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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “and alternatively irradiating the imaging patterns with the charged particle beam.” By definition, the word ‘alternatively’ indicates that an alternative choice is being provided as an option. Based on the context provided in claim 9 and in the specification in paragraph [0036], which teaches back and forth irradiation of the two imaging patterns (‘the two imaging patterns can be alternatively scanned for hundreds or thousands of times”), the word “alternatively” seems to have been incorrectly used when the word “alternately” was intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-14 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 13 recites the limitation "extraneous specimens". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consequently, it is unclear if the extraneous specimens is the same or different to the “extraneous specimen” (singular) of claim 12 upon which claim 13 depends. It is also unclear if there is only one extraneous specimen or if there are multiple, especially in claim 14, which depends from claim 13. As a result, claim 13 is indefinite.
Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 13 and for the reason mentioned above.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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);
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);
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 or etching on one or more surfaces of the target specimen with the precursor gas ([0009], [0027]).
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 one or more 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 one or more surfaces 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 the target specimen includes two opposing surfaces (opposing surfaces of any of the line features 305A-E, [0037] on wafer 300, seen in Fig. 3A), and 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 one or more 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 7, Arjavac teaches wherein the material deposited on the two opposing surfaces has a substantially equal thickness at a given height of the target specimen ([0035] teaches defining the electron-source region with a substantially uniform shape around the target surface so that secondary electrons can be more evenly imparted into the target surface region.).
Regarding claim 8, Arjavac teaches wherein the extraneous specimen includes a surface, 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);
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]);
flowing the precursor gas ([0036], [0026]);
irradiating the extraneous specimen with the charged particle beam ([0043]); and
depositing on or etching from one or more surfaces of the target specimen with the precursor gas ([0009], [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Arjavac teaches wherein the charged particle source and the extraneous specimens 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. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 one or more surfaces of the target specimen comprises disassociating the precursor gas with the 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 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.”).
Regarding claim 5, Arjavac as evidenced by Gravell teaches wherein at least a portion of the material on the one or more 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 one or more 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 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.
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 including opposing surfaces forming a wedge.
Blackwood teaches wherein the lamella is a wedge lamella including opposing surfaces forming a wedge (wedge-shaped sample 20, [0037], Fig. 2).
Blackwood modifies Arjavac by suggesting the lamella is a wedge-shaped lamella including 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.
Note that Claim 9 also has an objection independent of this objection as discussed above (See “Claim Objections” above”) that must be overcome before being allowable.
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
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