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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “proximity regions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“electron optical unit” in claims 1-3 and 16.
“removal device” in claims 1-3 and 16 interpreted to be a focused ion beam device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “electron optical unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As claimed, the electron optical unit is configured for passing an image of a specimen region of interest to a detection device. The specification does not provide any structure for the optical unit. The only drawing of the electron optical unit is shown in Fig. 1, where the unit is a column. A column is not sufficient structure for passing an image of a specimen to a detection device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. For the purposes of examination, the “electron optical unit” will be interpreted to be a lens barrel capable of irradiating an ion beam.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “wherein proximity regions of a window edge contour of the stop window of the stop are designed such that a minimum distance remains between the proximity regions and a specimen surface of the specimen during the measuring operation”. The specifications disclose this distance to be “The minimum distance can be at most 100 µm, at most 50 µm, at most 20 µm, at most 10 µm or also at most 1 µm. The minimum distance is regularly more than 0.2 µm” and “An upper limit for the minimum distance A can be 10 µm. This upper limit can be less, for example 8 µm, 5 µm, 3 µm or 1 µm. This upper limit is regularly more than 0.5 µm.” It is unclear what this minimum distance is. For the purposes of examination, the minimum distance will be interpreted to be between 0.2 µm and 100 µm.
Further, claims 8-10 and 17 refer to “proximity regions.” It is unclear what these regions are. For the purposes of examination, the proximity region will be interpreted to be the tip of the edge of the mask.
Claim 17 recites “wherein proximity regions of a window edge contour of the stop window of the stop are designed such that a minimum distance remains between the proximity regions and a specimen surface of the specimen during the measuring operation”. The specifications disclose this distance to be “The minimum distance can be at most 100 µm, at most 50 µm, at most 20 µm, at most 10 µm or also at most 1 µm. The minimum distance is regularly more than 0.2 µm” and “An upper limit for the minimum distance A can be 10 µm. This upper limit can be less, for example 8 µm, 5 µm, 3 µm or 1 µm. This upper limit is regularly more than 0.5 µm.” It is unclear what this minimum distance is. For the purposes of examination, the minimum distance will be interpreted to be between 0.2 µm and 100 µm.
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 1-3, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Toshiaki Fujii (US 20080224198 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fujii.
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches an electron microscope for examining a specimen, the electron microscope comprising:
an electron optical unit for passing an image of a specimen region of interest to a detection device (lens barrel 4),
a removal device (lens barrel 3) for removing material from the specimen, in the specimen region of interest, in preparation for imaging of the specimen region (The first ion Beam I1 is irradiated over the whole irradiation range 3a at one time, shielded by the mask 6, and a portion thereof passes through the through hole 6a to etch the sample S (para. [0041])),
a stop for separating the specimen region of interest from a specimen environment, wherein the stop is designed such that specimen material, which is generated during removal by the removal device and/or removal material used itself in the removal process, is prevented by the stop from depositing itself on the specimen environment (mask 6).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 1, wherein the stop is arranged in such a way that a measuring space above the specimen to be examined is divided into a processing space, in which the electron optical unit and the removal device are located, and a specimen space, in which the specimen is located (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 1, wherein the stop has a stop window (through hole 6a) via which the specimen region of interest is accessible to the removal device (The first ion beam lens barrel 3 is capable of irradiating the first ion beam I1 over a whole predetermined irradiation range 3a (para. [0036])) and the electron optical unit (At this moment, the control unit 10 drives the electron beam lens barrel 4 to scan the electron beam E near the edge end 6b of the through hole 6a and near the surface S1 of the sample (para. [0040])).
Regarding claim 12, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 1, wherein the stop is displaceable relative to the specimen (The mask 6 is provided with mask-moving means 7 enabling the mask 6 to be retracted from over the sample S (para. [0037])).
The stop being displaceable does not impose any structural limitations on the stop. Anything can be displaceable relative to something else using some method.
Regarding claim 13, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 1, wherein the stop has a plurality of stop portions which are displaceable for predefining a stop window size (By using the above mask-exchanging mechanism, the mask 6 can be exchanged with the mask 6s for exchange in the apparatus 1 for working and observing samples (para. [0048])).
The stops being displaceable does not impose any structural limitations on the stop. Anything can be displaceable relative to something else using some method.
Regarding claim 14, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 1, comprising a set of stops having different sizes of stop windows (In this case, the through hole 6a of the mask 6 is smaller than the range irradiated with the ion beam, and the mask is larger than the range irradiated with the ion beam. The mask 6A may be, for example, of nearly the shape of a plate as shown in FIG. 7B. Or, there may be used the plate-like mask 6B of the U-shape as shown in FIG. 7C (para. [0044])) (Fig. 7A-7C as annotated below).
