DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments under §§ 101 and 112(b) filed on 4/2/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s). The rejections under 101 and 112(b) are moot in view of the amended claim language.
Applicant’s arguments under § 103 filed on 4/2/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue that Tiemeijer fails to explicitly disclose obtaining a reference image of a sample, and only teaches a pattern, which is not equivalent to a reference image. However, the claimed reference image is broad enough to read on either the implicit image information having the known shape and apertures in a known pattern (see [0060]), or a prior image during the repetitive focusing (see fig 5). Examiner respectfully suggests clarifying how the e.g. targets are identified coupled with specific details of the non-linear model and how the image processing techniques are performed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tiemeijer et al. (US 20100072366 A1) [hereinafter Tiemeijer] in view of Pike (US 6410927 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Tiemeijer teaches a method of automated data acquisition for a transmission electron microscope, the method comprising:
obtaining a reference image of a sample (see e.g. fig 2a, image of diaphragm plate, comprising a shape with known shape with apertures in a known pattern, see [0060]) at a first magnification (see fig 4: 401, [0068]);
for each of a first plurality of target locations (e.g. fig 2a: structures, 203) identified in the reference image (required for operation of system, see [0073]):
steering an electron beam of the transmission electron microscope to the target location (required for operation of imaging the pattern, see fig 2a),
obtaining a calibration image of the sample at a second magnification greater than the first magnification (see more settings, 406, [0068-69]), and
using image processing techniques (e.g. [0071]) to identify an apparent shift between an expected position of the target location in the calibration image and an observed position of the target location in the calibration image (see correction to position, [0071-73]);
calculating, based on a non-linear
steering the electron beam to the calibrated target location and obtaining an image (e.g. at the specimen to be imaged) at a third magnification greater than the first magnification (e.g. at a further magnification or second magnification, see more settings, 406, [0068-69]).
Tiemeijer may fail to explicitly disclose a third magnification greater than the first magnification. However, given the teaching that multiple magnifications can be utilized (see e.g. [0038,41,68]), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to perform calibration for multiple magnification settings, including a third magnification level greater than the first magnification, to enable the ability to provide imaging settings for a wider range of specimen imaging at different magnification levels.
Tiemeijer may fail to explicitly disclose obtaining a reference image initially. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the known image data and/or an initial image obtained during focusing (see e.g. [0060] or fig 5) could be read as the reference image. Additionally it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to perform initial pilot scans of objects to provide coarse positioning of beams. For example, Pike teaches scanning substrates using a low magnification initial scan to identify defects and reference them to identification marks, then perform high magnification subsequent scans to save time (see Pike, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Pike in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to save time and/or improve referencing of objects between magnification levels.
Regarding claim 2, Tiemeijer may fail to explicitly disclose ordering the first plurality of target locations such that a magnitude of each target location increases from start to end; and/or ordering the first plurality of target locations such that an angle of the target location changes smoothly from start to end, wherein, for each of the first plurality of target locations identified in the reference image, the method further comprises calculating a calibrated target location, based on the non-linear model, wherein steering the electron beam to the target location comprises inputting the calibrated target location into a beam steering process, and wherein, the method further comprises updating the non-linear model after identifying each apparent shift, based on the calibrated target location and the corresponding apparent shift. However, Tiemeijer teaches that the target locations may be formed in a variety of shapes and sizes (see e.g. Tiemeijer, [0060,64]), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the shapes in at least one part of the system such that some magnitude of each target location increases from start to end, in order of magnitude (e.g. size of dimensions to accommodate increasing or decreasing magnification), for example by providing a standard calibration pattern increasing in size like a ruler in at least one dimension. It is noted it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art as a design choice. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP 2144.04; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, Tiemeijer teaches the next target location is one of a second plurality of target locations (see repeating over locations on specimen, Tiemeijer, fig 4: 410, [0070]) and the method comprises, for each of the second plurality of target locations: calculating a calibrated target location (see [0070]), based on the non-linear model (see [0070]), steering the electron beam to the calibrated target location (see [0070]; alternately note required for scanning over a larger specimen), and obtaining an image of the sample at the third magnification (see [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Tiemeijer teaches for each of the second plurality of target locations: if recalibration is required (e.g. after column is overhauled, [0070]), obtaining an image of the sample at the second magnification (see e.g. 400, [0068-71]), using image processing techniques to identify an apparent shift between an expected position of the target location in the image and an observed position of the target location in the image (see same), updating the non-linear model based on the apparent shift (see same). Tiemeijer may fail to explicitly disclose determining whether the non-linear model is still valid, based on one or more predetermined criteria. However, it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to perform system error detection, and it would have been obvious to restart the system in an error state if it determines the memory file for the settings it is trying to access is missing, corrupted, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Tiemeijer teaches for each of the second plurality of target locations: if recalibration is required, using image processing techniques to identify an apparent shift between an expected position and an observed position of the an immediately preceding target location (see Tiemeijer, [0068-70]) from the second plurality of target locations in the corresponding image (redefining as locations on fig 2a) obtained at the third magnification (redefining as at different magnifications, see [0070]), updating the non-linear model (updating settings for model for operational parameters and movement) based on the calibrated target location and the corresponding apparent shift (see [0070]). Tiemeijer may fail to explicitly disclose determining whether the non-linear model is still valid, based on one or more predetermined criteria. However, it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to perform system error detection, and it would have been obvious to restart the system in an error state if it determines the memory file for the settings it is trying to access is missing, corrupted, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Tiemeijer teaches the first plurality of target locations are selected such that the target locations and identified apparent shifts are sufficient for training the non-linear model (required for effective operation of the system), such that the non-linear model is accurate at the second plurality of target locations (required to effectively operate the system).
Regarding claim 7, Tiemeijer teaches a third plurality of target locations that are of interest in the reference image (see e.g. Tiemeijer, fig 2a, [0063-64]); and selecting the first plurality of target locations as a subset of the third plurality of target locations (system selects ranges of structures based on desired magnification level, see [0060]). Tiemeijer may fail to explicitly disclose identifying the third plurality of target locations. However, given the teaching that patterns of different structure size are being utilized for different magnification imaging (see [0060]), some kind of identification of the appropriate sized subset of identified structures would have been required for the intended operation of settings determination utilizing said appropriate subset. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select from the imaged targets to form the first plurality of target locations, and/or constructively define the third target locations as a superset of the first target locations.
Regarding claim 8, Tiemeijer teaches wherein, for each of the first plurality of target locations, the next target location, the second plurality of target locations and/or the third plurality of target locations: the sample comprises one or more features suitable for image registration in proximity to each target location, such that one or more of the features are visible in an image obtained at the target location (required for intended operation of system, see Tiemeijer, e.g. fig 2a, fig 4, [0068-71]), and/or each target location is located within a threshold distance from an optical axis of the microscope, such that the target location is reachable by image shift.
Regarding claim 9, Tiemeijer teaches obtaining a second reference image of the sample at the first magnification (see e.g. at same magnification and different energies, see e.g. Tiemeijer, [0041,68]); and identifying a second plurality of target locations in the second reference image (required for operation of system, see fig 4: 400).
Regarding claim 10, Tiemeijer teaches the non- linear model is configured to estimate an apparent shift (distortions, see generally Tiemeijer, fig 3) of a feature of the sample in an image obtained by steering the electron beam to the target location (by scanning, see e.g. [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Tiemeijer teaches steering the electron beam comprises adjusting a tilt and/or shift of the electron beam (see scanning, Tiemeijer, [0033]) by: adjusting the incident electron beam (see scanning), and/or adjusting the transmitted electron beam.
Regarding claim 12, Tiemeijer teaches wherein using image processing techniques to identify an apparent shift between the expected position of the target location in the calibration image and the observed position of the target location in the calibration image comprises: determining the expected position of the feature in the calibration image, using a steering model (see e.g. Tiemeijer, [0071], which depends on where the beam is steered, see fig 3); identifying the feature in the calibration image at an observed position (required for operation of system, see e.g. [0068], figs 4-5); and determining the apparent shift as the difference a difference between the expected position and the observed position (see [0071-73]).
Regarding claim 14, Tiemeijer teaches a transmission electron microscope apparatus configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see Tiemeijer, fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tiemeijer teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media containing thereon processor-executable instructions operable to perform the method of claim 1 (required for intended operation of system, see Tiemeijer, claim 15).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tiemeijer and Pike, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slijuterman et al. (US 20200118788 A1) [hereinafter Slijuterman].
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Tiemeijer and Pike may fail to explicitly disclose obtaining a defocus measurement for one or more calibration images; and updating the non-linear model based on the defocus measurement. Tiemeijer teaches generally correcting for aberrations (see Tiemeijer, [0061]). However, the use of defocus correction was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Slijuterman teaches correcting for defocus errors (see Slijuterman, abstract) using a system comprising obtaining a defocus measurement for one or more calibration images (e.g. [0031], abstract); and updating the model based on the defocus measurement (required for intended operation of the system). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Slijuterman in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended and known operation of correcting for defocus, in the manner taught by Slijuterman.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights