DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 06 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
FIG. 4 is not necessarily directed towards performing simulation of the expected measurements (Species A);
There is not a serious search or examination burden because the claims share a common inventive concept; and
The different CPC classifications and the mutually exclusive characteristics of the species does not establish a serious search or examination burden.
This is not found persuasive because of the following:
The mapping of Species A to FIG. 4 is based on the instant specification at paragraphs 0083-0084, which state that “[s]uch relationship waveforms can be constructed in different ways. By way of example, in some cases, it can be created by performing simulation of the expected measurements…the four waveforms illustrated in FIG. 4 represent such four functions. By way of another example, alternative to simulation, the relationship can be derived by actual experiments. FIG. 3…” Upon further review, it appears that the reference to FIG. 4 in paragraph 0082 is likely a typographical error meant to refer to FIG. 6. Ultimately, the disclosure clearly establishes simulation (Species A) and measurements (Species B) as mutually exclusive approaches for deriving the claimed relationship.
The evaluation of claims to determine if there is a common inventive concept is a practice specific to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP § 1893.03(d). The present application is not a national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. Furthermore, restriction between species is proper if the species are independent or distinct, and species are distinct if each species, as claimed, requires a mutually exclusive characteristic not required for the other species, and the species, as claimed are not obvious variants of each other. In this case, the species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics that the relationship is either derived through simulation, i.e., not empirically (Species A), or the relationship is derived through measurements, i.e., empirically (Species B); and the species are not obvious variants of each other. See MPEP § 806.04.
“[A] serious search burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search” (MPEP § 803, emphasis added). Furthermore, separate classification “shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search” (MPEP § 808.02). In this case, Species A is classified in CPC G01N 2223/305 (computer simulations), and Species B is classified in CPC G01N 23/203 (measuring back scattering). Therefore, the separate classifications show that the species are directed to separate subjects for inventive effort (simulations vs measurements) which require a separate field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
FIG. 6: Graph 600 should include X and Y axis labels.
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 is as follows:
Claim 1:
“an examination tool configured to scan the semiconductor specimen…”
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed function is:
Claim 1:
“scanning electron microscopes (SEM), atomic force microscopes” (paragraph 0027), “Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)” (paragraph 0052)
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “The computerized method according to claim 1.” Claim 1 is directed to a computerized system, not a computerized method. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 15 as being meant to depend from claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0109695 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a computerized system (paragraph 0091) of examining a defect buried (paragraph 0094) in a semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0033), the system comprising:
an examination tool (paragraph 0033, SEM 100) configured to scan the semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0093) using an electron beam with a given landing energy (LE) (paragraph 0092), and generate image data (paragraph 0049) by collecting backscattered electrons (BSEs) emitted from the specimen at a specific escape energy (EE) (paragraph 0060, last sentence), wherein the specific EE is selected from a series of EEs (paragraph 0076) corresponding to the given LE (paragraphs 0078-0079) based on a relationship representative of expected measurements obtained at the series of EEs for different expected depths of the defect in the specimen (paragraph 0074); and
a processing circuitry operatively connected to the examination tool (paragraph 0110), and configured to obtain a measurement related to the defect based on the image data (paragraph 0102, “target feature”), and estimate an actual depth of the defect in the specimen based on the measurement and the relationship (paragraph 0077, last sentence).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the specific EE is selected from the series of EEs as an EE that provides a relatively large separation between the expected measurements for the different expected depths of the defect (paragraph 0088, highest Δyield calculated from yield at “locations with and without a target features, such as a buried DOI”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the examination tool is configured with a band pass filter operatively connected to a BSE detector (paragraph 0074, lines 15-20), wherein the band pass filter is configured to filter out BSEs emitted with one or more EEs other than the specific EE (paragraph 0075), thereby enabling the BSE detector to collect BSEs emitted only at the specific EE (paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the given LE used to scan the specimen is selected by deriving a set of relationships corresponding to a set of LEs (paragraph 0089, lines 1-2), and selecting a LE of which the specific EE selected therefor provides the best separation between the expected measurements for the different expected depths of the defect (paragraph 0089, highest Δyield).