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 .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
4. In claim 2: A thickness calculation step of calculating thickness of the observation target layer based on an image of the cross-section.
5. In claim 3: A layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change based on the observation image obtained before the second processing step, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of layer change based on the observation image obtained after the second processing step.
6. In claim 4: A layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the surface image, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the transmission image.
7. In claim 5:
An observation image generation unit
A calculation unit
A correction unit
8. Regarding claim 2:
The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for “a thickness calculation step of calculating thickness of the observation target layer based on an image of the cross-section” is taken to include performing known image processing on the SEM image (as taught in [0040]).
9. Regarding claim 3:
The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for “a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change based on the observation image obtained before the second processing step, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of layer change based on the observation image obtained after the second processing step” is taken to include measuring the layer edge position (first layer edge position) P1, which is the position at which a layer change from the layer H1 to the layer H2 occurs in the SEM image of the cross-section D1 of the sample. After the layer edge position P1 is measured, the fixed-volume FIB processing is executed to form the cross- section D2. When the cross-section D2 is formed, the calculation unit 32 measures the layer edge position (second layer edge position) P2, which is the position at which a layer change from the layer H1 to the layer H2 occurs in the SEM image of the cross-section D2 (as taught in [0047] and fig. 6).
10. Regarding claim 4:
The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for “a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the surface image, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the transmission image” is taken to include measuring the layer edge position P1, which is a position at which a layer change from the layer H1 to the layer H2 occurs in the SEM image of the cross-section D1 of the sample. The calculation unit 32 measures the layer edge position P2, which is a position at which a layer change from the layer H1 to the layer H2 occurs, in the transmission image of the cross-section D2 of the sample (as taught in [0054] and fig. 8).
11. Regarding claim 5:
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for an “observation image generation unit”, “calculation unit”, and “correction unit” is taken to include CPU, RAM, and ROM (according to [0033], [0013], and fig. 9 in the instant specification).
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.
Response to Amendment
12. Applicant’s amendments, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to claims 1, 5, 6 have been entered. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, and the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
14. Applicant argues on pg. 6-7, regarding claim 2, that [0054]-[0055] of the instant application disclose a specific algorithm for calculating the distance (Lp) representing the thickness of the observation layer and that this provides sufficient structure for the step. The argument is not persuasive. [0055] clearly defines Lp not as the thickness of the layer, but as the “layer edge position deviation”, which is the distance between layer edge position P1 and P2. The actual thickness of the observation target layer is defined as Ld ([0040] of the instant application). The instant specification [0040] relies on the phrase “known image processing” to calculate the actual thickness and lacks a specific algorithm. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
15. Applicant argues on pg. 9-10, regarding claim 1, 5, and 6 that Morita neither discloses nor suggests generating an observation image including a plurality of layers including an observation target layer. The argument is not persuasive. Pg. 2 of Morita explicitly teaches that the tungsten vias in both the upper and lower layers are observed in the SEM image as detailed in the rejection of claim 2. Although Morita does not specifically note calculating a deviation between the cross-sectional angle and the processing angle based on a distance representing a thickness of the observation target layer indicated by the observation image, the deficiency is cured by Tortonese. Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. Tortonese is relied upon to provide the mathematical relationship for calculating the actual thickness of a layer from an SEM cross-section image based on the viewing angle. See more details in the rejection below.
16. Applicant argues on pg. 10 that claims 2-4 include additional features that are neither taught nor suggested by the cited references. The argument is not persuasive. The applicant did not point out what features are not taught nor suggested by the cited references.
16. Although the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the previous rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 have been withdrawn since the claim scope has changed. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, and 6 have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
17. 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.
18. Regarding claim 2:
Claim limitation “a thickness calculation step of calculating thickness of the observation target layer based on an image of the cross-section” invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm for performing the calculation. [0040] describes calculating the thickness of the observation target layers by performing known image processing, but the disclosure of known image processing is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Claim, 1-2, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2005122909) in view of Tortonese (US 7576317).
24. Regarding claim 1:
Morita discloses a control method for a charged particle beam device for processing a cross-section of a sample (pg.1 teaches a combined device of the focused ion beam device and a scanning electron microscope. Pg. 1 abstract section teaches a processing surface positional deviation correction method using a focused ion beam for observing a cross section of a semiconductor element) at a processing angle, which is a predetermined angle (the angle at which the focused ion beam processes the cross section corresponds to the processing angle), by irradiating a sample S, in which a plurality of layers is laminated (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via), with a focused ion beam (pg. 2 teaches that the ion beam for processing is irradiated on the sample surface), the control method comprising:
an image generation step of irradiating the sample with an electron beam (pg. 1 teaches obtaining a cross-sectional observation image with the scanning electron microscope. Pg. 2 teaches that the electron beam for observation is irradiated on the cross section),
detecting secondary electrons or reflected electrons generated from the sample (pg. 4 teaches secondary electron detector. Scanning electron microscopy functions by irradiating a sample with an electron beam and detecting secondary electrons), and generating an observation image of a cross-section of the sample based on the results of detection (pg. 1 teaches obtaining a cross-sectional observation image with the scanning electron microscope, and observation with a SEM image can be performed in real time), the observation image including a plurality of layers (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via) including an observation target layer which is a layer of target of observation (pg. 2 teaches that the tungsten vias in both the upper and lower layers are observed in the SEM image. The tungsten vias corresponds to a layer of target of target of observation); an angle deviation calculation step of calculating angle deviation between an angle of the cross-section and the processing angle (pg. 1 abstract section teaches calculating the horizontal or vertical rotational deviation of the focused ion beam processing surface from both measured values); and a control step of controlling orientation of the sample or a direction of radiation with the electron beam so that the angle deviation calculated in the angle deviation calculation step is eliminated (pg. 1 abstract section teaches changing the irradiation angle of the focused ion beam to the processing surface to correct the shift. Pg. 1 teaches applying a signal for cancelling the calculated shift amount to the tilt mechanism of the sample stage, which corresponds to controlling orientation of the sample).
Morita does not specifically note an angle deviation calculation step of calculating angle deviation between an angle of the cross-section and the processing angle based on a distance representing a thickness of the observation target layer indicated by the observation image.
Tortonese teaches calculating physical dimensions and angles based on the thickness of a target layer from a cross sectional SEM image (column 2 teaches determining the thickness d from the known viewing angle
θ
and the measured thickness d’. Column 2 teaches d=d’/cos
θ
).
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita’s angle deviation calculation step to incorporate the layer thickness calculation taught by Tortonese. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Tortonese’s calculations of layer thickness to provide the input data for Morita’s deviation correction system. Such modification would allow for determining the thickness of a layer and using the information as a correction factor for other measurements (as taught in Tortonese column 1).
29. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the control method according to claim 1. Morita further discloses that wherein the observation image comprises a plurality of layers (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via) including an observation target layer, which is a layer of target of observation (pg. 2 teaches that the tungsten vias in both the upper and lower layers are observed in the SEM image. The tungsten vias corresponds to a layer of target of target of observation);
Morita fails to disclose a thickness calculation step of calculating thickness of the observation target layer based on an image of the cross-section.
However, Tortonese teaches a thickness calculation step of calculating thickness of the observation target layer based on an image of the cross-section (column 2 teaches determining the thickness d from the known viewing angle
θ
and the measured thickness d’. Column 2 teaches d=d’/cos
θ
. The thickness calculation step interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) corresponds to performing known image processing on the SEM image. The formula as taught by Tortonese corresponds to such known image processing on the SEM image).
Tortonese does not specifically disclose that the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (1), where Ld represents thickness of the observation target layer that is calculated, Lm represents a design value of thickness of the observation target layer, and θ represents the angle deviation,
θ
=
cos
-
1
(
L
m
L
d
)
….. Formula(1). However, Tortonese teaches a mathematical relationship between the measured thickness d’, the calculated thickness d, and a particular angle of view
θ
(column 2 teaches d=d’/cos
θ
). Even though the formula is for calculating thickness of the layer, one of ordinary skill in the art can rearrange the same mathematical equation and compare it with the calibration piece with a known size (as taught in column 1 lines 43-50. The calibration piece with known size corresponds to the design value of thickness) to be used as a correction factor for other measurements. In the instance application, the correction factor is angle deviation.
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita in view of Tortonese to include a thickness calculation step of calculating thickness of the observation target layer based on an image of the cross-section, and the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (1), where Ld represents thickness of the observation target layer that is calculated, Lm represents a design value of thickness of the observation target layer, and θ represents the angle deviation,
θ
=
cos
-
1
(
L
m
L
d
)
….. Formula(1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Tortonese’s calculations of layer thickness to provide the input data for Morita’s deviation correction system. Such modification would allow for determining the thickness of a layer and using the information as a correction factor for other measurements (as taught in Tortonese column 1).
22. Regarding claim 5:
Morita discloses a charged particle beam device (pg. 1 teaches a combined device of the focused ion beam device and a scanning electron microscope) comprising:
a focused ion beam column (pg. 4 teaches FIB column 4) configured to irradiate a sample (pg. 2 teaches that the ion beam for processing is irradiated on the sample surface), in which a plurality of layers is laminated (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via), with a focused ion beam to process a cross-section of the sample (pg. 1 abstract section teaches a processing surface positional deviation correction method using a focused ion beam for observing a cross section of a semiconductor element) at a processing angle, which is a predetermined angle (pg. 1 teaches calculating a rotational deviation in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction of a focused ion beam processing surface from the surface and changes the scanning direction or irradiation angle of the focused ion beam with respect to the sample to correct the deviation);
an electron column configured to irradiate the sample with an electron beam (Pg. 4 teaches SEM column 5 that emits electron. Pg. 1 teaches obtaining a cross-sectional observation image with the scanning electron microscope. Pg. 2 teaches that the electron beam for observation is irradiated on the cross section); an electron detector configured to detect secondary electrons or reflected electrons generated from the sample (pg. 4 teaches secondary electron detector, which can detect secondary electrons);
an observation image generation unit configured to generate an observation image (the observation image generation unit is interpreted under U.S.C under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to CPU, RAM, and ROM. Pg. 3 teaches computer main body as hardware, which is equivalent to CPU, RAM, and ROM disclosed in the instant application, because the computer main body as hardware performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result), which is an image of a cross-section of the sample, based on a signal output from the electron detector (pg. 1 teaches obtaining a cross-sectional observation image with the scanning electron microscope, and observation with a SEM image can be performed in real time. SEM images are inherently created by converting signals from electron detectors), the observation image including a plurality of layers (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via) including an observation target layer which is a layer of target of observation (pg. 2 teaches that the tungsten vias in both the upper and lower layers are observed in the SEM image. The tungsten vias corresponds to a layer of target of target of observation);
a calculation unit (the calculation unit is interpreted under U.S.C under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to CPU, RAM, and ROM. Pg. 3 teaches computer main body as hardware, which is equivalent to CPU, RAM, and ROM disclosed in the instant application, because the computer main body as hardware performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result) configured to calculate a angle deviation between an angle of the cross- section and the processing angle (pg. 1 abstract section teaches calculating the horizontal or vertical rotational deviation of the focused ion beam processing surface from both measured values. Pg. 4 teaches calculating the rotational deviation of the cross-section using the SEM images);
and a correction unit (the correction unit is interpreted under U.S.C under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to CPU, RAM, and ROM. Pg. 3 teaches computer main body as hardware, which is equivalent to CPU, RAM, and ROM disclosed in the instant application, because the computer main body as hardware performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result) configured to control orientation of the sample or a direction of radiation with the focused ion beam so that the angle deviation calculated in the calculation unit is eliminated (pg. 1 abstract section teaches changing the irradiation angle of the focused ion beam to the processing surface to correct the shift. Pg. 1 teaches applying a signal for cancelling the calculated shift amount to the tilt mechanism of the sample stage, which corresponds to controlling orientation of the sample).
Morita does not specifically note calculating an angle deviation between an angle of the cross-section and the processing angle based on a distance representing a thickness of the observation target layer indicated by the observation image.
Tortonese teaches calculating physical dimensions and angles based on the thickness of a target layer from a cross sectional SEM image (column 2 teaches determining the thickness d from the known viewing angle
θ
and the measured thickness d’. Column 2 teaches d=d’/cos
θ
).
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita’s angle deviation calculation step to incorporate the layer thickness calculation taught by Tortonese. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Tortonese’s calculations of layer thickness to provide the input data for Morita’s deviation correction system. Such modification would allow for determining the thickness of a layer and using the information as a correction factor for other measurements (as taught in Tortonese column 1).
23. Regarding claim 6:
Morita discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause a computer (pg. 4 teaches the computer main body as hardware and the software) configured to control a charged particle beam device being configured to irradiate a sample (pg. 1 teaches a combined device of the focused ion beam device and a scanning electron microscope), in which a plurality of layers is laminated (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via), with a focused ion beam (pg. 2 teaches that the ion beam for processing is irradiated on the sample surface) to process a cross-section of the sample at a processing angle, which is a predetermined angle (pg. 1 abstract section teaches using a focused ion beam for observing a cross section of a semiconductor element. The angle at which the focused ion beam processes the cross section corresponds to the processing angle), to execute processing operations of:
irradiating the sample with an electron beam (pg. 1 teaches obtaining a cross-sectional observation image with the scanning electron microscope. Pg. 2 teaches that the electron beam for observation is irradiated on the cross section);
detecting secondary electrons or reflected electrons generated from the sample (pg. 4 teaches secondary electron detector. Scanning electron microscopy functions by irradiating a sample with an electron beam and detecting secondary electrons);
generating an observation image of a cross-section of the sample based on results of detection (pg. 1 teaches obtaining a cross-sectional observation image with the scanning electron microscope, and observation with a SEM image can be performed in real time), the observation image including a plurality of layers (pg. 2 teaches a two-dimensional array is incorporated in multiple layers across a function area. The layers are connected by tungsten via) including an observation target layer which is a layer of target of observation (pg. 2 teaches that the tungsten vias in both the upper and lower layers are observed in the SEM image. The tungsten vias corresponds to a layer of target of target of observation);
calculating angle deviation between an angle of the cross-section and the processing angle based on the observation image (pg. 1 abstract section teaches calculating the horizontal or vertical rotational deviation of the focused ion beam processing surface from both measured values. Pg. 4 teaches calculating the rotational deviation of the cross-section using the SEM images); and
controlling orientation of the sample or a direction of radiation with the focused ion beam so that the angle deviation that is calculated is eliminated (pg. 1 abstract section teaches changing the irradiation angle of the focused ion beam to the processing surface to correct the shift. Pg. 1 teaches applying a signal for cancelling the calculated shift amount to the tilt mechanism of the sample stage, which corresponds to controlling orientation of the sample).
Morita does not specifically note calculating angle deviation between an angle of the cross-section and the processing angle based on a distance representing a thickness of the observation target layer indicated by the observation image.
Tortonese teaches calculating physical dimensions and angles based on the thickness of a target layer from a cross sectional SEM image (column 2 teaches determining the thickness d from the known viewing angle
θ
and the measured thickness d’. Column 2 teaches d=d’/cos
θ
).
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita’s angle deviation calculation step to incorporate the layer thickness calculation taught by Tortonese. Such modification would allow for determining the thickness of a layer and using the information as a correction factor for other measurements (as taught in Tortonese column 1).
26. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Tortonese, further in view of Klochkov (WO 2021180600).
27. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above discloses the control method according to claim 1. Morita further discloses a first processing step of executing processing of a cross-section of the sample while irradiating the sample with the focused ion beam (pg. 3 teaches cross-section processing is performed with FIB, and processing is performed up to the end of the side surface of the tungsten via); a second processing step of determining that there is a layer change in case, in the observation image obtained in the first processing step, two layers above and below or left and right are mixed and stopping processing in the first processing step (pg. 3 teaches that when all the tungsten vias are exposed and the process position of the first tungsten via approaches the center position, the processing is stopped, and the tungsten via cross-sectional images at the left and right ends are observed with the SEM images).
Morita in view of Tortonese fails to disclose processing a cross-section of the sample by a predetermined amount with the focused ion beam; and a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change based on the observation image obtained before the second processing step, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of layer change based on the observation image obtained after the second processing step, wherein the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (2), where Lp represents a position deviation, which is a distance between the first layer edge position and second layer edge position that are calculated in the layer edge position calculation step, Lf represents the predetermined amount, and θ represents the angle deviation,
θ
=
tan
-
1
(
L
f
L
p
)
… Formula(2).
However, Klochkov teaches processing a cross-section of the sample by a predetermined amount with the focused ion beam (pg. 69 teaches a layer of material is removed with the use of a focused ion beam milling to expose a new cross section slice. Pg. 55-56 teaches that the sample is processed by a predetermined amount, identified as d, where d is the actual distance between two cross section surfaces. The distance d separates sequential slices, such as slice n and slice n+1 as shown in fig. 27); and a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change based on the observation image obtained before the second processing step, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of layer change based on the observation image obtained after the second processing step (pg. 55-56 fig. 27 teaches that the Y’ components of the positions of the horizontal edge 80 in cross section image slice with index n+1 is compared to the Y’-components of the positions of the horizontal edge 80 in the cross section image slice with index n. The determination of the Y’ components is equivalent to the layer edge position calculation step as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) because perform the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result). Klochkov does not specifically disclose that wherein the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (2), where Lp represents a position deviation, which is a distance between the first layer edge position and second layer edge position that are calculated in the layer edge position calculation step, Lf represents the predetermined amount, and θ represents the angle deviation,
θ
=
tan
-
1
(
L
f
L
p
)
… Formula(2). However, Klochkov teaches the mathematical relationship between the slant angle GF, slice thickness d, and the differences between the Y’ components
Δ
Y
W
L
'
(pg. 56 teaches
Δ
Y
W
L
'
=
-
d
tan
G
F
+
Δ
Y
'
, where
Δ
Y
'
is the additional displacement. Here, d corresponds to Lf,
Δ
Y
W
L
'
-
Δ
Y
'
corresponds to Lp, and GF corresponds to the angle deviation). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to rearrange the equation to arrive at the claimed mathematical relationship to calculate the angle deviation.
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita in view of Tortonese, further in view of Klochkov to include processing a cross-section of the sample by a predetermined amount with the focused ion beam; and a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change based on the observation image obtained before the second processing step, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of layer change based on the observation image obtained after the second processing step, wherein the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (2), where Lp represents a position deviation, which is a distance between the first layer edge position and second layer edge position that are calculated in the layer edge position calculation step, Lf represents the predetermined amount, and θ represents the angle deviation,
θ
=
tan
-
1
(
L
f
L
p
)
… Formula(2). Such modification would allow for avoiding the limitation of analysis of a single cut or cross section and for precision alignment and improvement in accuracy and information for monitoring fabrication processes (as taught in Klochkov pg. 5 and 55).
30. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Tortonese, further in view of Yokosuka (US-10290464), further in view of Klochkov.
31. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above discloses the control method according to claim 1, comprising: a processing step of executing processing of a cross-section of the sample while irradiating the sample with the focused ion beam (pg. 3 teaches cross-section processing is performed with FIB, and processing is performed up to the end of the side surface of the tungsten via); a stopping step of determining that there is a layer change in case, in the observation image obtained in the processing step, two layers above and below or left and right are mixed and stopping processing in the processing step (pg. 3 teaches that when all the tungsten vias are exposed and the process position of the first tungsten via approaches the center position, the processing is stopped, and the tungsten via cross-sectional images at the left and right ends are observed with the SEM images);
Morita in view of Tortonese fails to disclose an image generation step of generating a surface image and a transmission image of the sample as the observation image by changing acceleration voltage of the electron beam; and a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the surface image, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the transmission image.
However, Yokosuka discloses an image generation step of generating a surface image and a transmission image of the sample as the observation image by changing acceleration voltage of the electron beam (column 6 lines 23-34 teaches a backscattered electron image acquired under a plurality of acceleration conditions. Column 6 teaches that an image is acquired based on the set conditions. Image acquired under lower acceleration conditions corresponds to the surface image, and image acquired under higher acceleration conditions corresponds to the transmission image); and a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the surface image, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the transmission image (column 9 teaches that when the landing energy of the electron beam is V1, the results of measuring peak widths of the edges 1205 and 1206 are dA1 and dB1, respectively. V1 is a low acceleration voltage, and image acquired at V1 corresponds to the surface image. When the landing energy of the electron beam is V2, the results of measuring the peak widths of the edges 1205 and 1206 are dA2 and dB2, respectively. Image acquired at V2 corresponds to the transmission image. The measurement of the peak widths of the edges 1205 and 1206 under different acceleration voltages corresponds to the interpretation of a layer edge position calculation step under 35 U.S.C 112(f)).
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita in view of Tortonese, further in view of Yokosuka to include an image generation step of generating a surface image and a transmission image of the sample as the observation image by changing acceleration voltage of the electron beam; and a layer edge position calculation step of calculating a first layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the surface image, and a second layer edge position, which is a position of a layer change, based on the transmission image. Such modification would allow for three-dimensional structure estimation of the pattern while suppressing the influence of charging (as taught in Yokosuka column 4 lines 33-36).
Morita in view of Tortonese, further in view of Yokosuka fails to disclose that wherein the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (3), where Lr represents a position deviation, which is a distance between the first layer edge position and the second layer edge position that are calculated in the layer edge position calculation step, Lt represents an amount of transmission of the electron beam from the surface of the sample, and θ represents the angle deviation
θ
=
tan
-
1
(
L
t
L
r
)
… Formula(3).
Klochkov does not specifically disclose that wherein the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (3), where Lr represents a position deviation, which is a distance between the first layer edge position and the second layer edge position that are calculated in the layer edge position calculation step, Lt represents an amount of transmission of the electron beam from the surface of the sample, and θ represents the angle deviation
θ
=
tan
-
1
(
L
t
L
r
)
… Formula(3). However, Klochkov teaches the mathematical relationship between the slant angle GF, slice thickness d, and the differences between the Y’ components
Δ
Y
W
L
'
(pg. 56 fig. 27 teaches
Δ
Y
W
L
'
=
-
d
tan
G
F
+
Δ
Y
'
, where
Δ
Y
'
is the additional displacement. Here, d corresponds to Lt,
Δ
Y
W
L
'
-
Δ
Y
'
corresponds to Lr, and GF corresponds to the angle deviation). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to rearrange the equation to arrive at the claimed mathematical relationship to calculate the angle deviation.
Morita already teaches the mechanism to control sample orientation/irradiation direction to eliminated processed deviations. 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 Morita in view of Tortonese, further in view of Yokosuka, further in view of Klochkov to include that wherein the angle deviation calculation step calculates the angle deviation by Formula (3), where Lr represents a position deviation, which is a distance between the first layer edge position and the second layer edge position that are calculated in the layer edge position calculation step, Lt represents an amount of transmission of the electron beam from the surface of the sample, and θ represents the angle deviation
θ
=
tan
-
1
(
L
t
L
r
)
… Formula(3). Such modification would allow for avoiding the limitation of analysis of a single cut or cross section and for precision alignment and improvement in accuracy and information for monitoring fabrication processes (as taught in Klochkov pg. 5 and 55).
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