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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III, encompassing claims 1-2, 9-10, 16, and 24-28 in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-8, 11-15, 17-23, and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/24/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Collective scan deflector in claims 9 and 26
Collective beam blanker in claim 10
Mode-selection device in claim 26
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-2, 9-10, 16, and 24-28 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 “stationary scanning an object…” is unclear and indefinite because it is unclear how a scan can be stationary. The term ‘stationary scanning’ is not a familiar term in the art and the instant specification does not appear to provide a definition of the term. The scanning is described on page 7, lines 11-17 of the instant specification as taking place in a ‘stationary manner’, however this does not elucidate how a scan can be stationary.
Claim 1 recites “raster-scanning the first position of the object…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consequently, it is unclear if ‘the first position of the object’ is the same or different to the ‘a first position’ and if the first position is a position on the object or the position where the object is located.
Claim 10 recites “stationary scanning the object comprises releasing the collective beam blanker when the collective beam blanker is stopped or switched-off collective scan deflector so that the plurality of the individual particle beams are incident on the object” lacks grammatical clarity and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 26 recites “da first particle optical unit” is indefinite because ‘da’ appears to contain a typographical error.
Claim 26 recites “the generated individual particle beams”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, it is unclear if the “the generated individual particle beams” refers to the “a first field of a plurality of charged first particle beams” of claim 26 or the “a plurality of individual charged paritlce beams” of claim 1 upon which claim 26 depends, or some other beams.
Claim 26 recites “the object plane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites “the first particle beams”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, it is unclear if the “the first particle beams” refers to the “a first field of a plurality of charged first particle beams” of claim 26 or the “a plurality of individual charged particle beams” of claim 1 upon which claim 26 depends, or some other beams.
Claim 26 recites “the third field of the detection regions of the detection system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, it is unclear if “the third field of the detection regions of the detection system” are the same or different to the “a third field” of claim 26 (See the limitation, “a detection system comprising a multiplicity of detection regions that form a third field”). Based on the previous limitation in claim 26 stating “a detection system comprising a multiplicity of detection regions that form a third field”, it is understood that multiple detection regions form/constitute/make up a third field. The limitation “the third field of the detection regions of the detection system” implies that the third field is a region or field of the detection regions. Consequently the limitations seem to be in conflict, or in the least, make the claim confusing and indefinite because it is unclear if the third field is made up of the detection regions or if the third field is part of the detection regions, or if the third field of these two limitations are referring to different third fields entirely.
Claim 26 recites “the first and the second individual particle beams.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Consequently it is unclear which beams are being referred to.
Claim 26 recites “the plurality of charged first particle beams.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consequently it is unclear which beams are beign referred to.
Claim 26 recites “…the collective scan deflector and configured to collectively raster-scan the sample surface…” lacks grammatical clarity and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 26 recites “during a predetermined irradiation time” is indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘a predetermined irradiation time’ of claim 26 is the same or different to the ‘a predetermined irradiation time’ of claim 1 upon which claim 26 depends.
Claim 26 recites “a stationary scan of the object at a predefined position takes place via the plurality of the individual particle beams during a predetermined irradiation time, thereby forming latent structures on the object; and after the stationary scan so that a raster scan of the object comprising the predefined position with the formed latent structures takes place via the plurality of the individual particle beams.” It is unclear if the “a stationary scan…” and the “a raster scan…” in claim 26 are the same or different to that in claim 1 upon which claim 26 depends.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 26-28 on which claim 26 depends use the words “sample”, “sample surface”, “object”, “object plane”. Consider unifying the language so that it is clear what is being referred to and to make it clear if these items are the same or different.
Claims 2, 9-10, 16, and 24-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 27-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “adjusting the multi-beam particle microscope based on the analysis of the latent structures,” however this limitation is not sufficiently supported by the instant disclosure. MPEP 2163 I states, “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention….An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. ” The instant specification states on pg. 13, lines 25-32 that the method includes “adjusting the multi-beam particle microscope on the basis of the analyzed structures.” This statement is a mere restatement of the claim language without providing steps, an algorithm, an image, or a description as to how the multi-particle beam particle microscope is adjusted and how this adjustment is based on the analyzed structures. The instant specification seemingly attempts to provide examples of such adjustment, i.e. on pg. 13, line 29 to pg. 14, line 2, which states, “It is possible, for example, that the individual particle beams have an astigmatism owing to a disturbing influence. If it is not possible to eliminate the disturbing influence itself, appropriately adjusting the multi-beam particle microscope can result in the astigmatism caused by the disruption to be compensated by way of a fine adjustment.” Such an example, although demonstrating an adjustment, fails to explain particularly how the adjustment is based on the analyzed structures and fails to provide any details of the adjustment itself. The same applies to the example on pg. 29 lines 11-31. Although this example discusses how disturbing influence can result in differently-shaped latent structures, how these shapes may indicates astigmatism and how an appropriate readjustment of the particle be used to compensate for the astigmatism, there is NO description of what the adjustment/compensation would entail. Consequently, the claim is not supported by instant disclosure, and the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 9-10, 16 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, et. al. (US 20200194223 A1), hereinafter Jiang, in view of Zeidler (US 20200211810 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a method of using a particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams in a raster arrangement, the method comprising:
stationary scanning an object at a first position via the plurality of individual particle beam (directing one or more flooding electron beams 101a, 101b to the surface of the sample, [0033]) during a predetermined irradiation time T (flood-charging time TC, [0064], [0109]), thereby forming latent structures on the object (voltage contrast formed on surface due to flood charging, [0035]-[0036]);
raster-scanning the first position of the object comprising the latent structures via the plurality of individual particle beam (scanning the imaging electron beams 401b across the plurality of SFOVs along a raster-scanning pattern,[0131]); and
analyzing the latent structures (image forming of the flood charging, [0002]) .
Although Jiang teaches “electron beams” (See [0070] which teaches performing a flooding scan using flooding electron beams and performing an imaging scan using imaging electron beams), Jiang does not explicitly teach a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams (Fig. 4A-C does not explicitly show a multi-beam system).
Zeidler teaches a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams (multi-beam particle beam system, [0026], [0032], Fig. 1).
Zeidler modifies the particle microscope of Jiang by suggesting a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams.
Since both inventions are directed to scanning electron microscopy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zeidler because such a system is capable of producing many beams ([0002]) which would allow for much faster imaging since a multiplicity of beams would be able to scan over an object faster than a single beam.
Regarding claim 9, Jiang teaches wherein:
the particle microscope comprises a collective scan deflector configured to collectively move the raster arrangement of the plurality of individual particle beams over an object surface in a raster-type manner (the pre scan deflectors 220 and main scan deflectors 224 may be configured to scan the selected electron beam across the sample, [0043], swathing scan procedure for imaging electron beam, [0122]);
raster-scanning the object comprises controlling the collective scan deflector ([0122], [0071], [0087]); and
stationary scanning the object comprises stopping or switching off the collective scan deflector ([0033] teaches stationary flooding electron beams, where the sample is actuated underneath rather than the flooding electron beam being scanned via deflectors. In this case, the deflector would be stopped or off. See also [0089].).
Although Jiang teaches “electron beams” (See [0070] which teaches performing a flooding scan using flooding electron beams and performing an imaging scan using imaging electron beams), Jiang does not explicitly teach a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams (Fig. 4A-C does not explicitly show a multi-beam system).
Zeidler teaches a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams (multi-beam particle beam system, [0026], [0032], Fig. 1).
Zeidler modifies the particle microscope of Jiang by suggesting a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams.
Since both inventions are directed to scanning electron microscopy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zeidler because such a system is capable of producing many beams ([0002]) which would allow for much faster imaging since a multiplicity of beams would be able to scan over an object faster than a single beam.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang teaches wherein:
the particle microscope has a collective beam blanker configured to collectively deflect the plurality of individual particle beams so that they are not incident on the object (blanker 418, [0085]); and
stationary scanning the object comprises releasing the collective beam blanker when the collective beam blanker is stopped or switched-off collective scan deflector so that the plurality of the individual particle beams are incident on the object ([0085], Fig. 4A).
Although Jiang teaches “electron beams” (See [0070] which teaches performing a flooding scan using flooding electron beams and performing an imaging scan using imaging electron beams), Jiang does not explicitly teach a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams (Fig. 4A-C does not explicitly show a multi-beam system).
Zeidler teaches a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams (multi-beam particle beam system, [0026], [0032] Fig. 1).
Zeidler modifies the particle microscope of Jiang by suggesting a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams.
Since both inventions are directed to scanning electron microscopy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zeidler because such a system is capable of producing many beams ([0002]) which would allow for much faster imaging since a multiplicity of beams would be able to scan over an object faster than a single beam.
Regarding claim 16, Jiang teaches further comprising adjusting the multi-beam particle microscope based on the analysis of the latent structures ( [0097]-[0098], [0101]).
Regarding claim 24, Jiang teaches one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations (controller 404, Fig. 4A, [0087]) comprising the method of claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 over Jiang in view of Zeidler, above).
Regarding claim 25, Jiang teaches system comprising:
one or more processing devices (one or more processors 406, [0087], Fig. 4A); and
one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations (controller 404, [0087], Fig. 4A) comprising the method of claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 over Jiang in view of Zeidler, above).
Regarding claim 26, Jiang teaches wherein the particle microscope comprises:
da first particle optical unit with a first particle-optical beam path, the first particle optical unit configured to image the generated individual particle beams onto a sample surface in the object plane such that the first particle beams are incident on the sample surface at incidence locations which form a second field (interpreted first particle optical unit with a first particle-optical beam path includes condenser lens 422 and objective lens 430, Fig. 4A, [0085]);
a detection system comprising a multiplicity of detection regions that form a third field (detector assembly 434, Fig. 4A, [0086]);
a second particle optical unit with a second particle-optical beam path, the second particle optical unit configured to image second individual particle beams, which emanate from the incidence locations in the second field, onto the third field of the detection regions of the detection system (interpreted second particle optical unit with a second particle-optical beam path includes objective lens 430 and the optics included in the detector assembly 434, Fig. 4A);
a magnetic and/or electrostatic objective lens, through which both the first and the second individual particle beams pass (objective lens 430, Fig. 4A, [0085]);
a beam switch in the first particle-optical beam path between the multi-beam generator and the objective lens, the beam switch in the second particle-optical beam path between the objective lens and the detection system (Wien filter 426, [0086], Fig. 4A);
a collective scan deflector between the beam switch and the sample surface, the collective scan deflector and configured to collectively raster-scan the sample surface using the plurality of charged first particle beams (main scan deflectors 428, [0085], Fig. 4A);
a mode-selection device configured to select an analysis operating mode in which latent structures are producible on a sample ([0070], [0098] flooding mode and imaging mode); and
a controller (controller 404, Fig. 4A, [0087]),
wherein the controller is configured to control the collective scan deflector in the analysis operating mode ([0098]):
so that a stationary scan of the object at a predefined position takes place via the plurality of the individual particle beams during a predetermined irradiation time, thereby forming latent structures on the object (flooding mode, [0098], [0033], [0064], [0035]-[0036], Fig. 4A); and
after the stationary scan so that a raster scan of the object comprising the predefined position with the formed latent structures takes place via the plurality of the individual particle beams (imaging mode , [0098], [0131], [0002], Figs. 4B-C).
Although Jiang teaches “electron beams” (See [0070] which teaches performing a flooding scan using flooding electron beams and performing an imaging scan using imaging electron beams), Jiang does not explicitly teach a multi-beam particle microscope and a multi-beam generator configured to generate a first field of a plurality of charged first particle beams.
Zeidler teaches a multi-beam particle microscope and a multi-beam generator configured to generate a first field of a plurality of charged first particle beams (multi-beam particle beam system, [0026], Fig. 1, apparatus 300, [0032]).
Zeidler modifies the particle microscope of Jiang by suggesting a multi-beam particle microscope which generates a plurality of individual charged particle beams.
Since both inventions are directed to scanning electron microscopy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zeidler because such a system is capable of producing many beams ([0002]) which would allow for much faster imaging since a multiplicity of beams would be able to scan over an object faster than a single beam.
Regarding claim 27, Jiang teaches wherein, for a dose Dstat during the stationary scan of the object in the first position and for a dose Drast during the raster scan of the object comprising the first position, 1,000 Drast ≤ Dstat ≤ 100,000 Drast (Claim 27 is written as an apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II. Since an apparatus covers what a device is, not what a device does, Jiang in view of Zeidler teaches claim 27 because these references teach all the structural limitations of the claim.).
Regarding claim 28, Jiang teaches further comprising a collective beam blanker configured to deflect the plurality of the first individual particle beams so that the first individual particle beams are not incident on the sample (blanker 418, Fig. 4A, [0085]), wherein the controller is configured to control the collective beam blanker in the analysis operating mode so that a stationary scan of the object at the predefined position takes place via the plurality of the individual particle beams during the predetermined irradiation time T with a released beam blanker ([0071], [0048], [0098], [0064]) .
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 20200194223 A1), in view of Zeidler (US 20200211810 A1), as evidenced by Somessari, et. al. (Samir Luiz Somessari, Elizabeth S. Ribeiro Somessari, Carlos Gaia da Silveira and Wilson Aparecido Parejo Calvo. Analysis of the Power System from an Electron Beam Accelerator and the Correlation with the Theoretical Dosimetry for Radiation Processing. Journal of Physical Science and Application 5 (5) (2015) 356-366. doi: 10.17265/2159-5348/2015.05.006), hereinafter Somessari.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches the relative dose of the stationary scan compared to the dose of the raster scan as a results-effective variable. Consequently, the claimed invention is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range through routine experimentation. In particular, in paragraphs [0109]-[0111], Jiang teaches that the relative beam current of the flooding scan and the imaging scan have a direct effect on the image resolution. Paragraphs [0064]-[0065] discuss how the flood-charging time and inspection time as well as the charging and inspection beam currents directly affect whether sufficient voltage contrast is reached within the sample. Since an electron beam dose is proportional to the beam current, the scanning time, and inversely proportional to the area of the scan (see Abstract of Somessari), it is known in the art that these variables are directly related to the dose and that manipulating any of these variables has a direct effect on the dose. See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. Since Jiang suggests that the relative currents and times for flood scanning and imaging, and inherently, the corresponding doses, can be adjusted in order to achieve an optimal voltage contrast and image resolution, it would be obvious that one could adjust the dose in order to achieve the range of 1,000 Drast≤Dstat≤100,000 Drast. Therefore, the claim is obvious in view of Jiang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights