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 .
Drawings
2. The drawing filed on 1 July 2026 is accepted. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 8, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been entered. The rejection of claims 2, 8, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9, 21 and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
5. Applicant amended claims 1 and 9 with “if no first conductive structure is identified in the first electron beam inspection operation, adapting the first pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure by using one or more second pulsed electron beams selected from a group consisting of a picosecond pulsed beam and a femtosecond pulsed beam” and argues on pg. 3-5 that the references of record fail to disclose the technical features of claim 1. The argument is not persuasive. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim with a contingent limitation requires only the steps that must be performed, see MPEP 2111.04 (II). Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure, so the contingent limitation “if no first conductive structure is identified in the first electron beam inspection operation, adapting the first pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure by using one or more second pulsed electron beams selected from a group consisting of a picosecond pulsed beam and a femtosecond pulsed beam” needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met.
6. Similarly in claim 21, Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure, so the contingent limitation “if no first conductive structure is identified, adapting the pulsed electron beam used in the electron beam inspection operation to a level of nanosecond pulsed beam, picosecond pulsed beam, or femtosecond pulsed beam, to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure” needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met.
7. Applicant argues on pg. 3-4 that Zewail’s mode selection does not affect the electron pulse’s physical characteristics. The argument is not persuasive. Zewail explicitly teaches in [0066] and [0068] that resolution is set by pulse duration. Zewail’s “femtosecond mode” and “nanosecond mode” are not merely a delay-hardware choice. The pulses themselves differ by orders of magnitude.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-11, 13-16, 21, and 24-27 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.
10. Regarding claims 1, 9, 21:
Claims 1, 9, 21 positively recite “identifying a first conductive structure”, then conditions the next step on “if no first conductive structure is identified.” It is unclear if the identifying a first conductive structure is optional or not, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
Claims 1, 9, 21 also recite “to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection.” It is unclear what parameter the level refers to or what the shorter level is compared against.
11. Regarding claim 24:
Claim 24 recites the second electron beam inspection operation, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 21 recites one or more second electron beam inspection operations, and it is unclear if claim 24 refers to the one or more second electron beam inspection operations or not.
12. Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 recites “two subsequent second electron beam inspection operations”. Claim 1 from which claim 25 depends on recites “one or more second electron beam inspection operations.” It is unclear if “two subsequent second electron beam inspection operations” still refer to “one or more second electron beam inspection operations” or some completely different inspection operations. It is also unclear whether two subsequent operations are conditional on the first operation or not.
In addition, “pulsed electron beams” in its plural form is unclear. Claim 1 recites “a first pulsed electron beam” in singular form. It is unclear whether claim 25 requires multiple beams in the first operation or is it referring to the collection of beams across all operations.
Furthermore, claim 25 recites “an order of a level of nanosecond pulsed beam, picosecond pulsed beam, and femtosecond pulsed beam”. It is unclear which operation corresponds to which beam type: the nanosecond, picosecond, or femtosecond pulsed beam.
Claims 2-8, 25 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Claims 10-11, 13-16 depend on claim 9 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Claims 24, 26-27 depend on claim 21 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 21, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gaury (US 20230335374).
16. Regarding claim 1:
Gaury teaches a method for detecting defects in a semiconductor structure ([0054] teaches a method of detecting a defect in a semiconductor device), the method comprising:
receiving the semiconductor structure having a plurality of conductive structures ([0148] teaches inspecting a node 1100 comprising a set of structures such as metal lines, vias, gate, or substrate, that are electrically connected together);
performing a first electron beam inspection operation on the plurality of conductive structures of the semiconductor structure to obtain an inspection data ([0050], fig. 15 teach activating an electron source to irradiate a region of a sample and acquiring a plurality of images of the structure. The images correspond to an inspection data); and identifying a first conductive structure having a non-open defect from the inspection data ([0153]-[0154] teaches detecting defect 1112 from SEM images. Contact pad 1109 comprises defect 1112)
Gaury does not specify that wherein a first pulsed electron beam utilized in the first electron beam inspection operation is selected from a group consisting of a nanosecond pulsed beam and a picosecond pulsed beam; and if no first conductive structure is identified in the first electron beam inspection operation, adapting the first pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure by using one or more second pulsed electron beams selected from a group consisting of a picosecond pulsed beam and a femtosecond pulsed beam.
However, Gaury teaches that the excitation pulse is adjustable and is in a range of 0.05 picoseconds to 1 nanosecond (as taught in [0285]). Since Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure, the contingent limitation “if no first conductive structure is identified in the first electron beam inspection operation, adapting the first pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure by using one or more second pulsed electron beams selected from a group consisting of a picosecond pulsed beam and a femtosecond pulsed beam” needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met.
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 Gaury to include that wherein a pulsed electron beam utilized in the electron beam inspection operation is selected from a group consisting of a nanosecond pulsed beam and a picosecond pulsed beam. Such modification would allow detecting defects with different temporal resolutions in circuits and components with ultra-short pulse duration (as taught in Gaury [0074] and [0110]).
17. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1. Gaury further teaches that wherein the first conductive structure is a portion of a titanium silicide layer, a metal-to-diffusion (MD) layer, a metal-to-gate layer, or a back-end-of-line (BEOL) structure of the semiconductor structure ([0148] teaches contact pad 1109 connecting metal line 1106 to source 1110 of a transistor 1125, semiconductor substrate 1120. A contact pad connecting a metal line to a transistor constitutes a metal-to-diffusion layer. [0153]-[0154] teaches detecting defect 1112. Contact pad 1109 comprises defect 1112).
18. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1. Gaury further teaches that wherein the inspection data at least comprises a gray level of the first conductive structure and a gray level of a defect-free conductive structure ([0211] teaches that the determined gray level values of a feature (e.g., metal contact pad 1620 of fig. 16A) of a semiconductor device may be distinguishable. A gray level of an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact substantially free of contact are disclosed).
14. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1.
The electrical node shown in fig. 11 of Gaury does not specifically teach that wherein the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is identified by comparing a gray level of the first conductive structure in the inspection data with gray levels of a second conductive structure free from having defect and a third conductive structure having an open defect, respectively.
However, Gaury in additional views and descriptions teaches that wherein the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is identified by comparing a gray level of the first conductive structure in the inspection data with gray levels of a second conductive structure free from having defect and a third conductive structure having an open defect, respectively ([0211] teaches that the determined gray level values of a feature (e.g., metal contact pad 1620 of fig. 16A) of a semiconductor device may be distinguishable. A gray level of an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact substantially free of defect are compared, and an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact are identified based on their gray level value).
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 Gaury to include that wherein the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is identified by comparing a gray level of the first conductive structure in the inspection data with gray levels of a second conductive structure free from having defect and a third conductive structure having an open defect, respectively. Such modification would allow for identifying an electric defect based on the determined gray level value of the feature comprising the defect (as taught in Gaury [0211]).
15. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 5. Gaury further teaches that wherein the gray level of the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is greater than the gray level of the third conductive structure having the open defect and less than the gray level of the second conductive structure free from having defect ([0211] teaches that an open contact, corresponding to the third conductive structure, may appear dark with gray level value below 150. A high resistance contact, corresponding to the first conductive structure, may appear brighter than the open contact with gray level value between 200-205. A normal contact free of defect, corresponding to the second conductive structure, may appear bright than the high-resistance contact, with gray level value between 210-230).
16. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1. Gaury further teaches that wherein the electron beam inspection is performed through a field emission-scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) ([0094] teaches that electron source assembly 340 may include a field emission source configured to emit electrons. [0003] teaches inspection systems utilizing scanning electron microscope can be employed).
17. Regarding claim 9:
Gaury teaches a method for detecting defects in a semiconductor structure ([0054] teaches a method of detecting a defect in a semiconductor device), the method comprising:
providing a semiconductor structure having a plurality of conductive structures ([0148] teaches inspecting a node 1100 comprising a set of structures such as metal lines, vias, gate, or substrate, that are electrically connected together); performing a first electron beam inspection operation on the plurality of conductive structures of the semiconductor structure to obtain an inspection data ([0050], fig. 15 teach activating an electron source to irradiate a region of a sample and acquiring a plurality of images of the structure. The images correspond to an inspection data); and identifying a first conductive structure having a non-open defect from the inspection data ([0153]-[0154] teaches detecting defect 1112 from SEM images. Contact pad 1109 comprises defect 1112).
Gaury does not specify that wherein a pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation is accelerated to a level shorter than microseconds; and if no first conductive structure is identified in the first electron beam inspection operation, adapting the first pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure by using one or more second pulsed electron beams selected from a group consisting of a picosecond pulsed beam and a femtosecond pulsed beam. However, Gaury teaches that in some embodiments, pulsed electron beam may comprise a plurality of ultrashort electron pulses with pulse duration 100 femtoseconds (as taught in [0224]). Gaury also teaches that the excitation pulse is adjustable and is in a range of 0.05 picoseconds to 1 nanosecond (as taught in [0285]).
In addition, since Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure, the contingent limitation “if no first conductive structure is identified in the first electron beam inspection operation, adapting the first pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation to a shorter level to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure by using one or more second pulsed electron beams selected from a group consisting of a picosecond pulsed beam and a femtosecond pulsed beam” needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met.
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 Gaury to include that wherein a pulsed electron beam used in the first electron beam inspection operation is accelerated to a level shorter than microseconds. Such modification would allow detecting defects with different temporal resolutions in circuits and components with ultra-short pulse duration (as taught in Gaury [0074] and [0110]).
18. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 9. Gaury further teaches that wherein the operation of providing the semiconductor structure ([0148] teaches inspecting a node 1100 comprising a set of structures such as metal lines, vias, gate, or substrate, that are electrically connected together) comprises:
receiving a substrate ([0064] teaches electronic devices are constructed of circuits formed on a piece of silicon called a substrate. [0148] teaches an electrical node comprising a set of structures such as, but not limited to, metal lines, contact pads, vias, gate, source, drain, interconnects, or substrate); and forming a middle-end-of-line (MEOL) structure over the substrate ([0148] teaches contact pad 1109 connecting metal line 1106 to source 1110 of a transistor 1125, semiconductor substrate 1120, which corresponds to forming a MEOL structure over the substrate), wherein the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is identified from a titanium silicide layer, a metal-to-gate layer, or a metal-to-diffusion (MD) layer in the MEOL structure ([0148] teaches contact pad 1109 connecting metal line 1106 to source 1110 of a transistor 1125, semiconductor substrate 1120. A contact pad connecting a metal line to a transistor constitutes a metal-to-diffusion layer. [0153]-[0154] teaches detecting defect 1112. Contact pad 1109 comprises defect 1112).
20. Regarding claim 21:
Gaury teaches a method for detecting defects in semiconductor structures ([0054] teaches a method of detecting a defect in a semiconductor device), the method comprising:
receiving a semiconductor structure having a plurality of conductive structures ([0148] teaches inspecting a node 1100 comprising a set of structures such as metal lines, vias, gate, or substrate, that are electrically connected together);
performing an electron beam inspection operation on the plurality of conductive structures of the semiconductor structure through a field emission-scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) to obtain an inspection data ([0050], fig. 15 teach activating an electron source to irradiate a region of a sample and acquiring a plurality of images of the structure. The images correspond to an inspection data); identifying a first conductive structure having a non-open defect from the plurality of conductive structures from the inspection data ([0153]-[0154] teaches detecting defect 1112 from SEM images. Contact pad 1109 comprises defect 1112)
The electrical node shown in fig. 11 of Gaury does not specifically disclose determining a first gray level of the first conductive structure substantially between a second gray level of a second conductive structure free from having defect and a third gray level of a third conductive structure having an open defect.
However, Gaury in additional views and descriptions discloses determining a first gray level of the first conductive structure substantially between a second gray level of a second conductive structure free from having defect and a third gray level of a third conductive structure having an open defect ([0211] teaches that an open contact may appear dark with gray level value below 150. A high resistance contact may appear brighter than the open contact with gray level value between 200-205. A normal contact free of defect may appear bright than the high-resistance contact, with gray level value between 210-230).
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 Gaury to include determining a first gray level of the first conductive structure substantially between a second gray level of a second conductive structure free from having defect and a third gray level of a third conductive structure having an open defect. Such modification would allow for identifying an electric defect based on the determined gray level value of the feature comprising the defect (as taught in Gaury [0211]).
Gaury does not specify that wherein a pulsed electron beam used in the electron beam inspection operation is accelerated to a level shorter than microseconds; and if no first conductive structure is identified, adapting the pulsed electron beam used in the electron beam inspection operation to a level of nanosecond pulsed beam, picosecond pulsed beam, or femtosecond pulsed beam, to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure.
However, Gaury teaches that the excitation pulse is adjustable and is in a range of 0.05 picoseconds to 1 nanosecond (as taught in [0285]). Since Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure, the contingent limitation “if no first conductive structure is identified, adapting the pulsed electron beam used in the electron beam inspection operation to a level of nanosecond pulsed beam, picosecond pulsed beam, or femtosecond pulsed beam, to perform one or more second electron beam inspection operations on the semiconductor structure” needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met.
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 Gaury to include that wherein a pulsed electron beam utilized in the electron beam inspection operation is selected from a group consisting of a nanosecond pulsed beam and a picosecond pulsed beam. Such modification would allow detecting defects with different temporal resolutions in circuits and components with ultra-short pulse duration (as taught in Gaury [0074] and [0110]).
Regarding claim 25:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein pulsed electron beams used in the first electron beam inspection operation and two subsequent second electron beam inspection operations are in an order of a level of nanosecond pulsed beam, picosecond pulsed beam, and femtosecond pulsed beam (Gaury [0285] teaches that the excitation pulse is adjustable and is in a range of 0.05 picoseconds to 1 nanosecond. Subsequent second electron beam inspection operations are part of the contingent limitation of claim 1 when no first conductive structure is identified. Since Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure, the contingent limitation two subsequent second electron beam inspection operations are in an order of a level of nanosecond pulsed beam, picosecond pulsed beam, and femtosecond pulsed beam needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met).
Regarding claim 26:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising: classifying the semiconductor structure having the plurality of conductive structures based on whether the first conductive structure is identified (Gaury [0211] teaches various gray level value ranges. Identifying a structure within a range would correspond to a specific defect. Then, not identifying the structure within the range would correspond to another type of defect, effectively classifying the semiconductor structure).
22. Claims 2, 11, 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gaury in view of Almogy (US-20060192904).
23. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1. Gaury fails to disclose that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms.
However, Almogy teaches that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms ([0046] teaches a soft open defect with a resistance of about 10kohm).
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 Gaury in view of Almogy to include that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms. Such modification would allow for identifying a graded difference between the gray levels of conductors positioned at both sides of the soft open defect (as taught in Almogy [0046]).
24. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 9. Gaury fails to disclose that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms.
However, Almogy teaches that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms ([0046] teaches a soft open defect with a resistance of about 10kohm).
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 Gaury in view of Almogy to include that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure having the non-open defect is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms. Such modification would allow for identifying a graded difference between the gray levels of conductors positioned at both sides of the soft open defect (as taught in Almogy [0046]).
36. Regarding claim 24:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 21. Gaury further teaches that first conductive structure is identified using a femtosecond pulsed beam ([0224] pulsed electron beam may comprise a plurality of ultrashort electron pulses with pulse duration 100 femtoseconds. [0229] teaches using electron beam inspection to probe a region of interest for defect detection).
Gaury does not specify terminating the second electron beam inspection operation if no first conductive structure is identified using a femtosecond pulsed beam (Gaury teaches identifying a first conductive structure using a femtosecond pulsed beam, so the contingent limitation terminating the second electron beam inspection operation if no first conductive structure is identified using a femtosecond pulsed beam needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met).
Almogy does not specifically disclose terminating the second electron beam inspection operation if no first conductive structure is identified using a femtosecond pulsed beam. However, Almogy teaches stopping the inspection after imaging the test structure to determine the location of a defect (as taught in [0033]).
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 Gaury in view of Almogy to include terminating the second electron beam inspection operation if no first conductive structure is identified using a femtosecond pulsed beam. Such modification would allow for inspection for multiple structures and stopping the current supply (as taught in Almogy [0033]).
Regarding claim 27:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 26. Gaury fails to teach that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from 1x10³ ohms to 1x10⁶ ohms.
However, Almogy teaches that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms ([0046] teaches a soft open defect with a resistance of about 10kohm).
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 Gaury in view of Almogy to include that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from about 1x103 ohms to about 1x106 ohms. Such modification would allow for identifying a graded difference between the gray levels of conductors positioned at both sides of the soft open defect (as taught in Almogy [0046]).
25. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gaury in view of Reed, B. W., et al. "Solving the Accelerator-Condenser Coupling Problem in a Nanosecond Dynamic Transmission Electron Microscope." Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 81, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Reed).
26. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 1. Gaury fails to disclose that wherein a current of the pulsed electron beam is about 10 mA.
However, Reed discloses that wherein a current of the pulsed electron beam is about 10 mA (abstract section teaches using a pulsed-laser-driven photocathode to operate electron microscope at currents in excess of 10mA).
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 Gaury in view of Reed to include that wherein a current of the pulsed electron beam is about 10 mA. Such modification would allow for imaging of material microstructure with a resolution of nanometer scale and exposure time of nanoseconds (as taught in Reed abstract section).
27. Claims 13, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gaury in view of Rodríguez-Montañés, R., Pineda de Gyvez, J., & Volf, P. A. J. (2002). Resistance characterization for weak open defects. IEEE Design & Test of Computers, 19(5), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MDT.2002.1033788 (hereinafter referred to as Montanes).
28. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 9. Gaury further teaches identifying a second conductive structure free from having defect from the plurality of conductive structures from the inspection data ([0211] teaches that a normal contact free of defect, corresponding to the second conductive structure, may appear bright than the high-resistance contact, with gray level value between 210-230).
Gaury fails to teach that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from about 30% to about 50% higher than a resistance of the second conductive structure.
Montanes does not specifically disclose that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from about 30% to about 50% higher than a resistance of the second conductive structure. However, Montanes teaches detecting open defect by comparing its resistance with the defect-free structures (as taught on pg. 20, where the reference line reference resistance corresponds to defect free, and an open defect is circled in fig. 3(a) showing a resistance anomaly from the reference resistance). Montanes also teaches detecting weak opens that occur across a broad, continuous spectrum of elevated resistance values, providing statistical distributions of defects adding anywhere from less than 100 kohm to over 10Mohm of resistance (as taught on pg. 21, fig. 4).
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 Gaury in view of Montanes to include that wherein a resistance of the first conductive structure is in a range of from about 30% to about 50% higher than a resistance of the second conductive structure. Such modification would allow for detecting weak open defects with resistance in various ranges higher than the resistance of defect-free structure (as taught in Montanes pg. 21).
29. Regarding claim 15:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 13. Gaury further teaches identifying a third conductive structure having an open defect from the plurality of conductive structures from the inspection data ([0211] teaches that the determined gray level values of a feature (e.g., metal contact pad 1620 of fig. 16A) of a semiconductor device may be distinguishable. A gray level of an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact substantially free of defect are compared, and an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact are identified based on their gray level value).
30. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 15. Gaury further teaches that wherein a resistance of the third conductive structure is at least 20% higher than a resistance of the first conductive structure ([0211] teaches an open contact having extremely high resistance, in Gohm, represented by data set 1710, and a high resistance contact having resistance in Mohm, represented by data set 1720. Gohm is at least 20% higher than Mohm).
31. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gaury in view of Montanes, further in view of Zewail (US-20110284744).
32. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the method of claim 13. Gaury further teaches a gray level of a first conductive structure having the non-open defect in the inspection data is distinguishable from a gray level of the second conductive structure free from having defect in the inspection data ([0211] teaches that the determined gray level values of a feature (e.g., metal contact pad 1620 of fig. 16A) of a semiconductor device may be distinguishable. A gray level of an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact substantially free of defect are compared, and an open contact, a high resistance contact, and a normal contact are identified based on their gray level value).
Gaury in view of Montanes does not specify that wherein a selection of the pulsed electron beam in the second electron beam inspection operations is determined based on whether a gray level of a first conductive structure having the non-open defect in the inspection data is distinguishable from a gray level of the second conductive structure free from having defect in the inspection data (the second electron beam inspection operations is part of the contingent limitation in claim 9 needs not be executed as part of the BRI of claim because it is a conditional limitation, and the condition precedent is not met).
Zewail does not specifically note that wherein a selection of the pulsed electron beam in the second electron beam inspection operations is determined based on whether a gray level of a first conductive structure having the non-open defect in the inspection data is distinguishable from a gray level of the second conductive structure free from having defect in the inspection data. However, Zewail teaches using femtosecond mode or nanosecond mode for different inspection resolutions (as taught in [0036]).
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 Gaury in view of Montanes, further in view of Zewail to include that wherein the selection of the pulsed electron beam in the electron beam inspection operation is determined based on whether a gray level of a first conductive structure having the non-open defect in the inspection data is distinguishable from a gray level of the second conductive structure free from having defect in the inspection data. Such modification would allow for inspection with different resolutions to construct each image (as taught in Zewail [0036], [0068]).
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