DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 3-20) in the reply filed on 01/26/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/24 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 is rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
a system comprising one or more processing circuitries configured to:
obtain a set of images of a target, wherein the set of images has been acquired by an examination system,
wherein a first image of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a first height position, and a second image of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a second height position, different from the first height position,
determine data DΔZ informative of a displacement of the target in the set of images, and
use the data DΔZ and data informative of the first and second height positions to determine a stray tilt angle of a beam of the examination system.
Step 1: Claim 3 is directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claim 3 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: obtain a set of images of a target, a first image of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a first height position, a second image of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a second height position, determine data DΔZ informative of a displacement of the target, and use the data DΔZ and data informative of the first and second height positions to determine a stray tilt angle of a beam. For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claim 3 shown above have been considered as mental processes. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "obtain a set of images of a target, wherein a first image of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a first height position, and a second image of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a second height position, different from the first height position, determine data DΔZ informative of a displacement of the target in the set of images, and use the data DΔZ and data informative of the first and second height positions to determine a stray tilt angle of a beam".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas.
The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: "examination system", "computer base system", "low resolution examination tool", "high resolution examination tool", "processing circuitry", and "a computer-based graphical user interface GUI", therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating or calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of
a system comprising one or more processing circuitries. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what calculation or determination results are being
considered, how evaluation for comparing results, and how initiating results are obtained or an
indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process/system that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea/
judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically recited additional
computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because
they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in
combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The
rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. System, capturing, determining, and using a result data are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons of rejection of claim 3 as detailed above because
claim 20 comprises of limitations similar or identical to that claimed in claim 3. The same rationale
detailed above in the case of claim 3 applies to independent claim 20 mutatis mutandis, except that
claim 20 recites additional elements like a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claimed system are well-known parts of a conventional computer, and the claimed system does not improve the functions or components of a conventional computer.
Dependent claims 4-19 are dependent on their respective base claim 3, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 4-19 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 4-19 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components or system comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker V Flook. Claims 4-19 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 4-19 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 3, 7-8, 10. 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanzaki et al (US 2022/0308331 hereinafter “Kanzaki”).
Regarding claim 3 and 20; Kanzaki discloses a system (1 @ figure 1) and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that, when executed by at least one or more processing circuitries (100 @ figures 1-2) configured to:
obtain a set of images of a target (401, 402, 403 @ figures 4A-4F and/or 9A-9E),
wherein the set of images has been acquired by an examination system (1 @ figure 1),
wherein a first image (401 @ figure 4C) of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target (411 @ figure 4D and paragraph [0065]: e.g., The image 401 is captured in a state where a center point of a circular spot pattern 411 (shown as a spot position SP1) is aligned with a center point of a rectangle-shaped image region) at a first height position (ZC @ figure 4A and paragraph [0061]: e.g., In the first focus state, a height position of the surface of the sample 3 is at a first height position ZC, and a height position of a top portion of the objective lens 105 is at a first height position ZA), and a second image (402 @ figure 4E) of the set of images has been acquired capturing the target (412, SP2 @ figures 4E and paragraph [0066]: e.g., The image 402 is captured in a state where the center point (shown as a spot position SP2) of the circular spot pattern 412 misaligns from the center point (spot position SP1 in FIG. 4D)) at a second height position (ZD @ figure 4A-4C), different from the first height position (paragraph [0062]: e.g., the height position of the sample 3 is at a second height position ZD. A difference between the first height position ZC and the second height position ZD of the sample 3 is shown by the amount of change in sample height ΔZ),
determine data DΔZ informative of a displacement of the target (103 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0123]) in the set of images (figures 4-5 and paragraph [0071]: e.g., In such a case, the irradiation position (corresponding spot position) of the laser light a1 on the surface of the sample 3 changes from the position L1 (X1, Y1) to the position L2 (X2, Y2). A difference between the two positions is set as the amount of change in spot position ΔD (ΔD=L1−L2=(ΔX, ΔY)=(X1−X2, Y1−Y2)), and
use the data DΔZ informative (paragraph [0071]: e.g., the amount of change in spot position ΔD (ΔD=L1−L2=(ΔX, ΔY)=(X1−X2, Y1−Y2)) and data informative of the first and second height positions (figures 4-5 and paragraph [0071]: e.g., When the laser light incident angle θ is constant and the height of the sample 3 on the stage 104 changes from, for example, the first height Z1 to the second height Z2, in other words, when the focus height changes, the difference between the two heights is set as the amount of change in sample height ΔZ (ΔZ=Z1−Z2) in the Z direction) to determine a stray tilt angle of a beam (laser light incident angle θ @ figures 4-5) of the examination system (1 @ figures 4-5 and paragraph [0073]: e.g., the optical microscope 1 acquires the laser light incident angle θ and the amount of change in spot position ΔD based on the image captured by the camera 112, the optical microscope 1 can calculate the amount of change in sample height ΔZ for the focusing (in other words, the amount of change in focus height from a position in the focused state) based on the above calculation formulas). See figures 1-13
PNG
media_image1.png
817
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
817
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7; Kanzaki discloses the set of images (401, 402, 403 @ figures 4D-4F) comprises images Ii to IN, (first image 401, second image 402, and third image 403) with N>2 (three images), wherein each image Ii (first image 401 @ figure 4D) of the set of images (401, 402, 403 @ figures 4D-4F) has been acquired capturing the target (SP1, 411 @ figure 4D) at a height position Hi (paragraph [0061]: e.g., in the first focus state, a height position of the surface of the sample 3 is at a first height position ZC, and a height position of a top portion of the objective lens 105 is at a first height position ZA) which differs from a height position Hj (paragraph [0062]: e.g., In the second focus state, a height position of the objective lens 105 is at the first height position ZA as in FIG. 4A, and the height position of the sample 3 is at a second height position ZD) at which other images Ij (second image 402 @ figure 4E) of the set of images have been acquired, with i different from j (paragraph [0062]: e.g., A difference between the first height position ZC and the second height position ZD of the sample 3 is shown by the amount of change in sample height ΔZ).
Regarding claim 8; Kanzaki discloses a geometrical (shapes figures 7A-7D and paragraphs [0087]-[0089]) relationship between the stray tilt angle (laser light incident angle θ @ figures 4-5), the data DΔZ informative of a displacement of the target in the set of images (figures 4-5 and paragraph [0071]: e.g., In such a case, the irradiation position (corresponding spot position) of the laser light a1 on the surface of the sample 3 changes from the position L1 (X1, Y1) to the position L2 (X2, Y2). A difference between the two positions is set as the amount of change in spot position ΔD (ΔD=L1−L2=(ΔX, ΔY)=(X1−X2, Y1−Y2)), and data informative of the first and second height positions (figures 4-5 and paragraph [0071]: e.g., When the laser light incident angle θ is constant and the height of the sample 3 on the stage 104 changes from, for example, the first height Z1 to the second height Z2, in other words, when the focus height changes, the difference between the two heights is set as the amount of change in sample height ΔZ (ΔZ=Z1−Z2) in the Z direction), to determine said stray tilt angle (paragraph [0073]: e.g., the optical microscope 1 acquires the laser light incident angle θ and the amount of change in spot position ΔD based on the image captured by the camera 112, the optical microscope 1 can calculate the amount of change in sample height ΔZ for the focusing (in other words, the amount of change in focus height from a position in the focused state) based on the above calculation formulas).
Regarding claim 10; Kanzaki discloses the examination system (1 @ figures 1 and 11) comprises a basement (104 @ figure 11) comprising an area (104b @ figure 11) dedicated to receiving a specimen (3 @ figure 11) under examination, wherein the target (spot pattern is a laser spot 411, 412, 413 @ figures 4D-4F) is located on the basement (104 @ figure 11), or on a portion coupled to the basement.
It is noted that the term “or” is alternative. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be “i” is met the examination system comprises a basement comprising an area dedicated to receiving a specimen under examination, wherein the target is located on the basement, or on a portion coupled to the basement.
Regarding claim 12; Kanzaki discloses the target (411 @ figure 4D and paragraph [0065]) has a flat pattern (It is inherent to show circular spot pattern 411 in figure 4D as the flat pattern).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki et al (US 2022/0308331 hereinafter “Kanzaki”) in view of Baumgari et al (US 2020/0250856 hereinafter “Baumgart”).
Regarding claim 4; Kanzaki discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for said set of images has been obtained after a calibration of the beam of the examination system with respect to an objective lens of the examination system, wherein said calibration uses said target. However, Baumgart teaches that it is known in the art to provide said set of images has been obtained after a calibration of the beam of the examination system (paragraph [0030]: e.g., calibration concept primarily aimed at light-field microscopy and light-field macro photography. The concept permits calibration using measured light-field data of a suitable calibration target) with respect to an objective lens (62 @ figure 1) of the examination system (50, 76 @ figure 1), wherein said calibration uses said target (54 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0005]: e.g., A z-stack of light-field images of a calibration target may be captured using the image sensor, while the calibration target is located at a plurality of different z-positions). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of Kanzaki with limitation above as taught by Baumgart for the purpose of accurately adjusting the distance of the calibration target to the light-field camera within the volume of interest in object space.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki in view of Baumgari as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pearl (US 2005/0006598).
Regarding claim 5; Kanzaki in view of Baumgari combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for said calibration comprises aligning a focal point of the beam with an axis of symmetry of the objective lens, according to a matching criterion. However, Pearl teaches that it is known in the art to provide said calibration comprises aligning a focal point of the beam (101a @ figure 2a) with an axis (113 @ figure 2a) of symmetry of the objective lens (112 @ figure 2a and paragraphs [0045]-[0046]: e.g., an electron beam 101a is outlined that is symmetrically aligned with respect to optical axis 113), according to a matching criterion (paragraph [0067]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of Kanzaki with limitation above as taught by Pearl for the purpose of improving the measurement of the translation of the image.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki in view of Baumgari as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zeidler et al (US 2024/0096587 hereinafter “Zeidler”).
Regarding claim 6; Kanzaki in view of Baumgari combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for said calibration is associated with an accuracy equal to or smaller than 0.2 nm. However, Zeidler teaches that it is known in the art to provide said calibration is associated with an accuracy equal to or smaller than 0.2 nm (paragraphs [0016] and [0123]: e.g., a lateral position accuracy of each of the focus spots 5 of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets 3 is below 1 nm, for example below 0.3 nm or even below 0.1 nm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of Kanzaki with limitation above as taught by Zeidler for the purpose of improving the measurement of the translation of the image.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki et al (US 2022/0308331 hereinafter “Kanzaki”) in view of Breuer et al (US 2021/0257182 hereinafter “Breuer”).
Regarding claim 16; Kanzaki discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a distance measurement device to determine data informative of a height position of the target. However, Breuer teaches that it is known in the art to provide a distance measurement device (130, 240 @ figure 2 and paragraphs [0022] and [0031]: e.g., the device 1 can include a processor 240 which can determine a z-position 190 of the sample 150 and/or a working distance 195 between the front end of the objective lens assembly 110 and the sample 150, based on output from the interferometer 130. The processor 240 may be communicatively coupled to the interferometer 130 such as to a detector 210 thereof. The processor 240 may determine the z-position 190 and/or the working distance 195 based on the detector output) to determine data informative of a height position of the target (195 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of Kanzaki with limitation above as taught by Breuer for the purpose of allowing more precise focusing of the charged particle beam and improving the stability of the sample focus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 13-15, 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a system comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the examination system comprises an element operative to move the target along a height direction , wherein the system is configured to use a model to compensate, at least partially, an error in said estimate of the stray tilt angle, and the system being caused at least by a motion of said element along a direction different from the height direction in set forth of claim 9.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a system comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including wherein (i) or (ii) is met:(i) the system is configured to control the examination system to switch between a first mode and a second mode, wherein, in the first mode, the beam is oriented towards the target to determine the stray tilt angle, and in the second mode, the beam is oriented towards a specimen for its examination, wherein the specimen and the target are associated with a same basement; (ii) the examination system is operative to switch between a first mode and a second mode, wherein, in the first mode, the beam is oriented towards the target to determine the stray tilt angle, and in the second mode, the beam is oriented towards a specimen for its examination, wherein the specimen and the target are associated with a same basement in set forth of claim 11.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a system comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the system configured to use the data DΔZ and data informative of the first and second height positions to determine a first estimate of the stray tilt angle of the beam of the examination system, and use a model and the first estimate to generate to determine a second estimate of the tray tilt angle in set forth of claim 13.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a system comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including for each given stray tilt angle of the beam of the examination system, of a plurality of stray tilt angles: obtain a given set of images of the target, wherein a given first image of the given set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a given first height position, and a second image of the given set of images has been acquired capturing the target at a given second height position, different from the first height position, determine data DΔZ, calibration informative of a displacement of the target in the given set of images, and use the data DΔZ, calibration and data informative of the given first and second height positions to determine a given estimated stray tilt angle of the beam of the examination system, thereby obtaining a plurality of estimated stray tilt angles of the plurality of stray tilt angles, and use the plurality of stray tilt angles, or ground truth values of said plurality of stray tilt values, and the plurality of estimated stray tilt angles to generate a model in set forth of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Wang et al (US 2024/0369356) discloses an inspection apparatus for adjusting a working height for a substrate for multiple target heights is disclosed.
2) Bistritzer et al (US Patent No. 11,953,316) discloses there is provided a system and a method comprising obtaining a first (respectively second) image of an area of the semiconductor specimen acquired by an electron beam examination tool at a first (respectively second) illumination angle, determining a plurality of height values informative of a height profile of the specimen in the area
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
March 29, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights