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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on May 15th 2024 & February 12th, 2025 has been considered and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "An" and "Bn" have both been used to designate Window Function Wn in Figure 4.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Wn in Figure 4.
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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference numbers (i.e., 801, C1), which are not needed to briefly explain the technical disclosure of the disclosed and claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and apparatus directed to store image correction values and correct each area of a target image using those image correction values. With respect to analysis of independent method Claim 1:
STEP 1:
With regard to Step 1: the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “storing a plurality of image correction values for correcting each area of the target image” and “correcting each area of the target image using the stored plurality of image correction values” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the storage of image correction values based on different areas of the image to be applied to the image to allow a human to correct the unfocused image due to the varying heights of the semiconductor pattern through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract idea mental processes for monitoring and determination (evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of storing image correction values for correcting each area of the target image).
STEP 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception". Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, in this instance, the additional limitation is "acquiring a target image obtained by imaging a semiconductor pattern that has a plurality of areas of which heights vary step-wisely", which is essentially considered insignificant extra-solution activities of acquiring input. Therefore, the additional limitation does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the apparatus in Claim 11 recites additional elements of a processor and a memory, considered generic computer components, which do not integrate the above-described abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, both Claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional element in the claim is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent Claim 11 is analyzed in the same manner, and found not to be patent eligible under this section of the rules.
In addition, with regard to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-21 viewed individually, these additional elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover features expanding upon the limitations as an abstract idea (mental processes or in certain dependent claims, introducing mathematical concepts, such as Fourier transformation of image data and inverse Fourier transformation), and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahira et al. (JP 2012142299 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakahira discloses “A correction method comprising:” (Nakahira, Paragraph [0012], discloses: “According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of processing an image acquired by a scanning charged particle microscope apparatus for acquiring a charged particle image of a sample by detecting charged particles generated from the sample by irradiating and scanning a charged particle beam focused using the scanning charged particle microscope apparatus on the sample on which a pattern is formed, and processing the acquired charged particle image of the sample, wherein a restored image of the acquired charged particle image is obtained using a deterioration function calculated using imaging information including at least one of an image acquisition condition of the acquired image or information of the imaged sample.”); “acquiring a target image obtained by imaging a semiconductor pattern that has a plurality of areas of which heights vary step-wisely” (Nakahira, Paragraph [0017], discloses: “According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of processing an image acquired by a scanning charged particle microscope apparatus for acquiring a charged particle image of a sample by detecting charged particles generated from the sample by irradiating and scanning a charged particle beam focused using the scanning charged particle microscope apparatus on the sample on which a pattern is formed, and processing the acquired charged particle image of the sample, wherein a restored image of the acquired charged particle image is obtained using a deterioration function calculated using imaging information including at least one of an image acquisition condition of the acquired image or information of the imaged sample.”; Paragraph [0046] (Figure 8(c) should be Figure 9(c); this was a typographical error made by the inventor(s)) and Figure 9 (see below) discloses: “Fig.9 illustrates a state in which a sample having a large height difference is irradiated with a charged particle beam. In Fig. 9 (a), the charged particle beam 802 is focused on the surface of the sample 803, and the beam intensity waveform thereof is less spread as in 812. On the other hand, the charged particle beam 801 is out of focus on the surface of the specimen 803, and the beam intensity waveform thereof spreads more than the beam intensity waveform 812 as illustrated in Fig. 8 (c) 811. When the difference in height of the target sample relative to the focal depth of the charged particle beam is large, as in the case of the sample 803, the focal point is shifted, as in the case of the charged particle beam 801. In this case, the beam diameter s of the charged particle beam varies depending on the beam irradiation position as indicated by 821 illustrated in Fig. 9 (b), for example. Due to this change, captured images having different resolutions are acquired depending on the position. In order to appropriately reduce resolution degradation caused by the beam intensity waveform for this type of image, it is necessary to obtain the beam intensity waveform for each of the beam irradiation positions (x and y) using information representing the shape of the sample, particularly the height and focal position of the sample, and use the beam intensity waveform as the degradation function A.”
PNG
media_image1.png
445
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); storing a plurality of image correction values for correcting each area of the target image (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] and Figure 9 (see below), disclose the following (Figure 8(c) should be Figure 9(c); this was a typographical error made by the inventor(s)):
PNG
media_image2.png
434
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
323
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
445
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; Nakahira, Paragraph [0019], also discloses “The storage unit 223 stores a captured image, a restored image, image capturing conditions, sample information, and the like. The input/output of the capturing condition, the output of the captured image or the restored image, the correction of the deterioration function, and the like are performed by the input/output unit 224. Resolution degradation due to some factor and S / N degradation due to noise superposition occur in the captured image g. The captured images g (x and y) are images in which the noises n (x and y) are superimposed on the convolution of the deterioration functions A (x' and y') indicating the state of resolution deterioration and the restored images f (x and y)”); and “correcting each area of the target image using the stored plurality of image correction values.” (Nakahira, Paragraph [0069], discloses: The captured images 1421 and 1423 may be captured by the same apparatus or by different apparatuses. In the sequence 1432, first, image capturing is performed in step 1408 based on a preset image capturing condition 1427, and a captured image g2 1423 is obtained. Next, in step 1409, dimension measurement or shape measurement of the pattern is performed. In step 1407, a deterioration model corresponding to the target resolution deterioration factor is calculated using the imaging conditions and the sample information. Similarly, in the sequence 1431, image capturing is performed in step 1401 based on the image capturing condition 1424, and a captured image g1 1421 is obtained. In step 1402, a deterioration model is calculated from the imaging conditions 1424 and the sample information. Thereafter, a deterioration function A is generated in step 1403 from the deterioration model obtained in steps 1402 and 1407. When the deterioration models obtained in steps 1402 and 1407 are Aa and Ab, respectively, the deterioration function A can be obtained using Equation (4), for example. Next, image restoration is performed in step 1404 using the degradation functions A, thereby obtaining a restored image f1 1422. If necessary, the degradation function may be modified as in steps 1405 and 1406. In step 1406, correction is performed so that the resolution of the restored image f1 in step 1422 matches the resolution of the captured image g2 in step 1423. After the correction of the degradation functions is completed, the size or shape of the pattern is measured using the restored image f1 in step 1410.). Here, the deterioration function and degradation functions are analogous to image correction values, as they are all used to correct and focus the semiconductor pattern image acquired from the invention, as seen above. The image capturing conditions seen in Paragraph [0019] are used in the method to directly compute the deterioration function seen in [0046], where they are in turn stored in the storage unit (also described in Paragraph [0019]) to provide the necessary parameters for correcting the image. Figure 9 shows how the sample or semiconductor pattern can vary in height, as the height difference of the wafer seen in that image can reflect across the entire semiconductor wafer surface among a plurality of areas as an image is acquired using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known techniques of acquiring a semiconductor pattern image, creating a plurality of image correction values (i.e., deterioration and degradation functions) based off of the area, and correcting the area within the image based on those values seen in Nakahira to improve the correction method in the same way. By using the image and correction value acquisition methods seen in Nakahira, one of ordinary skill in the art could have effectively corrected the image of any issues that result from the pattern to keep the image in focus. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the methods described in the embodiments of the Nakahira reference to obtain the method described in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakahira discloses “The correction method according to claim 1, wherein the correction of each area of the target image is” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0019], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figure 9; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 1); and “correction related to focus adjustment of a microscope that captures the target image.” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] and Figure 9 (see below) discloses:
PNG
media_image2.png
434
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
323
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
445
