DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 30 July 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
4. Applicant argues on pg. 11 that Cho does not teach or suggest that a pulsed electron beam overlaps an excitation light. The argument is not persuasive. “Overlapping” limitation is not relied upon from Cho alone. Yasufuku teaches that while an insulating sample is irradiated with excitation light, the charged-neutralized electron is irradiated onto the sample surface simultaneously with the excitation light (pg. 2 teaches simultaneously with the excitation light,
by adjusting the electron optical conditions of the beam deflector or beam separator, the charged neutralized electron beam is irradiated onto the sample surface).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “overlapping the excitation light” reads on an electron beam that irradiates the same region of the sample that is irradiated by the excitation light. The interpretation is supported in pg. 5 of the instant application (pg. 5 teaches that “control is performed such that irradiation positions of the excitation light 2 and the pulsed electron beam 13 are matched”). Cho meets the interpretation of spatial overlap.
Accordingly, the ”overlapping” limitation is taught under either a temporal or a spatial reading.
5. Applicant argues on pg. 11 that Cho is merely a measurement parameter in pump-probe spectroscopy, and does not embody the concept of a control unit actively setting a predetermined timing based on a start of irradiation of excitation light. Cho teaches that the electron pulse follows the optical pulse by a selected time delay. A selected time delay measured from the optical pulse is a predetermined time elapsed since the start of irradiation of the excitation light. The reason Cho selects the delay does not change what Cho teaches. The control unit configured to control the start of the pulsed electron beam irradiation is taught by Talbot (fig. 7, col 9 lines 28-50). Therefore, the combination of Talbot’s control system with Cho’s predetermined delay teaches a control unit configured to start the pulsed electron beam irradiation after a predetermined time has elapsed since the start of the excitation light irradiation.
6. Applicant argues on pg. 12 that Cho does not teach or suggest any particular timing for starting capture by the detector. The argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites to control a start of capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter. The limitation is broad.
Because the image-forming signal in Cho is generated by the electron pulse, that signal does not exist before the electron pulse irradiates the specimen. Capture of the image formed by that signal therefore necessarily begins at the time of the start of the electron-pulse irradiation or thereafter. This is not a mere possibility or probability. It follows necessarily from the causal order Cho describes, in which detection of electron-pulse-induced emission cannot precede the electron pulse.
7. Applicant argues on pg. 13 that Cho is directed to a S-UEM and Applicant’s claimed invention is a photoelectron emission microscope. The argument is not persuasive. The base apparatus of the rejection is Yasufuku’s PEEM, which already images photoelectrons while being irradiated with a neutralizing electron beam. Cho is relied on for the teaching that the interval between optical excitation and electron-pulse arrival is controllable variable affecting contrast. The motivation is setting a controlled delay for the sample to reach a desired excitation and charge state before electron irradiation and imaging, thereby optimizing image contrast, supported by Cho pg. 2095. The motivation is the exact problem identified by the instant application (pg. 2 technical problem teaches the problem to obtain a photoelectron image having desired contrast, it is necessary to set the sample in a predetermined charged state).
8. Applicant argues on pg. 14 that there is a fundamental difference in technical field and purpose between Talbot and Applicant’s claimed PEEM. The argument is not persuasive. Talbot is directed to imaging a sample with a charged particle beam while a flood electron beam controls sample surface charge, which is the identical problem Yasufuku encounters (Yasufuku abstract teaches the problem to be solved is to obtain a clear electronic image by suppressing charge on a sample). In addition, the instant application teaches the same problem (pg. 2 technical problem teaches the need for maintaining the charged state during an imaging period).
9. Applicant argues on pg. 15 that Yasufuku already teaches a neutralizing electron beam source, and the charging issue is already resolved, and accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to add Talbot’s flood gun to Yasufuk’s apparatus. The argument is not persuasive. The modification is not the addition of a second gun. The modification is to incorporate Talbot’s blanker-and-control-logic technique to Yasufuku’s existing neutralizing electron beam so that the beam is pulsed with time control. The motivation provided by Talbot is to resolve image degradation from sample charging by taking consideration such factors as charge dissipation from the die and consequent degradation of the voltage contrast data.
10. Applicant argues on pg. 15 that references from four separate technical field are used in making the rejection, and that hindsight reconstruction is applied. The argument is not persuasive. All four references are directed to charged-particle-beam imaging and electron optics. The rationale relied upon is drawn from the references themselves, not from Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yasufuku (JP 2007165155A) in view of Talbot (US 6091249), further in view of Cho, J., Hwang, T. Y., & Zewail, A. H. (2014). Visualization of carrier dynamics in p(n)-type GaAs by scanning ultrafast electron microscopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(6), 2094-2099. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400138111 (hereinafter referred as Cho). [Note: references are supplied in previous correspondence]
7. Regarding claim 1:
Yasufuku discloses a photoelectron emission microscope (pg. 2 teaches a radiant electron microscope typified by a photoelectron microscope) comprising:
an excitation optical system including an excitation light source configured to irradiate a sample with excitation light (Pg. 2 teaches an excitation light source 21 as a light source that is irradiated along the path 80 of the excitation light beam onto the surface of the sample 11);
a camera configured to capture a photoelectron image by a photoelectron emitted from the sample irradiated with the excitation light (pg. 2 teaches X-rays and ultraviolet rays can be applied to the sample 11, and electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens and CCD camera 7 via detector 71);
an image formation electron optical system including an objective lens configured to focus the photoelectron on a detection surface of the camera (pg. 2 teaches electron lens systems 41-51, objective lens 41. Pg. 3 teaches that the electron trajectory of the imaging photoelectrons that the photoelectrons emitted from the sample 11 draw for imaging on the image plane 100 via the objective lens 41. Pg. 2 teaches electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens and CCD camera 7 via detector 71); an electron beam source configured to irradiate the sample with an electron beam in a manner of overlapping the excitation light (pg. 2 teaches a neutralized electron beam source that irradiates the surface of the sample. Pg. 1 teaches that wherein the sample surface is irradiated with a light beam for suppressing charging simultaneously with the excitation light);
an irradiation electron optical system including an electron gun or photoexcited electron source (pg. 2 teaches a neutralized electron beam source (electron gun)).
Yasufuku does not specify the irradiation electron optical system configured to irradiate the sample with a pulsed electron beam; and a control unit.
However, Talbot teaches an irradiation electron optical system configured to irradiate the sample with a pulsed electron beam (column 8 lines 54-67 teaches that the flood gun has a control system and blanker. Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer);
and a control unit including a processor and a storage (column 6 lines 1-8 teaches a computer including a database and a control system with control electronics and processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot to include an irradiation electron optical system configured to irradiate the sample with a pulsed electron beam; and a control unit. Such modification would allow for enhancing electrons detection (Talbot col 3 lines 18-23) and resolving image degradation from sample charging by taking consideration such factors as charge dissipation from the die and consequent degradation of the voltage contrast data (as taught in Talbot col 3 lines column 8 lines 42-48).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot fails to disclose that wherein the control unit is configured to control a start of irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system in a manner of overlapping the excitation light after predetermined time has elapsed since start of irradiation of the excitation light performed by the excitation optical system, and the control unit is further configured to control a start of capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter.
Cho does not specifically teach the control unit. However, Cho teaches starting irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system in a manner of overlapping the excitation light (pg. 2094 teaches electron pulses generated from a field-emission gun. pg. 2095 fig. 1 teaches that the electron pulses scanned over a specimen that is illuminated with an optical pulse. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, overlapping means that the electron beam hits the same physical area that the excitation light hits) after predetermined time has elapsed since start of irradiation of the excitation light performed by the excitation optical system (pg. 2095 teaches various time delays between the optical and the electron pulse. Pg. 2094 teaches that at positive times, the electron pulse follows the optical pulse. To produce an optical pulse, one inherently needs an excitation optical system that includes a light source), and starting capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter (pg. 2094 teaches electron pulses generated from a field-emission gun. pg. 2095 teaches that the optical pulse promotes electrons, and after that the electron pulse excites the emitted electrons from the material were measured using a detector, and UEM images are acquired. To detect the emitted electron, one inherently needs to start capturing with the detector at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam or thereafter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include that wherein the control unit controls to start irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system in a manner of overlapping the excitation light after predetermined time has elapsed since start of irradiation of the excitation light performed by the excitation optical system, and controls to start capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter. Such modification would allow for an enhanced bright contrast SE emission (as taught in Cho pg. 2095).
8. Regarding claim 2:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 1. Yasufuku further discloses that wherein the image formation electron optical system includes a beam separator (pg. 2 teaches electron lens systems 41-51, objective lens 41. The neutralizing electron beam can be irradiated to the surface of the sample 11 along the path (imaging optical axis) 90 of the imaging beam by the beam separator 61), and the beam separator is configured to cause the photoelectron from the sample to travel toward the camera (pg. 2 teaches electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens systems 41-51. 43, 44, 45, projection electron optical system beam deflectors 46, 47, 48, 49, projection electron optical system stigmeters 50, 51), and CCD camera 7 via detector 71).
Yasufuku fails to disclose that the beam separator is configured to cause the pulsed electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system to travel toward the sample.
However, Talbot teaches that the beam separator (Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, bending lens, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, beam separator is interpreted as the component that deflect and direct electron beam. The bending lens alignment deflectors correspond to the beam separator) is configured to cause the pulsed electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system (column 8 lines 54-67 teaches that the flood gun has a control system and blanker. Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam) to travel toward the sample (Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, bending lens, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include that the beam separator is configured to cause the pulsed electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system to travel toward the sample. Such modification would allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer (as taught in Talbot column 9).
9. Regarding claim 3:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 1. Yasufuku further teaches the image formation electron optical system (pg. 2 teaches electron lens systems 41-51, objective lens 41. Pg. 3 teaches that the electron trajectory of the imaging photoelectrons that the photoelectrons emitted from the sample 11 draw for imaging on the image plane 100 via the objective lens 41. Pg. 2 teaches electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens and CCD camera 7 via detector 71).
Yasufuku fails to disclose a blanker configured to pulse a photoelectron incident on the camera, and during a period in which the sample is irradiated with the electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system, the control unit is configured to perform synchronous control such that the blanker blocks incidence of the photoelectron on the camera.
Talbot does not specifically teach pulsing a photoelectron. However, Talbot teaches a blanker configured to pulse an electron incident on the camera (column 9 lines 55-58 teaches that during charging control intervals, the secondary electron bind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630. As shown in fig. 7 the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on and off, which corresponds to pulsing an electron incident on the camera), and during a period in which the sample is irradiated with the electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system (column 8 lines 54-67 teaches that the flood gun has a control system and blanker. Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer) , the control unit is configured to perform synchronous control such that the blanker blocks incidence of the electron on the camera (Column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system to synchronize the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer. During charging control intervals, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include a blanker configured to pulse a photoelectron incident on the camera, and during a period in which the sample is irradiated with the electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system, the control unit is configured to perform synchronous control such that the blanker blocks incidence of the photoelectron on the camera. Although Talbot does not teach a system for photoelectron emission, Yasufuku discloses a system for photoelectron emission. The synchronous system of Talbot can be adapted to the system of Yasufuku. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer and preventing secondary electron from overwhelming the detector (as taught in Talbot column 9).
10. Regarding claim 4:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 1. Yasufuku fails to disclose that wherein the irradiation electron optical system irradiates the sample with a planar pulsed electron beam.
However, Talbot teaches that wherein the irradiation electron optical system irradiates the sample (column 8 lines 54-67 teaches that the flood gun has a control system and blanker. Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer) with a planar pulsed electron beam (under broadest reasonable interpretation, the planar pulsed beam is interpreted to be a beam with a flat profile. Column 11 lines 50-55 teaches a flood beam with elongated cross-section is produced, corresponding to the planar pulsed electron beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include that wherein the irradiation electron optical system irradiates the sample with the planar pulsed electron beam. Such modification would allow for uniform flood coverage at the wafer surface (as taught in Talbot column 11 lines 50-55).
11. Regarding claim 5:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 1. Yasufuku fails to disclose that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera, and the imaging conditions are determined based on a contrast of the photoelectron image.
Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light. However, Talbot teaches that that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the electron image (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system), a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam (Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. As shown in fig. 7, the control logic includes a pulse width, and a pulse interval of the pulsed electron beam because the control lines explicitly show the signal time and duration of the control. Pulse width and pulse interval are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be the duration of on and off signals for the pulse cycle. Column 6 lines 29-45 teaches that the spot size and beam current are both adjusted to provide the desired current density to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest of the wafer), a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera (as shown in fig. 7 the secondary electrons blind is switched off after some delay when the primary beam is started initially), and imaging time of the camera, and the imaging conditions are determined based on contrast of the electron image (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the control logic includes controlling the time sequence, including the imaging time when the secondary electrons blind is switched on and off so that the secondary electrons can reach detector. Column 6 lines 29-45 teaches that the spot size and beam current are both adjusted to provide the desired current density to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest of the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot to include that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera, and the imaging conditions are determined based on a contrast of the photoelectron image. Even though Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light, Yasufuku discloses the photoelectron emission system and excitation light. One of ordinary skill in the art can adapt the timing sequence control and the imaging conditions as taught in Talbot into the photoelectron emission system in Yasufuku. Such modification would allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer, preventing secondary electron from overwhelming the detector (as taught in Talbot column 9 lines 51-67), and adjusting conditions to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest (as taught in Talbot column 6 lines 29-45).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot fails to disclose a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam.
However, Cho teaches a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam (pg. 2095 teaches various time delays between the optical and the electron pulse. Pg. 2094 teaches that at positive times, the electron pulse follows the optical pulse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam. Such modification would allow for an enhanced bright contrast SE emission (as taught in Cho pg. 2095).
12. Regarding claim 6:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 3. Yasufuku fails to disclose that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a pulse width of the photoelectron, a pulse phase of the photoelectron, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera, and the imaging conditions are determined based on a contrast of the photoelectron image.
Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light. However, Talbot teaches that that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the electron image (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system), a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam (Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. As shown in fig. 7, the control logic includes a pulse width, and a pulse interval of the pulsed electron beam because the control lines explicitly show the signal time and duration of the on and off control. Pulse width and pulse interval are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be the duration of on and off signals for the pulse cycle. Column 6 lines 29-45 teaches that the spot size and beam current are both adjusted to provide the desired current density to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest of the wafer), a pulse width of the electron, a pulse phase of the electron (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the control logic includes controlling the secondary-electron blind to switch it on and off to control the pulse width of the secondary electron reaching the detector. Column 9 lines 28-67 teaches a beam-switching control signal for alternating between the primary beam and the flood beam. The control unit shifts the timing, which corresponds to the pulse phase, of the secondary electrons blind (line 735) relative to the beam blanker), delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera (as shown in fig. 7 the secondary electrons blind is switched off after some delay when the primary beam is started initially), and an imaging time of the camera, and the imaging conditions are determined based on a contrast of the electron image (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the control logic includes controlling the time sequence, including the imaging time when the secondary electrons blind is switched on and off so that the secondary electrons can reach detector. Column 6 lines 29-45 teaches that the spot size and beam current are both adjusted to provide the desired current density to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest of the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot to include that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a pulse width of the photoelectron, a pulse phase of the photoelectron, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera, and the imaging conditions are determined based on a contrast of the photoelectron image. Even though Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light, Yasufuku discloses the photoelectron emission system and excitation light. One of ordinary skill in the art can adapt the timing sequence control and the imaging conditions as taught in Talbot into the photoelectron emission system in Yasufuku. Such modification would allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer, preventing secondary electron from overwhelming the detector (as taught in Talbot column 9 lines 51-67), and adjusting conditions to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest (as taught in Talbot column 6 lines 29-45).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot fails to disclose a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam.
However, Cho teaches a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam (pg. 2095 teaches various time delays between the optical and the electron pulse. Pg. 2094 teaches that at positive times, the electron pulse follows the optical pulse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam. Such modification would allow for an enhanced bright contrast SE emission (as taught in Cho pg. 2095).
13. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda (WO 2022070311 A1).
14. Regarding claim 7:
Yasufuku discloses a photoelectron emission microscope (pg. 2 teaches a radiant electron microscope typified by a photoelectron microscope) comprising:
an excitation optical system including an excitation light source configured to irradiate a sample with excitation light (pg. 2 teaches an excitation light source 21 as a light source that is irradiated along the path 80 of the excitation light beam onto the surface of the sample 11);
a camera configured to capture a photoelectron image by a photoelectron emitted from the sample irradiated with the excitation light (pg. 2 teaches X-rays and ultraviolet rays can be applied to the sample 11, and electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens and CCD camera 7 via detector 71);
an image formation electron optical system including an objective lens configured to focus the photoelectron on a detection surface of the camera (pg. 2 teaches electron lens systems 41-51, objective lens 41. Pg. 3 teaches that the electron trajectory of the imaging photoelectrons that the photoelectrons emitted from the sample 11 draw for imaging on the image plane 100 via the objective lens 41. Pg. 2 teaches electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens and CCD camera 7 via detector 71); an irradiation electron optical system including an electron gun or a photoexcited electron source (pg. 2 teaches a neutralized electron beam source (electron gun)).
Yasufuku fails to disclose the irradiation electron optical system configured to irradiate the sample with a pulsed electron beam; a control unit.
However, Talbot teaches an irradiation electron optical system configured to irradiate the sample with a pulsed electron beam (Column 8 lines 54-67 teaches that the flood gun has a control system and blanker. Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer);
and a control unit including a processor and a storage (Column 6 lines 1-8 teaches a computer including a database and a control system with control electronics and processor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot to include the irradiation electron optical system configured to irradiate the sample with a pulsed electron beam; and a control unit including a processor and a storage. Such modification would allow for enhancing electrons detection (Talbot col 3 lines 18-23) and resolving image degradation from sample charging by taking consideration such factors as charge dissipation from the die and consequent degradation of the voltage contrast data (as taught in Talbot col 3 lines column 8 lines 42-48).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot fails to disclose that wherein the control unit is configured to control a start of irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system in a manner of overlapping the excitation light after predetermined time has elapsed since start of irradiation of the excitation light performed by the excitation optical system, and control unit is further configured to control a start of capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter.
Cho does not specifically teach the control unit. However, Cho teaches starting irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system in a manner of overlapping the excitation light (pg. 2094 teaches electron pulses generated from a field-emission gun. pg. 2095 fig. 1 teaches that the electron pulses scanned over a specimen that is illuminated with an optical pulse. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, overlapping means that the electron beam hits the same physical area that the excitation light hits) after predetermined time has elapsed since start of irradiation of the excitation light performed by the excitation optical system (pg. 2095 teaches various time delays between the optical and the electron pulse. Pg. 2094 teaches that at positive times, the electron pulse follows the optical pulse. To produce an optical pulse, one inherently needs an excitation optical system that includes a light source), and starting capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter (pg. 2094 teaches electron pulses generated from a field-emission gun. pg. 2095 teaches that the optical pulse promotes electrons, and after that the electron pulse excites the emitted electrons from the material were measured using a detector, and UEM images are acquired. To detect the emitted electron, one inherently needs to start capturing with the detector at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho to include that wherein the control unit is configured to control a start of irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system in a manner of overlapping the excitation light after predetermined time has elapsed since start of irradiation of the excitation light performed by the excitation optical system, and the control unit is further configured to control a start of capturing the photoelectron image performed by the camera at the time of the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam performed by the irradiation electron optical system or thereafter. Such modification would allow for an enhanced bright contrast SE emission (as taught in Cho pg. 2095).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho fails to disclose a GUI device, and the GUI device is configured to display imaging conditions of the photoelectron image together with the photoelectron image acquired by the camera, and to display a recipe setting screen on which the imaging conditions are adjusted.
However, Takeda teaches a GUI device, and the GUI device is configured to display imaging conditions of the photoelectron image together with the photoelectron image acquired by the camera, and to display a recipe setting screen on which the imaging conditions are adjusted (pg. 5 teaches that the image processing unit 15 generates a secondary electronic image based on the detection signal collected by detector. Pg. 5 teaches that the image display unit 16 displays various images such as secondary electronic images, and also provides a display screen with a GUI for the operation of the charged particle beam device 1 by the user U1. The user U1 can perform various settings, operate the mechanism, and the like while looking at the display screen. Pg. 9 teaches that the image display unit 16 displays the photoelectron image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda to include a GUI device, and the GUI device is configured to display imaging conditions of the photoelectron image together with the photoelectron image acquired by the camera, and to display a recipe setting screen on which the imaging conditions are adjusted. Such modification would allow for displaying photoelectron image (as taught in Takeda pg. 9) and the user can perform various settings and the like while looking at the display screen (as taught in Takeda pg. 5).
15. Regarding claim 8:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 7. Yasufuku fails to disclose that wherein the imaging conditions of the photoelectron image include a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera.
Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light. However, Talbot teaches that that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the electron image (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system), a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam (Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. As shown in fig. 7, the control logic includes a pulse width, and a pulse interval of the pulsed electron beam because the control lines explicitly show the signal time and duration of the control. Pulse width and pulse interval are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be the duration of on and off signals for the pulse cycle. Column 6 lines 29-45 teaches that the spot size and beam current are both adjusted to provide the desired current density to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest of the wafer), a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera (as shown in fig. 7 the secondary electrons blind is switched off after some delay when the primary beam is started initially), and an imaging time of the camera (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the control logic includes controlling the time sequence, including the imaging time when the secondary electrons blind is switched on and off so that the secondary electrons can reach detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot to include that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera. Even though Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light, Yasufuku discloses the photoelectron emission system and excitation light. One of ordinary skill in the art can adapt the timing sequence control and the imaging conditions as taught in Talbot into the photoelectron emission system in Yasufuku. Such modification would allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer, preventing secondary electron from overwhelming the detector (as taught in Talbot column 9 lines 51-67), and adjusting conditions to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest (as taught in Talbot column 6 lines 29-45).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot fails to disclose a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam.
However, Cho teaches a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam (pg. 2095 teaches various time delays between the optical and the electron pulse. Pg. 2094 teaches that at positive times, the electron pulse follows the optical pulse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda to include a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam. Such modification would allow for an enhanced bright contrast SE emission (as taught in Cho pg. 2095).
16. Regarding claim 9:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 7. Yasufuku further discloses that the image formation electron optical system (pg. 2 teaches electron lens systems 41-51, objective lens 41. Pg. 3 teaches that the electron trajectory of the imaging photoelectrons that the photoelectrons emitted from the sample 11 draw for imaging on the image plane 100 via the objective lens 41. Pg. 2 teaches electrons emitted from the sample 11 are converted into electron lens and CCD camera 7 via detector 71).
Yasufuku fails to disclose a blanker configured to pulse a photoelectron incident on the camera, and during a period in which the sample is irradiated with the electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system, the control unit is configured to perform synchronous control such that the blanker blocks an incidence of the photoelectron on the camera.
Talbot does not specifically teach pulsing a photoelectron. However, Talbot teaches a blanker configured to pulse an electron incident on the camera (column 9 lines 55-58 teaches that during charging control intervals, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630. As shown in fig. 7 the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on and off, which corresponds to pulsing an electron incident on the camera), and during a period in which the sample is irradiated with the electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system (column 8 lines 54-67 teaches that the flood gun has a control system and blanker. Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. Column 10 lines 31-54 teaches that the flood beam from flood gun passes through various optical elements, alignment deflectors, through an Einzel lens, to flood a region on the surface of wafer), the control unit performs synchronous control such that the blanker blocks incidence of the electron on the camera (Column 9 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system to synchronize the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer. during charging control intervals, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda to include a blanker configured to pulse a photoelectron incident on the camera, and during a period in which the sample is irradiated with the electron beam from the irradiation electron optical system, the control unit is configured to perform synchronous control such that the blanker blocks an incidence of the photoelectron on the camera. Although Talbot does not teach a system for photoelectron emission, Yasufuku discloses a system for photoelectron emission. The synchronous system of Talbot can be adapted to the system of Yasufuku. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer and preventing secondary electron from overwhelming the detector (as taught in Talbot column 9 lines 51-67).
Regarding claim 10:
Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda discloses the photoelectron emission microscope according to claim 9. Yasufuku fails to disclose that wherein the imaging conditions of the photoelectron image include a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a pulse width of the photoelectron, a pulse phase of the photoelectron, a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and an imaging time of the camera.
Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light. However, Talbot teaches that that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the electron image (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system), a pulse width, a pulse interval, an intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam (Column 9 lines 6-27 teaches that the flood gun blanker 620 is used to blank and unblank the flood beam, corresponding to the pulsed electron beam. As shown in fig. 7, the control logic includes a pulse width, and a pulse interval of the pulsed electron beam because the control lines explicitly show the signal time and duration of the on and off control. Pulse width and pulse interval are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be the duration of on and off signals for the pulse cycle. Column 6 lines 29-45 teaches that the spot size and beam current are both adjusted to provide the desired current density to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest of the wafer), a pulse width of the electron, a pulse phase of the electron (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the control logic includes controlling the secondary-electron blind to switch it on and off to control the pulse width of the secondary electron reaching the detector. Column 9 lines 28-67 teaches a beam-switching control signal for alternating between the primary beam and the flood beam. The control unit shifts the timing, which corresponds to the pulse phase, of the secondary electrons blind (line 735) relative to the beam blanker), a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera (as shown in fig. 7 the secondary electrons blind is switched off after some delay when the primary beam is started initially), and an imaging time of the camera, (column 9 lines 28-67 teaches that the control logic includes controlling the time sequence, including the imaging time when the secondary electrons blind is switched on and off so that the secondary electrons can reach detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot to include that wherein the control unit includes, as imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, a pulse width, a pulse interval, intensity, and an area on the sample of the pulsed electron beam, a pulse width of the photoelectron, a pulse phase of the photoelectron, delay time from the start of the irradiation of the primary beam to the start of the imaging performed by the camera, and imaging time of the camera. Even though Talbot does not specifically teach imaging conditions of the photoelectron image, photoelectron, or the excitation light, Yasufuku discloses the photoelectron emission system and excitation light. One of ordinary skill in the art can adapt the timing sequence control and the imaging conditions as taught in Talbot into the photoelectron emission system in Yasufuku. Such modification would allow for synchronizing the primary beam for imaging with the flood beam for controlling charge on the wafer, preventing secondary electron from overwhelming the detector (as taught in Talbot column 9 lines 51-67), and adjusting conditions to obtain a measurable contrast in the area of interest (as taught in Talbot column 6 lines 29-45).
Yasufuku in view of Talbot fails to disclose a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam.
However, Cho teaches a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam (pg. 2095 teaches various time delays between the optical and the electron pulse. Pg. 2094 teaches that at positive times, the electron pulse follows the optical pulse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasufuku in view of Talbot, further in view of Cho, further in view of Takeda to include a delay time from the start of the irradiation of the excitation light to the start of the irradiation of the pulsed electron beam. Such modification would allow for an enhanced bright contrast SE emission (as taught in Cho pg. 2095).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights