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 .
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 5 and 17 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.
Claims 5 and 17 recite “the uniform kernel has a dimension that is a non-integer number of pixels”. A kernel cannot have a non-integer number of pixels (as this would correspond to a matrix having a non-integer dimension). Based on the specification, [0099-0100], it appears that what is meant is a matrix having a value of 1 in non-edge regions, a fractional value f on the edge regions and a value f2 in the corners. However this interpretation contradicts the statement that the kernel is uniform.
Claims 5 and 17 are therefore not further examined on the merits. However if the kernel described in paragraphs [0099-0100] is meant it is noted that this is a renormalized version of a known Gaussian kernel such as that taught by Medical Imaging Systems ((a) Gaussian filter kernel of size 3 × 3 - Medical Imaging Systems - NCBI Bookshelf).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 8, 10-12, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (US 20190346769 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors (program for execution on a processor, [0193]) of a charged-particle beam system (electron beam column 102) to cause the charged particle beam system to perform operations for detecting defects in sample images (determining defect in inspection image, Abstract), the operations comprising:
Receiving a sample image from the charged particle beam system (acquiring inspected image, [0093], S102);
Applying a filter to the sample image to generate a filtered sample image, applying the filter comprising performing a convolution between the sample image and a kernel (convolving a normal distribution filter kernel on an inspection image, [0186]);
Providing a reference image based on at least one source image (reference image generation, [0094]); and
Comparing the filtered sample image to the reference image so as to detect defects in the sample image (s112, [0102]).
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto teaches that the kernel is square (5x5, [0170]).
Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto teaches that the reference image is a synthetic image generated from design data describing a structure on the sample ([0094]).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto teaches determining a difference value for each pixel, the difference value representing the magnitude of the difference between that pixel and the corresponding pixel of the reference image (gray value difference for each pixel, [0102]), and further comprising selecting selected pixels, the selected pixel being a subset of the pixel meeting a criterion for further processing (pixels with gray value difference above threshold selected as defects, [0102]; performing defect processing, [0106-0111], fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto teaches that selecting pixels for further processing comprises selecting a region of pixels surrounding a pixel meeting the criterion (searching for contour line in pixels surrounding potential defect, [0100]).
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto teaches that the criterion is that selected pixels have a difference value greater than a threshold ([0102]).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto teaches a data processing device (control computer 110) for detecting defects in sample images generated by a charged particle assessment system (Abstract), the device comprising:
An input module (image acquisition mechanism 150) configured to receive a sample image form the charged particle assessment system ([0093]);
A filter module (image processing unit 77, [0165]) configured to apply a filter to the sample image to perform a convolution between the sample image and a kernel and to generate a filtered sample image ([0186]);
A reference image module (reference image generation circuit, 112, [0094]) configured to provide a reference image based on one or more source images; and
A comparator (comparison circuit 108) configured to compare the filtered sample image to the reference image so as to detect defects in the sample image (s112, [0102]).
Regarding claim 19, Hashimoto teaches that the reference image is a synthetic image generated from design data describing a structure on the sample ([0094]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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:
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Werder (WO 2016032549 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hashimoto does not teach that the sample has formed thereon a plurality of repeated patterns spaced apart at a pitch, and the operation further comprises using a first column of a multi-column beam system to obtain a sample image of a sample, the multi-beam column having a plurality of columns that are spaced apart at the pitch; using a plurality of other columns of the multi-column beam system to obtain a plurality of source images, and averaging the source images to obtain the reference image.
Werder teaches a charged particle inspection system having a sample with a plurality of repeated patterns spaced apart at a pitch (die pitch, [00042]) and using a first column of a multi-column beam system to obtain a sample image, the multi-beam column having a plurality of columns that are spaced apart at the pitch (spaced apart at double the die pitch, [00042]; the patterns in each second die are spaced apart at this pitch), using a plurality of other columns of the multi-beam column to obtain a plurality of source images, and averaging the source images to obtain a reference image for comparison with the sample image for determination of a defect ([00058-00060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to have the multi-beam column and reference image collection method of Werder, in order to accurately find defects in a sample pattern by comparison with a noise-reduced (averaged) image of multiple copies of the same pattern with no unexpected result.
Claim 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Fisher (Fisher et al, “Mean Filter”, https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/mean.htm, 2003).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Hashimoto teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as described above. Hashimoto does not teach that the kernel is a uniform kernel.
Fisher teaches the use of a uniform kernel is well-known to perform image smoothing and remove noise from an image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to perform a convolution using the uniform kernel of Fisher in order to remove random noise from the image for more effective detection of actual defects with no unexpected result.
Claims 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Hosoya (US 20130119250 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Hashimoto teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as described above. Hashimoto does not teach that providing a reference image comprises averaging a plurality of source images.
Hosoya teaches a method of providing a reference image (GP image, [0012]) for comparing with an inspection image for defect finding in an electron beam system where providing the reference image comprises averaging a plurality of source images ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to include providing a reference image formed by averaging a plurality of source images as taught by Hosoya, in order to provide a low-noise image for effective defect finding as described by Hosoya with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 7, Hosoya teaches that the source images include shifted versions of the sample image ([0044]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Toyoda (US 20200033122 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hashimoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hashimoto does not teach one of the applying a filter and the comparing are performed using a field programmable gate array or an application specific integrated circuit.
Toyoda teaches a pattern evaluation method ([0043]) including image processing by an FPGA or ASIC ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hashimoto by implementing the image comparison on an FPGA or ASIC as taught by Toyoda, as a matter of substituting a known equivalent hardware control device for implementing an image processing method with no unexpected result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Zafar (US 20070288219 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Hashimoto does not teach that the criterion to select pixels is a predetermined number of pixels having the highest difference values.
Zafar teaches an inspection system which selects a predetermined number of pixels having the largest difference in brightness from a reference image as defective (saving a fraction of the difference pixels having the largest difference, [0253]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to include selecting a predetermined number of pixels having the highest difference values in order to reduce the amount of data required by the system as described by Zafar.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Hiroi (US 20030007677 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hashimoto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Hashimoto does not teach that the selecting comprises processing pixels of the source image sequentially and storing pixels having a difference value greater than a threshold in a buffer and when the buffer is full, if a newly processed pixel has a difference value greater than the pixel in the buffer having the lowest difference value, overwriting the pixel in the buffer having the lowest difference value with the newly processed pixel, and desirably, when a region of pixels surrounding the selected pixel is selected, the region of pixel associated with the newly processed pixel is stored in the buffer by overwriting the region of pixels associated with the pixel overwritten by the newly processed pixel.
Hiroi teaches a defect inspection system having a buffer (defect candidate storage unit 41) and, if a newly processed pixel has a difference value greater than a lowest difference value in the buffer, overwriting the pixel having a lowest difference value with the newly processed pixel ([0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hashimoto to have the buffer overwriting system of Hiroi, in order to store the most significant defects in the memory without using an excessive amount of memory space.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (US 9,466,463 B1) in view of Werder.
Regarding claim 20, Lam teaches a charged particle assessment system comprising a charged particle beam system and a plurality of data processing devices for detecting defects in sample images generated by the charged particle beam system, wherein the charged particle beam system comprises multiple columns and each data processing device is associated with a respective one of the columns.
Lam does not teach that each data processing device is configured to receive a sample image from the respective one of the columns and to receive source images from one or more other columns.
Werder teaches a charged particle inspection system that receives a sample image from one column and source images for comparison with the sample image from other columns ([00058-00060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lam to collect a sample image from one column and source images from other columns as described by Werder, in order to accurately find defects in a sample pattern using a noise-reduced (averaged) image of multiple copies of the same pattern with no unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881