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the correction techniques utilizing correction values (i.e., deterioration and degradation functions) to adjust the focus from the microscope image taken of the semiconductor pattern to result in an improved method for correcting the semiconductor pattern image. By using these correction techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art could have effectively obtained a more focused image for analyzing the semiconductor pattern. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Nakahira reference to obtain the method disclosed in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 8, Nakahira discloses “The correction method according to claim 1, further comprising:” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0019], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figure 9; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 1); “displaying an environment setting screen for designating the number of the plurality of image correction values.” (Nakahira, Paragraph [0054] and Figure 13 (see below), discloses: “In order to finely set the deterioration function, it may be necessary to correct the deterioration function as in step 105 in FIG. 1 after the deterioration function is generated. FIG. 13 is an example of a GUI screen that prompts the user to modify the degradation function. This GUI screen is a GUI screen for setting a beam intensity waveform and a degradation function for reducing resolution degradation due to diffusion of a charged particle beam in a sample. For a given imaging condition 1101, there are an area 1104 for displaying a deterioration function, an area 1103 for displaying a default value of a parameter representing the deterioration function, and an area 1107 for setting the parameter representing the deterioration function. The parameters representing the deterioration function may be, for example, values at several positions (x ′, y ′) of the deterioration function A (x ′, y ′), or values at several frequencies (fx ′, fy ′) of a function FA (fx ′, fy ′) obtained by Fourier transforming the deterioration function A (x ′, y ′). Alternatively, for example, it may be a parameter used to calculate a deterioration function such as a chromatic aberration coefficient Cc or a spherical aberration coefficient Cs. In the region 1104, only the deterioration function corresponding to the parameter set in the region 1107 may be displayed, or the deterioration function corresponding to the default value of the parameter displayed in the region 1103 may be further displayed. The imaging conditions may be set from the GUI screen of FIG. 13 as in a region 1101.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
754
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the GUI seen in Nakahira to set the environment of correcting the semiconductor pattern image to improve the correction method in the same way. By utilizing the GUI described in Nakahira, one of ordinary skill in the art could have finely tuned the parameters of the method before officially correcting the image completely. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Nakahira reference to achieve the method described in Claim 8.
Claim 11 recites an correction device with features corresponding to the steps of the method recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the Nakahira reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to use the various embodiments of the Nakahira reference, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, Nakahira discloses a correction apparatus with a processing section and memory department, both of which need to operate from a computer system (For example, Paragraph [0011] discloses “a scanning charged particle microscope apparatus including charged particle beam irradiation optical system means for irradiating and scanning a focused charged particle beam on a sample on which a pattern is formed, charged particle detection optical system means for detecting charged particles generated from the sample irradiated and scanned with the charged particle beam by the charged particle beam irradiation optical system means, image acquisition means for acquiring a charged particle image of the sample by processing a signal detected by the charged particle detection optical system means, and image processing means for processing the charged particle image of the sample acquired by the image acquisition means.”; Paragraph [0017] and Figure 2 also discloses: “FIG. 2 shows a basic configuration of an SEM according to an embodiment of the present invention. The SEM includes, for example, an imaging device 201, a control unit 221, a processing unit 222, a storage unit 223, an input / output unit 224, and the like. In the acquisition of the captured image, the primary electron beam 203 is generated from the electron gun 202, and the primary electron beam 203 passes through the condenser lens 204 and further passes through the objective lens 205 to be focused on the surface of the sample 206. Next, electrons such as secondary electrons and reflected electrons generated from the sample 206 are detected by the detector 208, and a digital image is generated from the detection signal by the image generator 209, thereby acquiring a captured image. The captured image is stored in the storage unit 223. By moving the stage 207, an image can be captured at an arbitrary position of the sample. The detector 208 may include a plurality of detectors, such as a secondary electron detector configured to detect many secondary electrons and a reflected electron detector configured to detect many reflected electrons. Further, a height measurement sensor 214 for measuring the height of the sample may be provided.”)
PNG
media_image5.png
574
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 recites an apparatus (Correction Device) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the Nakahira reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to use the various embodiments of the Nakahira reference, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim.
Claim 18 recites an apparatus (Correction Device) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the Nakahira reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to use the various embodiments of the Nakahira reference, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim.
Claims 3-5, 10, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahira in view of Hamada et al. (WO 2020152795 A1 – w/ Publication Date of July 7, 2020).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakahira discloses “The correction method according to claim 1, further comprising:” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0019], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figure 9; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 1);
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Hamada discloses the following claim limitations: “acquiring a reference image obtained by imaging a reference semiconductor pattern at a random focus position; and” (Hamada, Paragraph [0038], discloses: “A device A serving as a reference device captures SEM images of Sample (Reference Sample) 108 of a specific pattern (301). The device A calculates and stores the frequency characteristic A of the image by performing Fourier transform or the like on the captured image (302).”); “acquiring a first focusing image obtained by imaging the reference semiconductor pattern in focus at a first position and acquiring a second focusing image obtained by imaging the reference semiconductor pattern in focus at a second position different from the first position” (Hamada, Abstract, discloses: “The objective of the present invention is to reduce differences between individual electron beam observation devices accurately by means of image correction. This method for calculating a correction factor for correcting images between a plurality of electron beam observation devices, in electron beam observation devices which generate images by scanning an electron beam across a specimen, is characterized by including: a step in which a first electron beam observation device generates a first image by scanning a first electron beam across first and second patterns, on either a specimen including the first pattern and the second pattern, having a different shape or size to the first pattern, or a first specimen including the first pattern and a second specimen including the second pattern; a step in which a second electron beam observation device generates a second image by scanning a second electron beam across the first and second patterns; and a step in which the first or second electron beam observation device calculates a correction factor at a peak frequency extracted selectively from first and second frequency characteristics calculated on the basis of the first and second images.”); “wherein the plurality of image correction values include a first correction coefficient calculated based on the reference image and the first focusing image and a second correction coefficient calculated based on the reference image and the second focusing image” (Hamada, Paragraph [0009], discloses: “A correction coefficient calculation method for correcting an image among a plurality of electron beam observation devices in an electron beam observation device that generates an image by scanning a sample with an electron beam, the correction coefficient calculation method comprising: a first electron beam observation device, A method of manufacturing a sample comprising: generating a first image by scanning a first electron beam on a first pattern and a second pattern having a shape or size different from that of the first pattern, or a first sample having the first pattern and a second sample having the second pattern, The method according to claim 1, further comprising: a second electron beam observation device scanning the first and second patterns with a second electron beam to generate a second image; a first or second electron beam observation device, And a step of calculating a correction coefficient at a peak frequency selectively extracted from the first and second frequency characteristics calculated on the basis of the first and second images on the basis of the first and second images.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the correction method disclosed in Nakahira with the techniques for acquiring first and second focusing images from a reference semiconductor pattern and obtaining multiple correction coefficients based off of these images seen in Hamada to obtain a more robust correction method for improving semiconductor pattern images. By using all the image and correction coefficient acquisition techniques found in Hamada with the correction method seen in Nakahira, one of ordinary skill in the art could have obtained coefficients correlating to specific areas within the sample that can be used on those areas to focus the image accurately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Nakahira and Hamada references to achieve the method disclosed in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nakahira and Hamada discloses “The correction method according to claim 3, further comprising:” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figure 9; Hamada, Abstract and Paragraphs [0009] and [0038]; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 3); “acquiring a reference frequency characteristic by performing Fourier transform on the reference image, and acquiring first and second frequency characteristics by performing Fourier transform on each of the first and second focusing images, wherein” (Hamada, Paragraphs [0031]-[0034], discloses the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
367
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
); and “the first correction coefficient is a correction coefficient calculated based on the reference frequency characteristic and the first frequency characteristic, and the second correction coefficient is a correction coefficient calculated based on the reference frequency characteristic and the second frequency characteristic” (Hamada, Paragraphs [0035]-[0039], discloses the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
552
521
media_image7.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of acquiring the reference, first, and second frequency characteristics to compute the first and second correction coefficients seen in the combination of Nakahira and Hamada to improve the correction method in the same way. By the acquisition of the frequency characteristics and calculation of the correction coefficients seen in the combination of Nakahira and Hamada, one of ordinary skill in the art could have obtained an accurate picture from the coefficients on how the varying heights of the sample affect the focusing of the image sample. Thus, it would have been obvious to use techniques described in the combination of Nakahira and Hamada to achieve the correction method disclosed in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nakahira and Hamada discloses “The correction method according to claim 4, further comprising:” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figure 9; Hamada, Abstract and Paragraphs [0009] and [0031]-[0039] as well as Figure 2; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 4); acquiring an image of a frequency space by performing Fourier transform on the target image (Hamada, Paragraph [0032], discloses: “A device A serving as a reference device captures SEM images of Sample (Reference Sample) 108 of a specific pattern (301). The device A calculates and stores the frequency characteristic A of the image by performing Fourier transform or the like on the captured image (302).”; Paragraph [0033], discloses: “The calculation of the frequency characteristics can be performed by multiplying or dividing each of coefficients generated when the image is converted into a frequency space image.”); applying the first or second correction coefficient to each area of the image of the frequency space (Hamada, Paragraphs [0102]-[0106], discloses the following:
PNG
media_image8.png
626
773
media_image8.png
Greyscale
); and acquiring an image of a real space by performing inverse Fourier transform on each of a first image of the frequency space to which the first correction coefficient is applied and a second image of the frequency space to which the second correction efficient is applied.” (Hamada, Paragraph [0046]-[0048], discloses the following:
PNG
media_image9.png
384
774
media_image9.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the techniques for applying the correction coefficients to the frequency space image using Fourier Transforms and converting that image back into the real space using inverse Fourier Transforms seen in the combination of Nakahira and Hamada to achieve the correction method disclosed in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nakahira and Hamada discloses “The correction method according to claim 3, wherein” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figure 9; Hamada, Abstract and Paragraphs [0009] and[0038]; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 3); the plurality of image correction values are image correction values calculated based on an image of the reference semiconductor pattern captured by a device different from a device capturing the target image” (Hamada, Paragraphs [0086]-[0088], discloses the following:
PNG
media_image10.png
132
755
media_image10.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of acquire image correction values using a separate device different from the main device seen in the combination of Nakahira and Hamada to achieve the correction method disclosed in Claim 10.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus (Correction Device) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Nakahira and Hamada references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim.
Claim 14 recites an apparatus (Correction Device) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 14. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Nakahira and Hamada references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim.
Claim 15 recites an apparatus (Correction Device) with features corresponding to the elements of the method recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited features of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Nakahira and Hamada references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Nakahira and Hamada discloses “The correction device according to claim 13, wherein” (Nakahira, Paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0017], [0019], [0046]-[0048], [0069] and Figures 2 & 9; Hamada, Abstract and Paragraphs [0009] and [0038]; please see the above-described analysis for Claim 13); the plurality of image correction values are image correction values calculated based on an image of the reference semiconductor pattern captured by a device different from a device capturing the target image” (Hamada, Paragraphs [0086]-[0088], discloses the following:
PNG
media_image10.png
132
755
media_image10.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of acquire image correction values using a separate device different from the main device seen in the combination of Nakahira and Hamada to achieve the correction device disclosed in Claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (b) if the above-described rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For Claim 6, the combination of Nakahira and Hamada does not explicitly disclose applying a first and second window function to an area of a first and second pattern to acquire first and second focusing images for image correction values based off of those images. None of the cited prior art references provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in the claim in combination with the claim limitations of Claim 3. Claims 7 and 21 include the above-described allowable subject matter due to their dependencies from Claim 6, either directly or indirectly.
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (b) if the above-described rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited prior art references provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in the claim in combination with the claim limitations of Claim 9 or 19
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (b) if the above-described rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For Claim 16, the combination of Nakahira and Hamada does not explicitly disclose applying a first and second window function to an area of a first and second pattern to acquire first and second focusing images for image correction values based off of those images. None of the cited prior art references provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in the claim in combination with the claim limitations of Claim 13. Claim 17 includes the above-described allowable subject matter due to its dependency on Claim 16, either directly or indirectly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamada 2 et al. (WO 2019021536 A1) discloses an electron beam observation device that comprises a control unit for capturing an image of a reference sample having a specific pattern a plurality of times to acquire frequency characteristics for a plurality of images.
Miyamoto et al. (US 20060210143 A1) discloses a three-dimensional shape of a semiconductor pattern measured by any three-dimensional shape measuring method and by adjusting parameters of the curvature equation based on a shape index value separately calculated.
Komuro et. al (EP 1286381 B1) the systems and methods in which, during lithography, whether pattern exposure to the resist film on a wafer has been provided under the appropriate exposure conditions by use of electron beam images of the resist patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SORIE I KOROMA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-9259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-6:00PM; Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
/SORIE I KOROMA JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights