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 .
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “directing the multi-beam of charged particles along the multi-beam path towards an alignment feature” renders that claim indefinite. The claim specifies that the multi-beam includes multiple beamlets. However, it is unclear from the claims and the specification whether the claimed directing requires moving all of the beamlets of the multi-beam towards the alignment feature, moving some subset of the beamlets towards the alignments feature, or even moving a single beamlet of the multi-beam. Restated as a question: One beamlet does not make a multi-beam, but if one beamlet of a multi-beam is directed to a feature, is the multi-beam itself directed to the feature? The tension between the applicant’s definition of a multi-beam and the description of how a multi-beam acts creates a degree of internal inconsistency that makes the metes and bounds of the claimed “directing” limitation unclear. Since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot resolve the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 18 recites, “a control system configured to control the optical system to direct the multi-beam of charged particles towards the alignment feature in a field of view encompassing the alignment feature.” As with claim 1, it is unclear from the claims and the specification whether such directing requires moving all of the beamlets of the multi-beam towards the alignment feature, or if some subset of the beamlets moving towards the alignments feature would suffice. Since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot resolve the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 20 recites, “wherein the charged particle assessment system is configured to control the optical system to direct the multi-beam of charged particles towards the alignment feature in a field of view encompassing the alignment feature.” As with claim 1, it is unclear from the claims and the specification whether such directing requires moving all of the beamlets of the multi-beam towards the alignment feature, or if some subset of the beamlets moving towards the alignments feature would suffice. Since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot resolve the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites, “directing the multi-beam comprises scanning the multi-beam of charged particles over the alignment feature.” As with claim 1, it is unclear from the claims and the specification whether such directing requires scanning all of the beamlets of the multi-beam over the alignment feature, or if some subset of the beamlets scanning over the alignments feature would suffice. Since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot resolve the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 19 recites, “the multi-beam of charged particles scans over the alignment feature.” As with claim 6, it is unclear from the claims and the specification whether such scanning requires all of the beamlets of the multi-beam be scanned over the alignment feature, or if some subset of the beamlets scanning over the alignments feature would suffice. Since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot resolve the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the beamlets are simultaneously directed towards the alignment feature.” It is unclear if “the beamlets” refers to “an arrangement of beamlets” of claim 1, or if it is a reference to some unspecified subset thereof. As such, the claim lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite.
Claim 20 recites, “wherein the charged particle assessment system is configured to control the optical system to direct the multi-beam of charged particles towards the alignment feature in a field of view encompassing the alignment feature;
to generate an a data set representative of the alignment feature based on the detection of the signal particles and to determine from the data set a global alignment of the sample with respect to at least one electron-optical column based on an image of the alignment feature.” First, the typo “generate an a data” is still noted. 1 More importantly, the recitation as a whole seeks to define the preamble by a configuration of said preamble. It is unclear whether this is to be understood as: reciting functions to be performed by the recited structure of the optical system; or reciting functions to be performed by any structure of the charged particle assessment system (claimed or unclaimed); or reciting intended use. Each interpretation yields an entirely different claim scope. Since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot resolve the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim, the claim is indefinite.
The above indefinite claims will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,901,391 B1 [hereinafter Saraswatula].
Regarding Claim 1:
Saraswatula discloses a method of aligning a sample in a charged particle assessment system comprising a support for supporting a sample, the assessment system being configured to project charged particles in a multi-beam towards a sample along a multi-beam path, the multi-beam comprising an arrangement of beamlets, and being configured to detect signal particles emitted from the sample in response to a corresponding beamlet of the multi-beam (abstract), the method comprising:
directing the multi-beam of charged particles along the multi-beam path towards an alignment feature of the sample, such that a field of view of the multi-beam of charged particles encompasses the alignment feature (Fig. 5 (1003), 12:54-58);
detecting the signal particles emitted from the sample (Fig. 5 (1003), 12:54-58);
generating a data set representative of the alignment feature based on the detecting of the signal particles (12:59-14:17 extensively describes the generation of such a data set); and
determining a global alignment of the sample with respect to the multi-beam path, using the data set (Fig. 5 (1007), 14:18-25).
Regarding Claim 2:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the beamlets are simultaneously directed towards the alignment feature. In that the first mSEM image of Fig. 5 (10003) includes the notch, beamlets must be directed towards said notch. Further, since the beamlets are projected simultaneously, their direction is simultaneous. 7:42-45.
Regarding Claim 3:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the combined field of view of a selection of beamlets of the multi-beam arrangement encompasses the alignment feature. 7:42-50.
Regarding Claim 4:
Saraswatula discloses the method claim 3, wherein directing the multi-beam comprises selecting the selection of beamlets from the multi-beam arrangement, the selection of beamlets adjoining each other defining a portion of the multi-beam arrangement or the selection of beamlets being disposed throughout the multi-beam arrangement. 7:42-50.
Regarding Claim 5:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 4, wherein multi-beam arrangement comprising the selection of beamlets and unselected beamlets, wherein the selecting comprises blanking the unselected beamlets. In that all beams are selected, no beams need be blanked.
Regarding Claim 6:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein directing the multi-beam comprises scanning the multi-beam of charged particles over the alignment feature. 7:42-50.
Regarding Claim 7:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the scanning of the multi-beam of charged particles over the alignment feature is over a distance greater than or equal to the beamlet pitch. The scanning takes place throughout the multi-beam. As such, scanning takes place over a distance far in excess of any given beamlet pitch.
Regarding Claim 8:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the scanning of the multi-beam of charged particles over the alignment feature is over a distance greater than or equal to a dimension in the plane of the sample surface of portion of beam arrangement and/or the field of view assigned to a beamlet of the multi-beam. The scanning takes place throughout the multi-beam. As such, scanning takes place over a distance far in excess of any given beamlet’s field of view.
Regarding Claim 9:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the scanning on the multi-beam of charged particles over the alignment feature is within the field of view. Fig. 5 (10003), the notch is imaged, and thus, must be within a field of view.
Regarding Claim 10:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting comprises selecting detector elements of a detector array to detect. 7:46-63 describes detecting, which indicates that such elements are selected.
Regarding Claim 11:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises selecting detector signals from the detecting for generating the data set. The mSEM imaging of Fig. 5 indicates that such signals were selected.
Regarding Claim 12:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises selecting data from the data set corresponding to detection of selected detector elements of a detector array. The mSEM imaging of Fig. 5 indicates that such data was selected.
Regarding Claim 13:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises determining the topography of the sample surface in the field of view of the multi-beam based on the intensity of the signal. 7:46-63 – surface quality of the wafer surface is indicative of determining topology, as is detection of a notch.
Regarding Claim 14:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the alignment feature comprises a feature defined in or on the rim of the sample and/or a feature of a major surface of the sample. See Fig. 1 (201)).
Regarding Claim 15:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising determining a fine alignment of the sample with respect to the multi-beam using the global alignment. 7:63-8:17.
Regarding Claim 16:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the determining the fine alignment comprises controlling at least an optical system using the global alignment by directing the arrangement of the beamlets along the multi-beam path towards a fine alignment feature of the sample, such that the field of view of the multi-beam of charged particles encompasses the fine alignment feature. The fine alignment feature is the notch, the field of view encompasses the notch, therefor the claim is met.
Regarding Claim 17:
Saraswatula discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the determining the fine alignment of the sample with respect to the multi-beam path, which is dependent on the global alignment, comprises detecting the signal particles emitted from the sample and generating a fine alignment data set representative of the alignment feature based on the detecting of the signal particles. Fig. 5 (10011).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0211814 A1 [hereinafter Van Der Toorn].
Regarding Claim 18:
Van Der Toorn discloses a charged particle assessment system configured to project a multi-beam of charged particles towards a sample comprising an alignment feature, the multi-beam comprising an arrangement of beamlets directed along a multi-beam path, the system (Fig. 2a) comprising:
a support for supporting a sample (Fig. 2a support for (190));
an optical system for projecting a multi-beam of charged particles towards the sample (Fig. 2a), the optical system comprising:
an array of objective lenses configured to direct a multi-beam of charged particles in an arrangement of beamlets towards the sample (para 45), and
a detector array associated with the objective lens array and configured to detect signal particles emitted from the sample in response to a corresponding beamlet of the multi-beam (Fig. 2a (140));
a control system configured to control the optical system (para 43) to direct the multi-beam of charged particles towards the alignment feature in a field of view encompassing the alignment feature (para 90); and
a processing system configured to generate a data set representative of the alignment feature based on the detection of the signal particles and to determine a global alignment of the sample with respect to the multi-beam path from the data set representative of the alignment feature (para 90).
Regarding Claim 19:
Van Der Toorn discloses charged particle assessment system of claim 18, wherein the control system is configured to control the optical system and/or movement of the support such that the multi-beam of charged particles scans over the alignment feature (paras 44, 61-63).
Regarding Claim 20:
Van Der Toorn discloses a charged particle assessment system configured to project a multi-beam of charged particles towards a sample comprising an alignment feature, the multi-beam comprising an arrangement of beamlets directed along a multi-beam path, the system comprising:
a support for supporting a sample (Fig. 2a support for (190));
an optical system for projecting a multi-beam of charged particles towards the sample, the optical system comprising (Fig. 2a):
an array of objective lenses configured to direct a multi-beam of charged particles in an arrangement of beamlets towards the sample (para 45), and
a detector array associated with the objective lens array and configured to detection signal particles emitted from the sample in response to a corresponding beamlet of the multi-beam (Fig. 2a (140)); and
wherein the charged particle assessment system is configured to control the optical system to direct the multi-beam of charged particles towards the alignment feature in a field of view encompassing the alignment feature (para 90);
to generate a data set representative of the alignment feature based on the detection of the signal particles and to determine from the data set a global alignment of the sample with respect to at least one electron-optical column based on an image of the alignment feature (para 90).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1-20 are definite since one of ordinary skill in the art would “understand whether a given method or system directs a multi-beam such that its field of view encompasses an alignment feature and, where applicable, whether the beamlets used for that multi-beam operation are directed simultaneously or scanned.” This is not persuasive. The issue at hand arises out of the applicant’s choice to define the claims in terms of “directing the multi-beam” towards a particular feature. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “directing” a multi-beam, where the multi-beam itself has multiple component beamlets. The claim specifies that the multi-beam comprises “an arrangement of beamlets,” but does that mean that “directing” the multi-beam requires directing an “arrangement of beamlets” or will directing one of said “arrangement of beamlets” suffice. Despite applicant’s assertions to the contrary, reasonable persons of ordinary skill would come to different conclusions given this vague language. Accordingly, the rejections of record are maintained.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 2, 6, and 18-20 are definite because the office’s concerns relate to manner of implementation rather than uncertainty in claim scope. This is not persuasive. The issue is entirely one of claim scope. How many beamlets must be employed to infringe upon the claim is a simply question of claim scope, which the applicant continues to refuse to answer.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 2, 6, and 18-20 are definite because the claims are permissibly directed to multiple implementations, citing to Nautiluz, inc. v. Biosig. This is not persuasive. Again, the issue is whether a person of ordinary skill can ascertain whether a given embodiment falls within the scope of the claim. As the claims are drafted, one cannot.
The antecedent basis rejections of claims 4, 7, and 8 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Saraswatula fails to disclose directing a multi-beam such that the field of view of the multi-beam itself encompasses an alignment feature. Rather, applicant asserts that Saraswatula describes combining information from multiple images acquired at different locations and times together. This is not persuasive. Saraswatula is a multi-beam instrument, and, as noted by applicant, Saraswatula images includes different portions of the sample. These portions include alignment features, i.e., notches and saddles. To capture images of these alignment features, the multi-beam of Saraswatula must be directed such that the field of view of the multi-beam itself encompasses an alignment feature. Were it not so directed; it would be impossible for it to image the features.
Applicant argues that Van der Toorn fails to disclose directing a multi-beam such that the field of view of the multi-beam itself encompasses an alignment feature and generating a dataset representative of that alignment feature to determine a global alignment of the sample. Rather, applicant asserts that Van der Toorn describes steering beamlets for region-of-interest inspection. This is not persuasive. Van der Toorn is a multi-beam instrument, and, as noted by applicant, Van der Toorn images different regions of interest. These portions include alignment features, i.e., structures and patterns. To capture images of these alignment features, the multi-beam of Van der Toorn must be directed such that the field of view of the multi-beam itself encompasses an alignment feature. Further, Van der Toorn explicitly describes using the stored information of these features to align the wafer.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 This issue can be repaired without introducing a substantive change in the claim.
Prosecution Insights