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the semiconductor specimen consists of a single layer (FIG. 9A, Bulk Si) and the defect is expected to be located at different depth levels in the single layer (FIG. 9A, depth levels 910, 920, 930).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the estimation of the actual depth of the defect based on the measurement and the relationship has improved throughput and accuracy with respect to estimation based on measurements obtained by scanning the specimen multiple times using multiple LEs (paragraphs 0025, 0082).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses a computerized method (paragraph 0091) of examining a defect buried (paragraph 0094) in a semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0033), the method comprising:
scanning, by an examination tool, the semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0093) using an electron beam with a given landing energy (LE) (paragraph 0092), and generating image data (paragraph 0049) by collecting backscattered electrons (BSEs) emitted from the specimen at a specific escape energy (EE) (paragraph 0060, last sentence), wherein the specific EE is selected from a series of EEs (paragraph 0076) corresponding to the given LE (paragraphs 0078-0079) based on a relationship representative of expected measurements obtained at the series of EEs for different expected depths of the defect in the specimen (paragraph 0074); and
obtaining, by a processing circuitry operatively connected to the examination tool (paragraph 0110), a measurement related to the defect based on the image data (paragraph 0102, “target feature”), and estimating an actual depth of the defect in the specimen based on the measurement and the relationship (paragraph 0077, last sentence).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu as applied to claim 11 discloses the computerized method according to claim 11.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the specific EE is selected from the series of EEs as an EE that provides a relatively large separation between the expected measurements for the different expected depths of the defect (paragraph 0088, highest Δyield calculated from yield at “locations with and without a target features, such as a buried DOI”).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu as applied to claim 11 discloses the computerized method according to claim 11.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the BSEs emitted at the specific EE are collected by configuring the examination tool with a band pass filter operatively connected to a BSE detector (paragraph 0074, lines 15-20), and using the band pass filter to filter out BSEs emitted with one or more EEs other than the specific EE (paragraph 0075), thereby enabling the BSE detector to collect BSEs emitted only at the specific EE (paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu as applied to claim 11 discloses the computerized method according to claim 11.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the given LE used to scan the specimen is selected by deriving a set of relationships corresponding to a set of LEs (paragraph 0089, lines 1-2), and selecting a LE of which the specific EE selected therefor provides the best separation between the expected measurements for the different expected depths of the defect (paragraph 0089, highest Δyield).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu as applied to claim 11 discloses the computerized method according to claim 11.
In addition, Zhu discloses that the specimen consists of a single layer (FIG. 9A, Bulk Si) and the defect is expected to be located at different depth levels in the single layer (FIG. 9A, depth levels 910, 920, 930).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly embodying a program of instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method (paragraph 0110) of examining a defect buried (paragraph 0094) in a semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0033), the method comprising:
causing an examination tool to scan the semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0093) using an electron beam with a given landing energy (LE) (paragraph 0092), and generating image data (paragraph 0049) by collecting backscattered electrons (BSEs) emitted from the specimen at a specific escape energy (EE) (paragraph 0060, last sentence), wherein the specific EE is selected from a series of EEs (paragraph 0076) corresponding to the given LE (paragraphs 0078-0079) based on a relationship representative of expected measurements obtained at the series of EEs for different expected depths of the defect in the specimen (paragraph 0074); and
obtaining a measurement related to the defect based on the image data (paragraph 0102, “target feature”), and estimating an actual depth of the defect in the specimen based on the measurement and the relationship (paragraph 0077, last sentence).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Bizen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0213695 A1), hereinafter Bizen.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
Zhu fails to disclose that the relationship is derived by performing simulation of the expected measurements at the series of EEs based on material and structural properties of the semiconductor specimen.
However, Bizen discloses that the relationship is derived by performing simulation (paragraph 0044, lines 1-2) of the expected measurements (paragraph 0044, lines 7-9; the expected measurements are the number of electrons) at the series of EEs (paragraph 0048) based on material and structural properties of the semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14).
Therefore, 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 Zhu to include that the relationship is derived by performing simulation of the expected measurements at the series of EEs based on material and structural properties of the semiconductor specimen, based on the teachings of Bizen that this derivation produces a highly accurate relationship in a reduced period of time (Bizen, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu as applied to claim 11 discloses the computerized method according to claim 11.
Zhu fails to disclose that the relationship is derived by performing simulation of the expected measurements at the series of EEs based on material and structural properties of the semiconductor specimen.
However, Bizen discloses that the relationship is derived by performing simulation (paragraph 0044, lines 1-2) of the expected measurements (paragraph 0044, lines 7-9; the expected measurements are the number of electrons) at the series of EEs (paragraph 0048) based on material and structural properties of the semiconductor specimen (paragraph 0045, lines 9-14).
Therefore, 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 Zhu to include that the relationship is derived by performing simulation of the expected measurements at the series of EEs based on material and structural properties of the semiconductor specimen, based on the teachings of Bizen that this derivation produces a highly accurate relationship in a reduced period of time (Bizen, paragraph 0047).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0221149 A1), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu as applied to claim 1 discloses the computerized system according to claim 1.
Zhu fails to disclose that the semiconductor specimen comprises multiple layers and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers.
However, Zhao discloses that the semiconductor specimen comprises multiple layers (FIG. 9C) and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers (FIG. 9C, defects 916, 918, 920).
Therefore, 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 Zhu to include that the semiconductor specimen comprises multiple layers and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers, based on the teachings of Zhao that defects across multiple layers must be detected to minimize detrimental impacts to device performance (Zhao, paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of Zhao as applied to claim 7 discloses the computerized system according to claim 11.
In addition, Zhao discloses that the semiconductor specimen is a Gate-all-around (GAA) transistor (paragraph 0028), and the defect is a residue expected to be located at a plurality of etching layers (FIG. 9C, etch residues 920).
Therefore, 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 Zhu in view of Zhao to include that the semiconductor specimen is a Gate-all-around (GAA) transistor, and the defect is a residue expected to be located at a plurality of etching layers, based on the additional teachings of Zhao that etch residue detection is critical in minimizing detrimental effects to device performance and yield (Zhao, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu as applied to claim 11 discloses the computerized method according to claim 11.
Zhu fails to disclose that the semiconductor specimen comprises multiple layers and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers.
However, Zhao discloses that the semiconductor specimen comprises multiple layers (FIG. 9C) and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers (FIG. 9C, defects 916, 918, 920).
Therefore, 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 Zhu to include that the semiconductor specimen comprises multiple layers and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers, based on the teachings of Zhao that defects across multiple layers must be detected to minimize detrimental impacts to device performance (Zhao, paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu in view of Zhao as applied to claim 17 discloses the computerized method according to claim 17.
In addition, Zhao discloses that the semiconductor specimen is a Gate-all-around (GAA) transistor (paragraph 0028), and the defect is a residue expected to be located at a plurality of etching layers (FIG. 9C, etch residues 920).
Therefore, 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 Zhu in view of Zhao to include that the semiconductor specimen is a Gate-all-around (GAA) transistor, and the defect is a residue expected to be located at a plurality of etching layers, based on the additional teachings of Zhao that etch residue detection is critical in minimizing detrimental effects to device performance and yield (Zhao, paragraph 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Girmonsky et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256687 A1), hereinafter Girmonsky, teaches a semiconductor specimen consisting of a single layer and a defect is expected to be located at different depth levels in the single layer.
Liao (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161188 A1), hereinafter Liao, teaches that the semiconductor specimen is a Gate-all-around (GAA) transistor, and the defect is a residue expected to be located at a plurality of etching layers.
Dotan (U.S. Patent No. 6,353,222 B1), hereinafter Dotan, teaches a semiconductor specimen comprising multiple layers and the defect is expected to be located at a set of candidate layers of the multiple layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights