DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. The amendment of claim 4, filed 13 Aug 2026, has been entered. The objection to claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments, filed 13 Aug 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. The rejection of claims 4, 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 Aug 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found reference. Having both the optical imaging system and the SEM system installed on the top chamber through the opening above the sample stage yields a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed in more detail in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2, 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 8975582) in view of Ogawa (US 20150279613).
12. Regarding claim 1:
Nishiyama teaches an inspection apparatus (column 4 lines 6-8 fig. 1 teaches a defect reviewing apparatus), comprising: a sample stage, configured to place a sample (column 5 lines 8-23 teaches a stage 3 that can move the sample holder 2 and move the entire surface of the sample 1); an optical imaging system (column 5 lines 8-23 teaches an optical microscope 6), configured to obtain a first image from the sample stage (column 10 lines 14-37 teaches images acquired by the optical microscope 6); a scanning electron microscope (SEM) system (column 8 lines 43-61 teaches the defect is reviewed by the SEM 5), configured to obtain a second image from the sample stage (column 8 lines 43-61 teaches the reviewed defect image is sent to the control system 8); and a vacuum chamber comprising a top chamber having an opening (fig. 1 teaches an SEM 5 placed in a vacuum chamber. For the SEM 5 to be halfway in the vacuum chamber, the vacuum chamber requires an opening. The top chamber is interpreted to be any portion of the vacuum chamber above the sample).
Nishiyama does not specifically teach that the optical imaging system and the SEM system are installed on the top chamber through the opening above the sample stage.
Ogawa teaches the optical imaging system and the SEM system are installed on the top chamber through the opening above the sample stage ([0020] fig. 1 teaches that an electron microscope 108 and an optical microscope 109 are attached to a top panel of the sample chamber 101. The top panel corresponds to the top chamber. The top panel closes off the opening of the sample chamber 101 above the movable table 102).
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 Nishiyama to arrange the optical imaging system through the opening of the top chamber, as taught by Ogawa. Positioning the optical imaging system at a specific location on a vacuum chamber yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification to allow for a specific spatial orientation of the inspection apparatus, enabling easy access and space savings.
13. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the inspection apparatus of claim 1. Nishiyama further teaches that wherein the optical imaging system (column 5 lines 8-23 teaches an optical microscope 6) comprises a light source (column 5 lines 51-58 teaches an illumination light source 6011), an illuminator (column 5 lines 51-58 fig. 2 teaches an illumination unit 601), an imaging optical (column 6 lines 29-35 teaches the detection optical system 605 comprises a plurality of lenses), and an image sensor (column 5 lines 24-34 teaches a detector 610), wherein the light source is configured to emit a light beam (column 5 lines 59-67 teaches that the illumination light source 6011 is a laser oscillator. Column 11 lines 39-51teaches beam emitted from the illuminating unit 601).
14. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the inspection apparatus of claim 1. Nishiyama further teaches that wherein a resolution of the first image is different from a resolution of the second image (column 2 lines 9-21 teaches that when a defect is reviewed by the SEM, reviewing is made with a further higher magnification than the magnification of the optical system).
15. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the inspection apparatus of claim 6. Nishiyama further teaches that wherein the resolution of the second image is higher than the resolution of the first image (column 2 lines 9-21 teaches that when a defect is reviewed by the SEM, reviewing is made with a further higher magnification than the magnification of the optical system).
16. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama in Ogawa, further in view of Hayashi (US-20220415605).
17. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the inspection apparatus of claim 1. Nishiyama further teaches that wherein the SEM system comprises an electron source (column 7 lines 13-23 teaches that the SEM 5 comprises an electron source 501 that generates primary electron), a column (column 7 7 lines 13-23 teaches the focusing lens 503, a deflector 504 that deflects the primary electron, an objective lens 505, such components in combination as shown in fig. 7 correspond to the column), a high voltage system comprising a voltage supply (Column 77 lines 13-23 teaches an acceleration electrode 502 that accelerates the primary electron. To provide such acceleration, one inherently needs a voltage supply), and an image channel system comprising a converter (Column 9 lines 1-13 teaches a photoelectric converter and an ND converter. The obtained signal is digitalized and sent to the control system 8, and designed as an image therein).
Nishiyama in view of Ogawa does not specifically note a scan driver, a lens driver.
However, Hayashi teaches scan driver, a lens driver (under broadest reasonable interpretation the scan driver and the lens driver are interpreted as controllers that control deflector, condenser and objective lens as taught in [0045] of the instant specification. [0037]-[0038] teaches condenser lens controller 224, objective lens controller 234. [0040] teaches a deflector controller 233).
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 Nishiyama in view of Ogawa, further in view of Hayashi to include a scan driver, a lens driver. Such modification would allow for controlling deflector and lens and adjusting the electron trajectory in an SEM system (as taught in Hayashi [0036]-[0040]).
18. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama in view of Ogawa, further in view of Murata (US-20190361359).
19. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the inspection apparatus of claim 1. Nishiyama in view of Ogawa does not specify a stage position measurement unit comprising an interferometer or optical ruler configured to obtain a position information of the sample stage.
However, Murata teaches a stage position measurement unit comprising an interferometer or optical ruler configured to obtain a position information of the sample stage ([0093] teaches an interferometer system that measure the position information of fine movement stage).
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 Nishiyama in view of Ogawa, further in view of Murata to include a stage position measurement unit comprising an interferometer or optical ruler configured to obtain a position information of the sample stage. Such modification would allow for measuring the position information of the stage (as taught in Murata [0094]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights