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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 7, that: As such, Miller is silent as to removing "a second layer of material" to reduce "a thickness of a second portion of the sample," where the second portion is "included in the first portion," as recited by claim 1.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 7, that: In addition, as noted at p. 3 of the Office Action, Miller "fails to explicitly disclose directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose."
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 7, that: Miller repeatedly describes precise control of an overall delivered dose to achieve predictable endpoint milling and minimize milling error. Accordingly, Miller teaches away from intentionally varying the dose across different portions of the lamella, and fails to provide any reason for one skilled in the art to modify Miller to incorporate "a variable dose," as recited by claims 1 and 11.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 7, that: Takigawa, therefore, merely teaches varying etching depth across a wafer based on desired structures to be formed into the wafer. Even, assuming arguendo, there was a reason to combine Takigawa's variable-depth etching with the lamella preparation of Miller, this would not yield the portion of claim 1 reciting "remove, after the first layer is removed, a second layer of material from the sample such that a thickness of a second portion of the sample is reduced, the second portion included in the first portion, the second layer removed by at least directing the ion beam toward the second portion of the sample according to a variable dose." Instead, modifying Miller with Takigawa merely provides etching of 3-dimensional structures into a lamella.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 8, that: Takigawa teaches a process for etching 3-dimensional structures into a wafer. As a result, variation in a thickness of a wafer is increased, not reduced. In light of this, Applicant submits that Takigawa teaches away from at least the " ion beam configured to apply different doses to different portions of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample" portion of claim 17.
In response to item(s) 3 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. MILLER (US 20200095688 A1) was not cited as disclosing the “according to a variable dose” limitation. See TAKIGAWA et al. (EP 82639 A) (abstract).
In response to item(s) 1-2 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. MILLER (US 20200095688 A1) discloses removing a second layer of material (of 302a, 302b) to reduce a thickness of a second portion of the sample (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) where the second portion is included in the first portion (of 202a, 202b) (302a, 302b is apart of/included in 202a, 202b).
In response to item(s) 4 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. MILLER discloses using different beam milling steps that use different high-kV and low-kV beam settings to etch the sample. Miller discloses delivering a specified dose of ions per area from the low energy focused ion beam (abstract). Delivering a specified dose of ions per area does not preclude use of a variable does, as disclosed by TAKIGAWA et al. (EP 82639 A).
In response to item(s) 5 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. Both Miller and TAKIGAWA mill/etch 3-dimensionally into a target. Also, see item 8, concerning Miller.
In response to item(s) 6 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. TAKIGAWA discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract). TAKIGAWA mills a sample, thereby reducing it/reducing variation in thickness across the sample
Claims 17-20 are amended, see rejection below.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MILLER et al. (US 20200095688 A1) in view of TAKIGAWA et al. (EP 82639 A).
Regarding claim 1, MILLER discloses a system comprising:
a vacuum chamber (fig. 7; 708, 709) [0051];
a sample stage (724) disposed in the vacuum chamber and configured to receive a sample (718) in the vacuum chamber;
an ion beam column (706) configured to provide an ion beam into the vacuum chamber; and
a controller (738) [0056] comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
remove a first layer (fig. 3; of 202a, 202b around 104) of material from the sample (104) (718) such that a thickness of a first portion (of 202a, 202b) of the sample is reduced, the first layer removed by at least directing the ion beam toward the first portion (of 202a, 202b) of the sample; and
remove, after the first layer is removed, a second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample such that a thickness of a second portion (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) of the sample is reduced, the second portion included in the first portion (of 202a, 202b), the second layer (of 302a, 302b) removed by at least directing the ion beam toward the second portion of the sample according to a
[0031 Note feedback control of target dose (implies dose is controlled)].
[0044 Note errors in beam current and timing for dose beam application]
(fig. 3, 104, 304, 202a, 202b, 302a, 302b)
(fig. 7)
[0028]
[0031]
[0051] [0056].
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, MILLER discloses that a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor (of controller 738) [0056] of a charged particle microscopy system (fig. 7), cause the charged particle microscopy system to:
remove a first layer (fig. 3; of 202a, 202b around 104) of material from a sample (104) (718) such that a thickness of a first portion (of 202a, 202b) of the sample is reduced, the first layer removed by at least directing an ion beam toward the first portion (of 202a, 202b) of the sample; and
remove, after the first layer is removed, a second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample such that a thickness of a second portion (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) of the sample is reduced, the second portion included in the first portion (of 202a, 202b), the second layer (of 302a, 302b) removed by at least directing the ion beam toward the second portion of the sample according to a
[0031 Note feedback control of target dose (implies dose is controlled)].
[0044 Note errors in beam current and timing for dose beam application]
(fig. 3, 104, 304, 202a, 202b, 302a, 302b)
(fig. 7)
[0028]
[0031]
[0051] [0056].
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 17, MILLER discloses that a method, comprising:
thinning a sample (fig. 3; 104, 202) to a thickness by at least using an ion beam (abstract) to remove a layer of material (of 202a, 202b surrounding 104, and/or of 302a, 302b) from a surface of the sample, the ion beam configured to apply of 202a, 202b surrounding 104, and/or of 302a, 302b ) of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample [0028] [0029] [0031] [0044] (of 202a, 202b surrounding 104, and/or of 302a, 302b)
[0031 Note feedback control of target dose (implies dose is controlled)].
[0044 Note errors in beam current and timing for dose beam application]
(fig. 3, 104, 304, 202a, 202b, 302a, 302b)
(fig. 7) 402
[0028]
[0031]
[0051] [0056].
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose the ion beam configured to apply different doses to different portions of the surface
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract); and
that the ion beam applies different doses (abstract) to different portions of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample (abstract Note sample is milled, therefore reduced in thickness via an ion beam that applies different doses to different portions of the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose/ an ion beam configured to apply different doses to different portions of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at various sample locations according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, MILLER discloses that wherein removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample (104) (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the
[0012 Note subsequent to characterizing the removal rate, directing a low energy focused ion beam toward the unfinished sample lamella for a predetermined milling time to deliver a specified dose of ions per area from the low energy focused ion beam; and milling; Note the removal rate is characterized, and a predetermined time for scanning the beam for milling per area is determined/conducted]
[0038 Note repetitions of the pattern being traced out over the duration of the mill.]; and
regarding claim 12, MILLER discloses that removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the
regarding claim 18, MILLER discloses wherein directing the ion beam toward at least the portion of the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose directing the ion beam toward the sample according to different doses/a variable doses.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract); and
that the ion beam applies different doses (abstract) to different portions of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample (abstract Note sample is milled, therefore reduced in thickness via an ion beam that applies different doses to different portions the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose/ an ion beam configured to apply different doses to different portions of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at various sample locations according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, MILLER discloses that removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the
[0013 Note predetermined pattern milling time to deliver a specified dose of ion per area )
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose applying a variable dose comprises a variable dwell time.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose that comprises a variable dwell time, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, MILLER discloses that removing the first layer (fig. 3; of 202a, 202b around 104) of material comprises directing the ion beam toward the first portion at a first energy [0010] [0025] [0041] [0052], wherein the second portion (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) comprises a region of interest, and wherein removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material comprises directing the ion beam toward the second portion at a second energy less than (abstract) [0007] [0043] the first energy according to the
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, MILLER discloses that the first energy is about 30 kV [0010] [0025] [0041] [0052].
Regarding claim 7, MILLER discloses that the second energy is about 2 kV [0007] [0043].
Regarding claim 8, MILLER discloses that the one or more memories (of 738) store additional computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the controller, cause the system to further:
rotate [0054] the sample stage (724) to position a surface opposite the second portion (of 302a, or 302b of 202a or 202b) of the sample (718) in a path of the ion beam;
remove a third layer (of 302a, or 302b of 202a or 202b) of material from the sample such that the thickness of the second portion of the sample is further reduced, the third layer (of 302a, or 302b of 202a or 202b) removed by at least directing the ion beam toward the surface opposite the second portion, the ion beam directed toward the surface according to the
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, MILLER discloses wherein the thickness of the second portion (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) is characterized by a uniform thickness (fig. 3; see 302a, 302b) across a region of interest, the uniform thickness having a variation
Regarding claim 9, MILLER discloses all the limitations as expressly recited in claim 9.
The only difference is that the exact dimension(s) “the uniform thickness having a variation of less than about 2 nm over 300 nm of height of the region of interest” is not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to have the claimed dimensions/sizes since it is well known in the art that the milling dose can be controlled to control milling thickness to be of various dimensions/sizes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try differing thickness variations dimensions/sizes, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, MILLER discloses that wherein removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material is stopped based at least in part on comparing an image [0031] (Note previous lamella are imaged, and milling end-points determined from the imaging) of a region of interest to an endpoint
[0031 Note imaging is performed for feedback, to determine future end-points for milling subsequent lamella] .
Regarding claim 13, MILLER discloses that directing the ion beam toward the second portion (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) of the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the
[0013 Note predetermined pattern milling time to deliver a specified dose of ion per area )
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose applying a variable dose comprises a variable dwell time.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose that comprises a variable dwell time, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 15, MILLER discloses that the
regarding claim 16, MILLER discloses that the
regarding claim 19, MILLER discloses that the doses [0028] [0029] [0031] [0044]
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose the variable/ doses [0028] [0029] [0031] [0044] vary linearly and/or non-linearly..
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying/different beam doses (inclusive of linear and non-linear varying) by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose/ an ion beam configured to apply different doses to different portions of the surface of the sample to reduce variation in thickness across the sample, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at various sample locations according to controller data (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, MILLER discloses that directing the ion beam toward the portion (of 302a, 302b of 202a, 202b) of the surface of the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the
[0013 Note predetermined pattern milling time to deliver a specified dose of ion per area )
But MILLER fails to explicitly disclose applying variable/different doses comprises a variable dwell time.
TAKIGAWA, however, discloses ion beam milling a sample and achieving a desired etching depth via controlling/varying the beam dose by controlling the ion gun, deflecting device and/or blanking device so as to apply different doses/vary the ion dose, acceleration voltage and/or etching time of the ion beam (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MILLER, with directing the ion beam toward the sample according to a variable dose/different doses that comprises use of a variable dwell time, as taught by TAKIGAWA, to use for achieving a desired etching depth at a location according to controller data (abstract).
2. Claim(s) 4 AND 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MILLER et al. (US 20200095688 A1) in view of TAKIGAWA et al. (EP 82639 A); hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 1 AND 11 above, and further in light of BLACKWOOD et al. (US 8134124 B2).
Regarding claim(s) 4, MILLER discloses wherein removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the variable dose (see TAKIGAWA, abstract for variable dose) [0028] [0029] [0031] [0044] comprises a
Regarding claim(s) 14, MILLER discloses wherein removing the second layer (of 302a, 302b) of material from the sample (718) comprises directing the ion beam in a pattern (fig. 4; of 402) [0038], and wherein the variable dose (see TAKIGAWA, abstract for variable dose) [0028] [0031] comprises a
But the combined references fail to disclose a variable angle between the ion beam and the sample at one or more positions of the pattern.
BLACKWOOD, however, discloses a variable angle between the ion beam and the sample at one or more positions of the pattern (col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with a variable angle between the ion beam and the sample at one or more positions of the pattern, as taught by BLACKWOOD, to use for undercutting a lamella on a sample (col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights