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 Group II (claims 17-33) in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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 17-33 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.
The Claims contain numerous references to “SE enhancement gas”. The term should be spelled out in full (secondary electron yield enhancement gas) at least once, to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the Claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al (US 2004/0038433) in view of Bret et al (US 2012/0273458).
With respect to Claim 1, Fischer et al discloses a method comprising: scanning an ion beam over a site of a chip (Figure 1, 24), the site of the chip comprising a member selected from the group consisting of an inspection of the chip and a repair site of the chip (paragraphs 5, 21 and 23); using a first gas nozzle (Figure 1, 62, one of the multiple nozzles in paragraphs 18-19) to provide a first SE enhancement gas (paragraphs 25-26, O2, water vapor) to the site of the chip and using a second nozzle (Figure 1, 62, another of the multiple nozzles) to provide a second SE-enhancement gas (paragraph 26, N2 ) to the site of the chip, wherein, the first SE- enhancement gas comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a first gas, a second gas, and a third gas; the second SE- enhancement gas comprises a member selected from the group consisting of the first gas, the second gas, and the third gas; the first gas comprises an oxidizing or reducing agent configured to change a work function of a material present at a surface of the site of the chip gas (paragraphs 25-26, O2, water vapor); the second gas comprises an inert gas (paragraph 26, N2) configured to neutralize a surface charge at the site of the chip; and the third gas (paragraphs 25 and 27 , XeF2) is configured to chemically remove sputtered material from the surface of the chip. See Figure 1 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 15-18 and 22-27.
Fischer et al differ from the Claims at hand in that Fischer et al disclose a semiconductor chip, and not a wafer as required by the Claims at hand.
Bret et al also pertains to inspections and repairing of semiconductor devices using focused ion beam, and discloses it is known in the art to use the process on individual chips as well as wafer-scale chips. See paragraph 108.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the process of Fischer et al on wafer scale chips, as disclosed by Bret et al, and arrive at the presently claimed limitations. The use of a known process for its known benefit, inspecting and repairing wafer scale chips, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 17. Moreover, Fischer et al disclose a first SE enhancement gas (paragraphs 25-26, O2, water vapor), a second SE-enhancement gas (paragraph 26, N2 ) and the third gas (paragraphs 25 and 27 , XeF2.
With respect to Claim 19, Fischer et al disclose wherein the site of a sample is arranged at a column axis of an ion beam column that provides the ion beam. See Figure 1 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 20, Fischer et al disclose “further comprising using a third gas nozzle to provide a third SE enhancement gas, wherein the third SE-enhancement gas comprises a member selected from the group consisting of the first gas, the second gas and the third gas”. See paragraphs 18-19 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 21, Fischer et al disclose the first gas is different from the second gas. See paragraphs 25-27 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 22, Fischer et al disclose the second gas is different from the third gas. See paragraphs 25-27 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 23, Fischer et al disclose wherein the first gas is different from the third gas. See paragraphs 25-27 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 24, Fischer et al disclose wherein the first gas is different from the second gas. See paragraphs 25-27 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 25, Fischer et al discloses the first gas is water or O2. See paragraphs 25-26 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 26, Fischer et al discloses the second gas is nitrogen. See paragraphs 25-26 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 27, Fischer et al discloses the third gas comprises XeF2. See paragraphs 26-27 of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 28, and the limitation “selecting the first and second SE-enhancement gases based on a material composition at the site of the wafer”, the selection of the specific gases would be a matter of optimization for a practitioner in the art.
With respect to Claim 29, the combined references make obvious the limitation “comprising determining the material composition of a layer at the site from CAD information of the wafer”. See paragraphs 17-18 of Fischer et al; and paragraph 98 of Bret et al.
With respect to Claim 30 and the limitation “adjusting the first and second SE-enhancement gases based on the material composition of the layer of the wafer”, the adjustment of the specific gases based on the material would be a matter of optimization for a practitioner in the art.
With respect to Claim 31, and the limitation, further comprising determining an end point of the milling operation, and stopping the scanning operation of the ion beam over the site of the wafer, stopping the milling when the repair is finished would be a matter of optimization for a practitioner in the art . See Figures 2A-2C of Fischer et al.
With respect to Claim 32, the combined references make obvious the limitation “ one or more machine readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions executable by one or more processing devices to perform the method of Claim 17”. See Figure 1 and corresponding text of Fischer et al; and Figure 1, paragraphs 96-99 of Brent et al.
With respect to Claim 33, the combined references make obvious the limitation the limitation “a system comprising one or more processing devices ; and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions executable by one or more processing devices to perform the method of Claim 17”. See Figure 1 and corresponding text of Fischer et al; and Figure 1, paragraphs 96-99 of Brent et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
July 2, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights