lines 10-16).
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 an imaging element of the correction detector, based on the teachings of Riedesel that this contributes to easier determination of required system adjustments (Riedesel, column 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 3, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel 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. 5B, 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).
In addition, 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 and Riedesel 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 additional 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. 5A, 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 7, paragraph 3),
the one or more processors
(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 of the first emitted electron 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 one or more processors
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 one or more processors
(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 8, Shirasaki discloses a correction method in a processor system (FIGs. 1, 2) configured 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. 5A, element 301_1) that detects the first emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a first signal (page 7, paragraph 3), and
a second detector (FIG. 5A, element 301_2) that detects the second emitted electron through a part of the correction detector and outputs a second signal (page 7, paragraph 3), and
a controller that generates a first pixel (FIG. 5B, first pixel 356_1) corresponding to a first position within the first region based on the first signal (page 7, paragraph 4) and generates a second pixel (FIG. 5B, second pixel 356_2) corresponding to a second position within the second region based on the second signal (page 7, paragraph 4), 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 one or more processors 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 an amount of the first emitted electron 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),
wherein the controller generates a first image including the first pixel as generation of the first pixel (FIG. 5B, first image 356_1 comprising first pixel 356_1), and generates the second image including the second pixel as generation of the second pixel (FIG. 5B, second image 356_2 comprising pixel 356_2), and
wherein an imaging period of the captured image for correction (FIG. 5B, element 355) 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 (FIG. 5B, first pixel 356_1; Shirasaki teaches that “the sample is simultaneously irradiated with a plurality of selected primary beams, and the detection matrix element for the signal electron beam caused by each of the plurality of primary beams is determined at the same time” (page 10, paragraph beginning “8A-8C are diagrams…”) and “[t]he multi-beam type SEM can shorten the observation time and improve the throughput by simultaneously observing a wide field of view with a plurality of primary beams” (page 3, paragraph 1), i.e., each detector receives a signal at the same time; therefore, the period of a signal by one detector is the same as the period of a signal by the correction detector as a whole).
Furthermore, optimizing the duration of an imaging period 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, Shirasaki teaches that “the sample is simultaneously irradiated with a plurality of selected primary beams, and the detection matrix element for the signal electron beam caused by each of the plurality of primary beams is determined at the same time. This makes it possible to shorten the calibration time.” (page 10, paragraph beginning “8A-8C are diagrams…”). Shirasaki further teaches that “[t]he multi-beam type SEM can shorten the observation time and improve the throughput by simultaneously observing a wide field of view with a plurality of primary beams” (page 3, paragraph 1). As such, Shirasaki identifies the imaging period as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reduced time required for calibration/correction and improved throughput. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the duration of an imaging period and identifies said duration as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the duration of the imaging period to meet the claimed duration since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
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; correcting the first brightness; and an imaging element of the correction detector.
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).
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).
Shirasaki in view of Zeidler fails to disclose an imaging element of the correction detector.
However, Riedesel discloses an imaging element of the correction detector (column 11, lines 10-16).
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 an imaging element of the correction detector, based on the teachings of Riedesel that this contributes to easier determination of required system adjustments (Riedesel, column 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 10, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel 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. 5B, 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).
In addition, 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 and Riedesel 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 additional 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. 5A, 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 7, paragraph 3),
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 of the first emitted electron 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).
Regarding claim 15, Shirasaki in view of Zeidler and Riedesel 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights