DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawings are accepted including Fig. 2, labeled as a “Comparative Example”. The objection of the drawing has been withdrawn.
Objections to the Claims
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC §112(b)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The indefiniteness rejection of claims 13-14 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims have been amended to teach that “a surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen is oriented substantially normal to a plane of the target specimen”. Applicant asserts that the limitation is not taught by Arjavac. The argument is found to be unpersuasive because Arjavac teaches the limitation, as demonstrated in the rejection below.
The independent claims have been amended to require that the depositing or etching on the two opposing surfaces produces substantially equal deposited thickness or substantially equal removal on the two opposing surfaces at a substantially same height of the target specimen. Applicant asserts that these limitations are not taught by Arjavac; however, the limitations are found to be obvious in view of Arjavac via routine experimentation, as demonstrated in the rejection below.
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 § 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 1-2, 4, 6, 8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arjavac, et. al. (US 20040261719 A1), hereinafter Arjavac.
Regarding claim 1, Arjavac teaches a method for preparing a target specimen (intended use), comprising:
positioning the target specimen (target work piece 222 on movable X-Y stage 224, [0022], [0023], Fig. 2) in a vacuum chamber (evacuated chamber 210, [0022], Fig. 2), the target specimen defining two opposing surfaces (opposing surfaces of the target, [0034], for example, opposing surfaces of any of the line features of the target 305A-E, [0037] on wafer 300, seen in Fig. 3A);
positioning an extraneous specimen close to the target specimen (electron source surface next to target surface, [0038], Fig. 3B; or see alternative scheme of Fig. 4, [0043], in which the auxiliary electron source surface is interpreted as the extraneous specimen positioned close to the target specimen), independently of the target specimen (in scheme of Fig. 4, the auxiliary electron source surface is positioned independently of the target specimen since it is separate to the wafer/target surface and adjustably disposed, as explained in [0043]. As an example, it is shown as being positionable by a device such as translation device 248 in the example explicitly depicted in Figs. 2 and 4, [0026]), such that a surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen is oriented substantially normal to a plane of the target specimen (if we interpret the ‘a surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen’ as the surface of the auxiliary electron-source which faces the wafer, [0043], this surface is inherently ‘substantially normal to a plane of the target specimen’ because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the plane of the target specimen can be any plane within the target specimen, of which there are infinitely many, and of which there exists a plane that the interpreted surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen’ is substantially normal to);
flowing a precursor gas in the vacuum chamber ([0036], [0026]);
irradiating the extraneous specimen with a charged particle beam ([0036], Fig. 3B, [0043], Fig. 4); and
depositing onto or etching from the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen with the precursor gas ([0009], [0027]).
Although Arjavac does not explicitly teach wherein the depositing or the etching produces substantially equal deposited thickness or substantially equal removal on the two opposing surfaces at a same height of the target specimen, the claimed invention is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed substantially equal thickness or substantially equal removal at a same height through routine experimentation. Arjavac teaches in [0035] that it is desirable to define the secondary electron source region in such a way as to more evenly impart the secondary electrons onto the target surface, resulting in a more uniformly deposited layer of material. [0035] further explains that the concentration of secondary electrons decreases as the distance away from a beam incidence point increases, and the amount of material deposition at a given point is proportional to the concentration of available electrons at that point. Consequently, the reference reveals that one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to achieve uniformity, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the factors (concentration of secondary electrons and distance from beam incidence point) influencing the uniformity and its relationship to the height of the target specimen. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be able to routinely experiment with these factors to achieve desirable uniformity at a same height of the target specimen as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches "[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 Arjavac suggests defining the electron-source region to achieve uniformity given that the uniformity depends on the concentration of secondary electrons and distance from the beam incidence point, it would be obvious that one could routinely experiment with the positioning and orientation of the interpreted extraneous specimen in order to achieve the result of a substantially equal deposited thickness or substantially equal removal on the two opposing surfaces at a substantially same height of the target specimen. Therefore the claim is obvious in view of Arjavac.
Regarding claim 2, Arjavac teaches wherein flowing a precursor gas includes flowing the precursor gas towards the target specimen (Fig. 4, [0029], [0043]), and wherein deposition or etching onto the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen is mediated by secondary electrons generated by irradiating the extraneous specimen with the charged particle beam ([0036], [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Arjavac teaches wherein flowing a precursor gas comprises flowing the precursor gas towards the extraneous specimen ([0036], [0040], Fig. 3C, [0043], Fig. 4), and the method further comprises depositing a material on the extraneous specimen from the precursor gas while depositing the material on the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen ([0042] teaches that material 325 is deposited on the electron source surface 315 as well as the target surface 310 because the secondary electron density is the greatest at the source surface. This would therefore be true also for the alternative embodiment described in [0043] and shown in Fig. 4, where the electron source surface is auxiliary.).
Regarding claim 6, Arjavac teaches wherein flowing a precursor gas includes concurrently flowing the precursor gas towards the two opposing surfaces (Figs. 3A-D and 4, [0037]-[0043]), and wherein depositing a material on the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen includes concurrently depositing the material on the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen ([0042], Figs. 3A-D and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Arjavac teaches wherein the surface of the extraneous specimen includes a substantially flat portion (auxiliary electron-source surface can be any surface not having a common surface with the target surface that provides secondary electrons for the target surface, can be a plate (a flat surface), for example, [0043]. ), and positioning the extraneous specimen includes positioning the extraneous specimen so that the surface is facing the target specimen (Fig. 4, [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Arjavac teaches wherein the extraneous specimen is irradiated with the charged particle beam at an angle of incidence equal or less than 45 degrees (Fig. 4 shows beam 403 incident with 457 at an angle equal or less than 45 degrees).
Regarding claim 12, Arjavac teaches a charged particle system (Fig. 2), comprising:
a charged particle source for generating a charged particle beam (ion source 213, [0022], Fig. 2);
a vacuum chamber (chamber 226, [0024], Fig. 2);
a specimen holder for positioning a target specimen in the vacuum chamber (X-Y stage 224 holds and positions work piece 222, [0023], Fig. 2), the target specimen defining two opposing surfaces (opposing surfaces of the target, [0034], for example, opposing surfaces of any of the line features of the target 305A-E, [0037] on wafer 300, seen in Fig. 3A);
a gas injection system (GIS) for delivering at least a precursor gas into the vacuum chamber (gas source 24, , Fig. 2, [0026]);
a micro-manipulator (translation device 248, [0026]); and
a controller including a processor and a non-transitory memory for storing computer readable instructions (vacuum control 232, imaging power supply and controls 245, video circuit 242, monitor 244, beam controller 236, and high voltage power supply 234, Fig. 2, [0024]), by executing the computer readable instructions in the processor, the charged particle system is configured to perform operations comprising:
positioning an extraneous specimen close to the target specimen using the micro- manipulator ([0043] teaches the extraneous specimen is adjustably disposed to be proximal to the target specimen. In the example shown in Fig. 4 the extraneous specimen is depicted as the interior metallic surface of the nozzle end piece 457, the position of which is controlled by the translation device 248, [0026]), independently of the target specimen (in scheme of Fig. 4, the auxiliary electron source surface is positioned independently of the target specimen since it is separate to the wafer and adjustably disposed, as explained in [0043]. As an example, it is shown as being positionable by a device such as translation device 248 in the example explicitly depicted in Figs. 2 and 4, [0026]), such that a surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen is oriented substantially normal to a plane of the target specimen (if we interpret the ‘a surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen’ as the surface of the auxiliary electron-source which faces the wafer, [0043], this surface is inherently ‘substantially normal to a plane of the target specimen’ because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the plane of the target specimen can be any plane within the target specimen, of which there are infinitely many, and of which there exists a plane that the interpreted surface of the extraneous specimen facing the target specimen’ is substantially normal to);
flowing the precursor gas ([0036], [0026]);
irradiating the extraneous specimen with the charged particle beam ([0043]); and
depositing on or etching from the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen with the precursor gas ([0009], [0027]).
Although Arjavac does not explicitly teach wherein the depositing or the etching produces substantially equal deposited thickness or substantially equal removal on the two opposing surfaces at a same height of the target specimen, the claimed invention is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed substantially equal thickness or substantially equal removal at a same height through routine experimentation. Arjavac teaches in [0035] that it is desirable to define the secondary electron source region in such a way as to more evenly impart the secondary electrons onto the target surface, resulting in a more uniformly deposited layer of material. [0035] further explains that the concentration of secondary electrons decreases as the distance away from a beam incidence point increases, and the amount of material deposition at a given point is proportional to the concentration of available electrons at that point. Consequently, the reference reveals that one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to achieve uniformity, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the factors (concentration of secondary electrons and distance from beam incidence point) influencing the uniformity and its relationship to the height of the target specimen. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be able to routinely experiment with these factors to achieve desirable uniformity at a same height of the target specimen as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches "[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 Arjavac suggests defining the electron-source region to achieve uniformity given that the uniformity depends on the concentration of secondary electrons and distance from the beam incidence point, it would be obvious that one could routinely experiment with the positioning and orientation of the interpreted extraneous specimen in order to achieve the result of a substantially equal deposited thickness or substantially equal removal on the two opposing surfaces at a substantially same height of the target specimen. Therefore the claim is obvious in view of Arjavac.
Regarding claim 13, Arjavac teaches wherein the charged particle source and the extraneous specimen are positioned on opposite sides of the target specimen ([0043] teaches the auxiliary electron-source surface can be adjustably disposed next to the target surface, Fig. 4 shows ion beam (source) coming from the right side of target surface 310 while the part of the auxiliary surface that the ion beam is contacting is to the left of target surface 310.).
Regarding claim 14, Arjavac teaches wherein the target specimen is a lamella extending along a first axis, and wherein the charged particle beam irradiates the extraneous specimen in a direction substantially along the first axis (Fig. 4 shows that a thickness of the target surface 310 extends in the z-direction. Ion beam 403 is shown to be irradiating the auxiliary electron-source surface at a point along the z-axis of the auxiliar electron-source surface).
Regarding claim 15, Arjavac teaches wherein the operations further comprise: milling through at least part of the target specimen to expose a cross-section; and acquiring an image of the cross-section ([0002] and claim 21).
Regarding claim 16, Arjavac teaches wherein the operations further comprise measuring a thickness of the specimen based on the image ([0034], [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, Arjavac teaches wherein the charged particle source is an ion source ([0022], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Arjavac teaches wherein the target specimen is a lamella prepared in the charged particle system ([0037]).
Claims 3, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arjavac (US 20040261719 A1), as evidenced by the instant application (Gravell, et. al.), hereinafter Gravell.
Regarding claim 3, Arjavac as evidenced by Gravell teaches wherein deposition of a material onto the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen comprises disassociating the precursor gas with the secondary electrons (Gravell teaches in [0051] of the specification that the disassociation of the precursor gas is the consequence of the electrons generated as a result of the charged particle beam irradiating the extraneous specimen in the presence of the precursor gas. Arjavac teaches deposition of a material onto one or more surfaces of the target specimen due to electrons generated as a result of the charged particle beam irradiating the extraneous specimen in the presence of a precursor gas. As a result, Arjavac teaches that the deposition of the material comprises disassociating the precursor gas with the secondary electrons generated as a result of the charged particle beam irradiating the extraneous specimen. See MPEP 2112 (II), "[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”).
Regarding claim 5, Arjavac as evidenced by Gravell teaches wherein at least a portion of the material on the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen is deposited from the material sputtered from the deposited material on the extraneous specimen by the charged particle beam ([0041] recites “if current density is too large, excessive material may sputter away from the electron-source surface” suggesting that some (a non-excessive amount) of the material deposited on the electron-source surface is sputtered by the charged particle beam to be deposited onto the target specimen. This is further evidenced by Gravell, which teaches in [0065] that deposition on the target specimen can occur by two mechanisms, one of them being the claimed mechanism, as a consequence of an extraneous specimen being irradiated adjacent to a target specimen in the presence of precursor gas. Since these conditions are met by Arjavac, it can be concluded that a portion of the material deposited on the target specimen is a result of this mechanism. See MPEP 2112 (II), "[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”).
Regarding claim 20, Arjavac as evidenced by Gravell teaches wherein deposition on the two opposing surfaces of the target specimen comprises disassociating the precursor gas with electrons generated by irradiation of the extraneous specimen (Gravell teaches in [0051] of the specification that the disassociation of the precursor gas is the consequence of the electrons generated as a result of the charged particle beam irradiating the extraneous specimen in the presence of the precursor gas. Arjavac teaches deposition of a material onto one or more surfaces of the target specimen due to electrons generated as a result of the charged particle beam irradiating the extraneous specimen in the presence of a precursor gas. As a result, Arjavac teaches that the deposition of the material comprises disassociating the precursor gas with the electrons. See MPEP 2112 (II), "[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arjavac (US 20040261719 A1), in view of Routh, et. al. (US 20210118678 A1), hereinafter Routh and Gottheim, et. al. (US 20190385907), hereinafter Gottheim.
Regarding claim 10, Arjavac does not explicitly teach wherein the extraneous specimen includes silicon. However, Arjavac teaches in [0043] that the auxiliary electron-source surface (interpreted extraneous specimen) is generally desirably made from materials such as metals having high secondary electron coefficients, but any suitable, available material will suffice.
Routh teaches a specimen including silicon ([0075], [0092]), and Gottheim teaches that silicon is a high secondary electron emission material ([0031]).
Routh and Gottheim modify Arjavac by suggesting that the extraneous specimen includes silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Routh and Gottheim because Arjavac teaches that the extraneous specimen is desirably made from materials having a high secondary electron emission coefficient, and Gottheim teaches that this is the case for silicon (Gottheim, [0031]), while Routh shows that silicon is a common substrate (specimen) material in the art upon which ion beam induced deposition is commonly performed, (Routh, [0003], [0017]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arjavac (US 20040261719 A1), in view of Blackwood, et. al. (US 20150053548 A1), hereinafter Blackwood.
Regarding claim 19, Arjavac does not teach wherein the lamella is a wedge lamella, the opposing surfaces forming a wedge.
Blackwood teaches wherein the lamella is a wedge lamella, the opposing surfaces forming a wedge (wedge-shaped sample 20, [0037], Fig. 2).
Blackwood modifies Arjavac by suggesting the lamella is a wedge-shaped lamella, the opposing surface forming a wedge.
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 Blackwood because modifying the lamella to be wedge-shaped is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the wedge shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim because a wedge-shaped sample is a matter of choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. The specification of the instant application does not demonstrate the criticality of the wedge shape of the lamella. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 is patentable over the prior art of record for its recitation of “placing two imaging patterns on the substantially flat surface of the extraneous specimen, each imaging pattern on a different side of a projection of the target specimen on the extraneous specimen, and alternatively irradiating the imaging patterns with the charged particle beam.”
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 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