Regarding claim 15, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 1, comprising a set of stops having a different basic position of the stop window relative to the specimen (Fig. 7A-7C as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
652
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 2, wherein the stop has a stop window (through hole 6a) via which the specimen region of interest is accessible to the removal device (The first ion beam lens barrel 3 is capable of irradiating the first ion beam I1 over a whole predetermined irradiation range 3a (para. [0036])) and the electron optical unit (At this moment, the control unit 10 drives the electron beam lens barrel 4 to scan the electron beam E near the edge end 6b of the through hole 6a and near the surface S1 of the sample (para. [0040])).
.
Regarding claim 18, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 2, wherein the stop is displaceable relative to the specimen (The mask 6 is provided with mask-moving means 7 enabling the mask 6 to be retracted from over the sample S (para. [0037])).
Regarding claim 19, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 2, wherein the stop has a plurality of stop portions which are displaceable for predefining a stop window size (By using the above mask-exchanging mechanism, the mask 6 can be exchanged with the mask 6s for exchange in the apparatus 1 for working and observing samples (para. [0048])).
Regarding claim 20, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of claim 2, comprising a set of stops having different sizes of stop windows (In this case, the through hole 6a of the mask 6 is smaller than the range irradiated with the ion beam, and the mask is larger than the range irradiated with the ion beam. The mask 6A may be, for example, of nearly the shape of a plate as shown in FIG. 7B. Or, there may be used the plate-like mask 6B of the U-shape as shown in FIG. 7C (para. [0044])) (Fig. 7A-7C as annotated above).
(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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Purushotham Kaushik Muther (US 11476120 B2), hereinafter referred to as Muther.
Regarding claim 1, Muther teaches an electron microscope for examining a specimen, the electron microscope comprising:
- an electron optical unit for passing an image of a specimen region of interest to a detection device (second ion gun 234) (A sample, e.g., semiconductor package 102 having a known failure, may be mounted on sample stage 202 below imaging system 222 and/or guns 230, 234. At operation 302, an inside of semiconductor package 102 may be imaged to determine ROI 120 (col. 7, lines 47-51)),
- a removal device for removing material from the specimen, in the specimen region of interest, in preparation for imaging of the specimen region (first ion gun 230),
- a stop for separating the specimen region of interest from a specimen environment,
- wherein the stop is designed such that specimen material, which is generated during removal by the removal device and/or removal material used itself in the removal process, is prevented by the stop from depositing itself on the specimen environment (mask 214).
Regarding claim 3, Muther teaches the electron microscope of Claim 1, wherein the stop has a stop window (mask window 219) via which the specimen region of interest is accessible to the removal device (first ion beam 232 may be projected toward mask window 219 by first ion gun 230 (col. 8, lines 61-62)) and the electron optical unit (second ion beam 236 may be projected toward mask window 219 by second ion gun 234 (col. 9, lines 65-66)).
Regarding claim 4, Muther teaches the electron microscope of Claim 3, wherein at least contact portions of a window edge contour of the stop window are in contact, via edge regions of the stop, with the specimen outside of the specimen region of interest (Mask 214 can be moved over (and in contact with) semiconductor package 102 to align a mask edge with ROI 120 based on the captured image (col. 7, lines 39-41)).
Regarding claim 5, Muther teaches the electron microscope of Claim 4, wherein the edge regions of the contact portions are designed as cutting edges which are in contact with the specimen during the measuring operation of the electron microscope (window edge 406).
The limitation “is designed as a cutting edge” does not impose any structure on the edge regions. Any edge, no matter how dull is capable of cutting depending on the material being cut.
Regarding claim 9, Muther teaches the electron microscope of Claim 4, wherein distances between the contact portions or between the proximity regions are adapted to a repetition period of structures on the specimen that is to be examined (Fig. 4F as annotated below).
The only structure imposed by claim 9 is a window that allows access to a region of interest.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Muther teaches the electron microscope of Claim 4, wherein the contact portions or the proximity regions seal off a measurement space, comprising the specimen region of interest, from an environment space which comprises a specimen environment outside of the specimen region of interest (Mask holder 216 may move mask 214 to align a window edge with ROI 120 in semiconductor package 102, as described below (col 4, lines 37-39)).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emmerich Bertagnolli (US 20100024730 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bertagnolli.
Regarding claim 1, an electron microscope for examining a specimen, the electron microscope comprising:
- an electron optical unit for passing an image of a specimen region of interest to a detection device (electron beam column 10a),
- a removal device for removing material from the specimen, in the specimen region of interest, in preparation for imaging of the specimen region (ion beam column 20a for generating an ion beam 21a (para. [0046])),
- a stop for separating the specimen region of interest from a specimen environment,
- wherein the stop is designed such that specimen material, which is generated during removal by the removal device and/or removal material used itself in the removal process, is prevented by the stop from depositing itself on the specimen environment (Fig. 1A as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
334
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertagnolli, in view of, Muther.
Regarding claim 3, Bertagnolli does not explicitly teach the electron microscope of Claim 1, wherein the stop has a stop window via which the specimen region of interest is accessible to the removal device and the electron optical unit.
However, Muther teaches wherein the stop has a stop window (mask window 219) via which the specimen region of interest is accessible to the removal device (first ion beam 232 may be projected toward mask window 219 by first ion gun 230 (col. 8, lines 61-62)) and the electron optical unit (second ion beam 236 may be projected toward mask window 219 by second ion gun 234 (col. 9, lines 65-66)).
To be clear, Bertagnolli teaches two separate windows for the removal device and optical unit respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Bertagnolli to include the teachings of Muther by using one window to provide access to the region of interest to both the removal device and the electron optical unit. Doing so simplifies stop construction.
Regarding claim 4, the electron microscope of Claim 3, wherein at least contact portions of a window edge contour of the stop window are in contact, via edge regions of the stop, with the specimen outside of the specimen region of interest (Thereby, the front face of the corresponding contacting processing chamber wall may for example comprise elastic materials, such as rubber seals (para. [0059])).
Regarding claim 7, Bertagnolli teaches wherein the edge regions have a flexural hinge (he third wall portion may for example comprise an elastic, flexible material (para. [0038])).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muther, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Bertagnolli.
Regarding claim 6, Muther does not explicitly teach the electron microscope of Claim 4, wherein the edge regions of the contact portions are designed as sealing edges which touch the specimen non-destructively during the measuring operation.
However, Bertagnolli explicitly teaches the electron microscope of Claim 4, wherein the edge regions of the contact portions are designed as sealing edges which touch the specimen non-destructively during the measuring operation (Thereby, the front face of the corresponding contacting processing chamber wall may for example comprise elastic materials, such as rubber seals (para. [0059])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Muther such that the contact portions are elastic, and therefore non-destructive. Doing so provides an effective seal while keeping the sample in tact for further imaging.
Regarding claim 11, Muther fails to teach the electron microscope of Claim 10, comprising a gas source via which the environment space is kept at a pressure higher than a pressure in the measurement space.
However, Bertagnolli teaches comprising a gas source (A gas supply not illustrated in the FIGS. 4a and 4b due to the sectional view is adapted, to supply process gas or process gases (para. [0077])) via which the environment space is kept at a pressure higher than a pressure in the measurement space (A partial pressure of the process gas within the processing chamber 45b thereby may be a factor of greater than 2, in particular greater than 5, further in particular greater than 20, higher than a partial pressure of the process gas in the vacuum chamber 2b (para. [0065])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Muther to include the teachings of Bertagnolli by including a gas source via which an environment space is kept at a pressure higher than a pressure in the measurement space. “This enables advantageously processing the object by activating the process gas using for example the ion beam (Bertagnolli; para. [0080]).”
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Hartmut Enkisch (DE 102007014092 A1), hereinafter referred to as Enkisch.
Regarding claim 8, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of Claim 1, wherein proximity regions of a window edge contour of the stop window of the stop are designed such that a distance remains between the proximity regions and a specimen surface of the specimen during the measuring operation, so that the stop does not touch the specimen (In practice, however, the mask 6 is very close to the surface of the sample S, and an intersecting point P is close to the surface of the sample (para. [0036])).
Fujii does not teach the specific “minimum distance” described in the specifications and interpreted under 112(b) above.
However, Enkisch teaches wherein proximity regions of a window edge contour of the stop window of the stop are designed such that a distance remains between the proximity regions and a specimen surface of the specimen during the measuring operation, so that the stop does not touch the specimen (It is preferred if the distance is less than about 2 mm and particularly preferred if the distance is less than about 1 mm (para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Fujii to include the teachings of Enkisch such that the mask is a minimum distance from the specimen surface. Doing so reduces the portion of the mask which is not shadowed by the substrate to a minimum.
Regarding claim 17, Fujii teaches the electron microscope of Claim 2, wherein proximity regions of a window edge contour of the stop window of the stop are designed such that a distance remains between the proximity regions and a specimen surface of the specimen during the measuring operation, so that the stop does not touch the specimen (In practice, however, the mask 6 is very close to the surface of the sample S, and an intersecting point P is close to the surface of the sample (para. [0036])).
Fujii does not teach the specific “minimum distance” described in the specifications and interperteted under 112(b) above.
However, Enkisch teaches wherein proximity regions of a window edge contour of the stop window of the stop are designed such that a distance remains between the proximity regions and a specimen surface of the specimen during the measuring operation, so that the stop does not touch the specimen (It is preferred if the distance is less than about 2 mm and particularly preferred if the distance is less than about 1 mm (para. [0012])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Fujii to include the teachings of Enkisch such that the mask is a minimum distance from the specimen surface. Doing so reduces the portion of the mask which is not shadowed by the substrate to a minimum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights