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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 28 July 2026, with respect to the drawings, the specification, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings and the specification, and the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the difference in scope between claims 15 and 16 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to claims 15 and 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that Zeidler (‘331) fails to disclose a detection channel that encodes angle information of second individual particle beams has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Zeidler (‘331) to teach a detection channel that encodes angle information of second individual particle beams.
Applicant's argument that Zeidler (‘331) fails to disclose defocused projecting second individual particle beams has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Zeidler (‘331) discloses that “the defocus of the secondary electron beamlets 550 at the sensitive areas 551 is determined by recording and analyzing, by real-time projective alignment algorithms 805, an image recorded by the spatially resolved detection system 290” (Zeidler (‘331), page 15, lines 22-24, emphasis added).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler (WO Patent No. 2019/166331 A2), hereinafter Zeidler (‘331), in view of Lanio et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0270438 A1), hereinafter Lanio.
Regarding claim 1, Zeidler (‘331) discloses a method, comprising:
operating a multi-beam particle microscope (page 8, lines 37-38) in a contrast operating mode (page 2, line 12, first mode of operation), which comprises:
irradiating an object with a multiplicity of charged first individual particle beams (page 2, lines 13-20), each first individual particle beam irradiating a separate individual field region of the object (page 2, lines 17-20) in a scanning fashion (page 3, lines 32-34);
collecting second individual particle beams which emerge or emanate from the object due to the first individual particle beams (page 2, lines 21-22);
defocused projecting the second individual particle beams (page 15, lines 22-24) onto detection regions of a detection unit (page 2, lines 21-25, the individual detectors being the detection regions of the detection unit) so that the second individual particle beams emerging or emanating from two different individual field regions are projected onto different detection regions (page 2, lines 21-25), a plurality of detection channels being assigned to each detection region (page 9, lines 35-36, array of sensing areas); and
generating individual images of each of the individual field regions on the basis of data which are obtained or have been obtained via signals from each of the detection regions with their respectively assigned detection channels (page 10, lines 39-41).
Zeidler (‘331) fails to disclose each detection channel encoding angle information of the second individual particle beams when starting from the object.
However, Lanio discloses each detection channel encoding angle information of the second individual particle beams when starting from the object (paragraph 0056).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) to include each detection channel encoding angle information of the second individual particle beams when starting from the object, based on the teachings of Lanio that encoding angle information provides improved contrast for inspection (Lanio, paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 3, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses a contrast aperture which has been or is arranged in a path of the second individual particle beams in a region of a beam cross-over of the second individual particle beams (page 11, lines 8-9).
In addition, Lanio discloses selecting a contrast aperture (paragraph 0061; the contrast aperture is selected as either the inner or one of the outer aperture openings).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include selecting the contrast aperture, based on the additional teachings of Lanio that this provides flexibility in beam divergence and enables multiple detection modes for different applications (Lanio, paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 4, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 3 discloses the method of claim 3.
In addition, Lanio discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises setting the defocused projecting of the second individual particle beams upon incidence on the detection unit based on the selected contrast aperture (paragraph 0061: the beam divergence is changed to pass the beam through a particular aperture opening for detection).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that the contrast operating mode further comprises setting the defocused projecting of the second individual particle beams upon incidence on the detection unit based on the selected contrast aperture, based on the additional teachings of Lanio that this provides flexibility in beam divergence and enables multiple detection modes for different applications (Lanio, paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 5, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Lanio discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises selecting a number of detection channels per detection region (paragraphs 0058, 0061: the number of detection channels is chosen to be one when only the central detection element 222 is used, or greater than one when the particles are detected by multiple detection elements 222).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that the contrast operating mode further comprises selecting a number of detection channels per detection region, based on the additional teachings of Lanio that this provides flexibility in beam divergence and enables multiple detection modes for different applications (Lanio, paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 6, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 5 discloses the method of claim 5.
In addition, Lanio discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises setting a pitch of the second individual particle beams upon incidence on the detection unit based on at least one member selected from the group consisting of the selected contrast aperture, the defocusing, and the selected number of detection channels per detection region (paragraph 0061: when the beam passes through a particular aperture opening or set of aperture openings, the beam is either directed to a single detection element 222, or the beam is directed to multiple detection elements 222 which are spaced apart by a given pitch).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that the contrast operating mode further comprises setting a pitch of the second individual particle beams upon incidence on the detection unit based on at least one member selected from the group consisting of the selected contrast aperture, the defocusing, and the selected number of detection channels per detection region, based on the additional teachings of Lanio that this provides flexibility in beam divergence and enables multiple detection modes for different applications (Lanio, paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises at least one of the following:
selecting a number of individual particle beams which are incident on the detection unit in the contrast operating mode; and
masking out all other individual particle beams (page 11, lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 8, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises:
aligning the defocused second individual particle beams upon incidence on the detection unit so that chief rays of the second individual particle beams are aligned substantially exactly centrally with a detection channel (page 15, lines 2-5); or
aligning the defocused second individual particle beams upon incidence on the detection unit so that the chief rays of the second individual particle beams are aligned substantially symmetrically centrally between incidence surfaces of detection channel.
Regarding claim 10, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Lanio discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises representing the individual images in a perspective representation (paragraph 0039) or in a 3D representation.
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that the contrast operating mode further comprises representing the individual images in a perspective representation or in a 3D representation, based on the additional teachings of Lanio that perspective imaging enables the acquisition of energy or angular filtered data (Lanio, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses providing an arrangement of detection channels which comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of direction-sensitive and radially sensitive (page 14, lines 37-44).
Regarding claim 15, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices (page 7, lines 13-17) comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method (page 10, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 16, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses a system comprising:
one or more processing devices (page 10, lines 37-41); and
one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices (page 7, lines 13-17) comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method (page 10, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 30, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses that each detection channel further encodes direction information of the second individual particle beams when starting from the object (page 10, lines 33-36).
Claims 2 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0019097 A1), hereinafter Harada.
Regarding claim 2, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio fails to disclose that the contrast operating mode further comprises: defining weightings for signals from each detection channel; and mixing the signals from the detection channels to form a mixed signal of the assigned detection region based on the weightings.
However, Harada discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises:
defining weightings for signals from each detection channel (paragraph 0072); and
mixing the signals from the detection channels to form a mixed signal of the assigned detection region based on the weightings (paragraph 0070).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that the contrast operating mode further comprises: defining weightings for signals from each detection channel; and mixing the signals from the detection channels to form a mixed signal of the assigned detection region based on the weightings, based on the teachings of Harada that this improves the efficiency of image analysis (Harada, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 31, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio fails to disclose using the individual images of each of the individual field regions to provide an image of the object.
However, Harada discloses using the individual images of each of the individual field regions to provide an image of the object (paragraph 0090).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include using the individual images of each of the individual field regions to provide an image of the object, based on the teachings of Harada that this produces an image with a defect under inspection, as well as an additional element of the object, being highly visible (Harada, paragraph 0097).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0027694 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 9, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio fails to disclose that the contrast operating mode further comprises encoding the individual images in a false color code based on signals from at least one member selected from the group consisting of the detection regions and the detection channels.
However, Wang discloses that the contrast operating mode further comprises encoding the individual images in a false color code based on signals from at least one member selected from the group consisting of the detection regions and the detection channels (paragraph 0050).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that the contrast operating mode further comprises encoding the individual images in a false color code based on signals from at least one member selected from the group consisting of the detection regions and the detection channels, based on the teachings of Wang that this improves analysis efficiency (Wang, paragraph 0050).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeidler (U.S. Patent No. 10,388,487 B2), hereinafter Zeidler (‘487).
Regarding claim 12, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses operating the multi-beam particle microscope in a normal inspection mode (page 2, line 12, second mode of operation), which comprises:
generating individual images of each of the individual field regions based on data which are obtained or have been obtained via signals from each of the detection regions with their respectively assigned detection channel (page 10, lines 39-41).
Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio fails to disclose irradiating an object with a multiplicity of charged first individual particle beams, each first individual particle beam irradiating a separate individual field region of the object in a scanning fashion; collecting second individual particle beams which emerge or emanate from the object due to the first individual particle beams; and focused projecting the second individual particle beams onto detection regions of a detection unit so that the second individual particle beams emerging or emanating from two different individual field regions are projected onto different detection regions, exactly one detection channel being assigned to each detection region.
However, Zeidler (‘487) discloses irradiating an object with a multiplicity of charged first individual particle beams (column 3, lines 5-16), each first individual particle beam irradiating a separate individual field region of the object in a scanning fashion (column 4, lines 10-20, each individual particle beam irradiating a separate subregion);
collecting second individual particle beams which emerge or emanate from the object due to the first individual particle beams (column 4, lines 51-52); and
focused projecting the second individual particle beams onto detection regions of a detection unit so that the second individual particle beams emerging or emanating from two different individual field regions are projected onto different detection regions, exactly one detection channel being assigned to each detection region (column 4, lines 42-62).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include irradiating an object with a multiplicity of charged first individual particle beams, each first individual particle beam irradiating a separate individual field region of the object in a scanning fashion; collecting second individual particle beams which emerge or emanate from the object due to the first individual particle beams; and focused projecting the second individual particle beams onto detection regions of a detection unit so that the second individual particle beams emerging or emanating from two different individual field regions are projected onto different detection regions, exactly one detection channel being assigned to each detection region, based on the teachings of Zeidler (‘487) that this increases system throughput while maintaining analysis quality (Zeidler (‘487), column 2, lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 13, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio and Zeidler (‘487) as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
In addition, Zeidler (‘331) discloses changing between the contrast operating mode and the normal inspection mode (page 2, line 30).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Langer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0092230 A1), hereinafter Langer.
Regarding claim 14, Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio fails to disclose that various contrast operating modes with associated operating parameters are stored in a controller of the multi-beam particle microscope; and the method further comprises: selecting a contrast operating mode; and operating the multi-beam particle microscope in this contrast operating mode.
However, Langer discloses that various contrast operating modes with associated operating parameters (paragraph 0064) are stored in a controller of the multi-beam particle microscope (FIG. 1, control unit 13); and
the method further comprises: selecting a contrast operating mode; and operating the multi-beam particle microscope in this contrast operating mode (paragraph 0064, lines 13-15).
Therefore, 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 Zeidler (‘331) in view of Lanio to include that various contrast operating modes with associated operating parameters are stored in a controller of the multi-beam particle microscope; and the method further comprises: selecting a contrast operating mode; and operating the multi-beam particle microscope in this contrast operating mode, based on the teachings of Langer that this advantageously enables the system to adapt to different operation requirements (Langer, paragraph 0064).
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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights