DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species III in the reply filed on 14 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species do not refer to different embodiments of the invention. This is not found persuasive. With respect to claims 2/16 and 3/17 the remarks point to paragraph [0064] which teaches the control signals can be applied to “one or both of the electron beam column 102 and the stage 110”. This clearly suggests three different embodiments (1) control signals applied to the beam column, (2) control signals applied to the stage and (3) control signals applied to both the stage. The remarks take the position that the duty cycle values recited in claims 4/5 are not mutually exclusive to the drift compensations of 2/3 or 16/17. This has not been found persuasive as the duty cycles of claims 4/5 are with respect to the drift compensation of a blanker, which is different from the drift compensations of the column optics or the stage. With respect to all species, it is noted that each of the specified paragraphs recites “In some examples of any of the above methods…” clearly demonstrating that each of the species was envisioned as being mutually exclusively to compensate for drift in separate ways.
It is noted, if the generic claim is found allowable, the withdrawn claims will be subject to rejoinder as discussed in MPEP 821.04(a).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (CN 117291839) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Ding et al. teach a method performed via a computing device (n0029) for providing support to a charged particle beam system ([n0005]), the method comprising:
computing a drift estimate based at least in part on a first set of image frames (n0008 teaches obtain the scanned image sequence of the sample to be tested, wherein paragraphs [n0009]-[n0011] teaches based on the scan image sequence and a reference scan image a dynamic displacement function is determined which is used to “predict displacement of the sample”, which is used to obtain a drift compensated scan image ([n0012]). That is, the prediction is the drift estimate from an image sequence (set of frames)) acquired with a charged particle beam column and a detector from a first portion of a sample (paragraph [n0055] teaches images acquired with an electron microscope, thus requiring a beam column and a detector from a portion of the sample);
configuring the charged particle beam column and the detector to acquire a second set of image frames from a second portion of the sample ([n0058] teaches the electron beam is offset so that the image to be compensated is aligned with the reference area of the reference image. That is, for the images of the image sequence to be compensated the electron beam is deflected so as to be offset so that the image may be compensated, therefore for more than one image of the image sequence that needs compensation the beam column is configured with the detector to acquire a second set of image frames from a portion of the sample that is different from the first portion because the irradiation position is compensated by deflection and then detected with the detector (i.e. the first image sequence is non-compensated, thus the second image sequence is compensated by deflection)); and
performing drift compensation during acquisition of the second set of image frames ([n0058]-[n0059] teaches performing offset compensation by deflecting the beam, see also paragraph [n0012]) based at least in part on the drift estimate ([n0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Ding et al. teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (n0029).
Claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 and therefore rejected as discussed in the citations above.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US pgPub 2023/0238207).
Regarding claim 1, Deng et al. teach a method performed via a computing device (abstract) for providing support to a charged particle beam system (abstract), the method comprising:
computing a drift estimate based at least in part on a first set of image frames ([0022] “ image drift of the sample is sufficiently rapid in relation to the image acquisition process involving imaging, stage movement, and associated settling such that the drift analysis tool 118 and settling time parameter value 120 can be applied to a current imaging location….image sequences collected from principal or intended sets of images or an auxiliary image stacks may be used. In selected examples, the drift analysis tool 118 can be used to estimate the settling time parameter value 120 based on a collection of drift images before movement of the sample 108 has sufficiently ceased for acquisition of the process image.”) acquired with a charged particle beam column and a detector from a first portion of a sample (an electron microscope inherently has a column and detector which the images are collected);
configuring the charged particle beam column and the detector to acquire a second set of image frames from a second portion of the sample ([0029] teaches parameter values may be adjusted based on estimations for instance various optical components of the microscope, thus additional images from electron microscope are on a second portion of the sample (i.e. the correct portion)); and
performing drift compensation during acquisition of the second set of image frames based at least in part on the drift estimate ([0029] adjustment of parameters based on estimations to correct for drift pattern predictions, therefore all images taken after first image sequence are based on the drift output).
Regarding claim 14, Deng et al. teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 ([0032]).
Claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 and therefore rejected as discussed in the citations above.
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(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. or Deng in view of Tiemeijer et al. (US pgPub 20240055222) or alternatively in view of Wong (Wong et al., Charging control using pulsed SEM, scanning, 1994)(copy of publication submitted herewith).
Regarding claims 4-5, Ding teaches a continuous sequence of images and Deng teaches correcting outputs of microscope components based on predictions ([0029]), however, Ding and Deng fails to disclose modulating a beam of charged particles directed to the sample via the charged particle beam column in accordance with a pulsed gating signal; wherein the pulsed gating signal is configured to have a first duty cycle value when the beam is directed to the first portion of the sample and a different second duty cycle value when the beam is directed to the second portion of the sample.
However, Tiemeijer et al. teaches modulating a beam of charged particles directed to the sample via the charged particle beam column in accordance with a pulsed gating signal ([0027] teaches a beam blanker, thus modulating the beam of charged particles to the sample, wherein a beam blanker operates via a pulsed gating signal in order to turn on and off the beam, see paragraph [0023] for duty cycle of shutter modulated BCD); wherein the pulsed gating signal is configured to have a first duty cycle value when the beam is directed to the first portion of the sample and a different second duty cycle value when the beam is directed to of the sample ([0023] where first images have a first duty cycle and increasing the duty cycle in later images).
Tiemeijer et al. modifies Ding or Deng by suggesting implementation of a blanker in the scanning electron microscope such that during the image sequences.
Since both inventions are directed towards electron microscopes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the blanking modulation according to the duty cycle of Tiemeijer et al. in the device of Ding or Deng because it would ensure that the detector was not damaged due to excessive exposure ([0014]).
While the combined device fails to expressly teach application of the second duty cycle during the second position on the sample suggested in Ding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the duty cycle in the second compensated images of Ding because it would improve the beam signal for the image compensated beam, therefore allowing for the maximum signal without damaging the sensor while generating drift compensated images to evaluate the sample.
Alternatively, Wong et al. teach modulating a beam of charged particles directed to the sample via the charged particle beam column in accordance with a pulsed gating signal (page 312, right column, first paragraph under description of new technique teaches a conventional SEM with a beam blanker, synchronized to the image acquisition subsystem, wherein a blanker requires pulsed gating to pulse the beam on and off); wherein the pulsed gating signal is configured to have a first duty cycle value when the beam is directed to the first portion of the sample (page 315, left column, first two paragraphs under “subtle charging artifacts” teaches a sequence of frames stored at fixed intervals of time and number of electrons per pixel could be controlled by the duty cycle, the following paragraph teaches A a duty cycle of 7.6%. Since 9 frames are taken for each test condition (duty cycle (see third paragraph of the same section)) and the number of electrons per pixel are controlled the first 9 frames are of different pixels (first portion) at the first duty cycle) and a different second duty cycle value to the second portion of the sample when the beam is directed to of the sample (“b” has a different duty cycle of 22.7%, wherein since the number of electrons per pixel are controlled by the duty cycle, this is of the second region).
Since Ding or Deng and Wong are directed towards correcting drift, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding or Deng to include the blanker with the disclosed duty cycles for different regions of Ding or Deng because the blanker allows for the control of the number of electrons deposited on the sample therefore providing control over minimizing the amount of drift from sample charge up (see page 313, first sentence of first full paragraph in left column) and changing the duty cycle provides for an evaluation to which the degree of image shift and the amount of charge deposited by beam current and duty cycle. Therefore, controlling the duty cycle as suggested in Wong would facilitate an optimization of duty cycle to minimize image drift in the image sequencies of Ding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2003007247 JPH07272665 both teach automatic drift correction systems based on images collected from an electron microscope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights