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:
An access component
An aggregation component
An alignment component
A crop component
A device operatively coupled to a processor
4. The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for an “access component” is taken to include a conduit through which other components of the computerized tool can electronically interact with the charged-particle microscope (as taught in [0038]).
The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for an “aggregation component” is taken to include averaging together (e.g., via pixel-wise or voxel-wise averaging) the plurality of images (as taught in [0049] and [0005]).
The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for an “alignment component” is taken to include correctively-rotating that given rotated image about the center or centroid of the target field of view by whatever angular displacement separates its respective scanning direction from the target scanning direction (as taught in [0047]).
The corresponding algorithm in the disclosure for an “crop component” is taken to include removing, deleting, or otherwise cropping-out from the given aligned image whichever pixels or voxels that are not contained in the target image (as taught in [0048]).
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a “device” is taken to include any processing hardware that processes electronic data (as taught in [0143]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 9-12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoque (US 20180269026 A1).
7. Regarding claim 1:
Hoque discloses a system (fig. 1), comprising:
a processor ([0033] teaches a control device 120 that includes a signal processing device) that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory ([0033] teaches an image processing unit includes an image memory. [0033] teaches that the control device controls respective components of the scanning electron microscope), wherein the computer-executable components comprise:
an access component that accesses a charged-particle microscope that is loaded with a specimen (the access component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include a conduit through which other components of the computerized tool can electronically interact with the charged-particle microscope. [0033] teaches a control device 120 controls the respective components of the scanning electron microscope. The control device 120 includes a signal processing device that performs signal process of a detection signal acquired by the detector 113); and
an aggregation component that generates an aggregated image of the specimen (the aggregation component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include averaging together (e.g., via pixel-wise or voxel-wise averaging) the plurality of images), based on a plurality of images of the specimen that are captured by the charged-particle microscope according to a target scanning direction and a plurality of rotated scanning directions ([0026] teaches that the charged particle beam device images frames and rotates the scan direction for every frame by 90 and 180 degrees. An initial frame establishes the target scanning direction. [0028] teaches that the sample 109 is irradiated with the electron beam. [0034] teaches that the control device 120 performs an accumulation process of accumulating image data items acquired based on the scanning performed multiple times. The accumulation process is performed by averaging signals acquired by a plurality of frames for every pixel).
8. Regarding claim 2:
Hoque discloses the system of claim 1. Hoque further discloses that wherein the plurality of rotated scanning directions and the target scanning direction are uniformly distributed within a 360-degree range ([0042] fig. 14 teaches sequentially rotating the sub-scan direction by 90 degrees. An initial frame establishes the target scanning direction. Four directions separated by equal 90-degree increments correspond to scanning directions that are uniformly distributed within 360-degree range).
9. Regarding claim 3:
Hoque discloses the system of claim 2. Hoque further discloses that wherein the plurality of rotated scanning directions and the target scanning direction collectively have an even cardinality ([0042] fig. 14 teaches scanning method of sequentially rotating the sub-scan direction by 90 degrees (downward, rightward, upward, and leftward directions)), such that, for each first scanning direction, there is a second scanning direction that points 180 degrees away from the first scanning direction (as taught in [0042], the specific orthogonal directions correspond to have a 180-degree opposite for each direction. The downward direction points 180 degrees away from the upward direction, and the leftward direction points 180 degrees away from the rightward direction).
10. Regarding claim 9:
Hoque discloses the system of claim 1. Hoque further discloses that wherein the specimen charges non-homogeneously during scanning (the specimen is not part of the system as claimed and does not impart patentability to the system. [0002] teaches that electric charge potential is distributed in an unevenness shape), wherein each of the plurality of images exhibits respective charging artifacts ([0025] teaches that due to the electric charge, the drift or the image blurring, the contrast unevenness and unevenness of pattern edge luminance occurs when imaging is performed), and wherein the aggregated image exhibits suppressed charging artifacts ([0041] teaches generating the image in a state in which the electric charge state within the frame is equalized, and it is possible to suppress influence caused by the charging).
11. Regarding claim 10:
Hoque discloses a computer-implemented method ([0033] teaches an image processing unit includes an image memory. [0033] teaches a control device used to form an image), comprising: accessing, by a device operatively coupled to a processor (the device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include any processing hardware that processes electronic data), a charged-particle microscope that is loaded with a specimen ([0033] teaches a control device 120 controls the respective components of the scanning electron microscope. The control device 120 includes a signal processing device that performs signal process of a detection signal acquired by the detector 113); and generating, by the device, an aggregated image of the specimen, based on a plurality of images of the specimen that are captured by the charged-particle microscope according to a target scanning direction and a plurality of rotated scanning directions ([0026] teaches that the charged particle beam device images frames and rotates the scan direction for every frame by 90 and 180 degrees. An initial frame establishes the target scanning direction. [0028] teaches that the sample 109 is irradiated with the electron beam. [0034] teaches that the control device 120 performs an accumulation process of accumulating image data items acquired based on the scanning performed multiple times. The accumulation process is performed by averaging signals acquired by a plurality of frames for every pixel).
12. Regarding claim 11:
Hoque discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Hoque further discloses that wherein the plurality of rotated scanning directions and the target scanning direction are uniformly distributed within a 360-degree range ([0042] fig. 14 teaches sequentially rotating the sub-scan direction by 90 degrees. An initial frame establishes the target scanning direction. Four directions separated by equal 90-degree increments correspond to scanning directions that are uniformly distributed within 360-degree range).
13. Regarding claim 12:
Hoque discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11. Hoque further discloses that wherein the plurality of rotated scanning directions and the target scanning direction collectively have an even cardinality ([0042] fig. 14 teaches scanning method of sequentially rotating the sub-scan direction by 90 degrees (downward, rightward, upward, and leftward directions)), such that, for each first scanning direction, there is a second scanning direction that points 180 degrees away from the first scanning direction (as taught in [0042], the specific orthogonal directions correspond to have a 180-degree opposite for each direction. The downward direction points 180 degrees away from the upward direction, and the leftward direction points 180 degrees away from the rightward direction).
14. Regarding claim 18:
Hoque discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Hoque further discloses that wherein the specimen charges non-homogeneously during scanning (the specimen is not part of the system as claimed and does not impart patentability to the system. [0002] teaches that electric charge potential is distributed in an unevenness shape), wherein each of the plurality of images exhibits respective charging artifacts ([0025] teaches that due to the electric charge, the drift or the image blurring, the contrast unevenness and unevenness of pattern edge luminance occurs when imaging is performed), and wherein the aggregated image exhibits suppressed charging artifacts ([0041] teaches generating the image in a state in which the electric charge state within the frame is equalized, and it is possible to suppress influence caused by the charging).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 4-8, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hoque in view of Harada (US 20200083017).
18. Regarding claim 4:
Hoque teaches the system of claim 1. Hoque further teaches that wherein a target image of the plurality of images is captured according to the target scanning direction and has a target field of view of the specimen (as taught in [0042], the initial image captured according to a scanning direction corresponds to the target image captured according to the target scanning direction. Such captured image has a field of view).
Hoque fails to teach that wherein remaining images of the plurality of images have respectively resized fields of view that circumscribe the target field of view.
However, Harada teaches that wherein remaining images of the plurality of images have respectively resized fields of view that circumscribe the target field of view ([0065] teaches that when an image is rotated through image processing, the imaging field of view 1303 may be set to be larger than a desired observation region in advance. [0054] teaches that a plurality of images are captured).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include that wherein remaining images of the plurality of images have respectively resized fields of view that circumscribe the target field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Harada’s resized field of view to Hoque’s multi-frame rotational scanning sequence. Such modification would allow for solving the problem of indefinite pixel value during image processing (as taught in Harada [0065]).
19. Regarding claim 5:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the system of claim 4, the computer-executable components ([0033] teaches an image processing unit includes an image memory. [0033] teaches that the control device controls respective components of the scanning electron microscope).
Hoque fails to teach an alignment component that respectively correctively rotates the plurality of images according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions, thereby yielding a plurality of aligned images that are aligned with the target field of view.
However, Harada teaches an alignment component that respectively correctively rotates the plurality of images according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions (the alignment component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include correctively-rotating that given rotated image about the center or centroid of the target field of view by whatever angular displacement separates its respective scanning direction from the target scanning direction. [0040] teaches an image processing unit 210 which is provided with an image output unit that outputs images subjected to image processing in an image deformation unit that performs deformation such as moving and rotating of the image. [0065] teaches that the image deformation unit obtains an image rotation angle and rotates the image clockwise. An image 1304 shows a result of rotating an image 1305 by Ti degrees), thereby yielding a plurality of aligned images that are aligned with the target field of view ([0053]-[0054] teach that the images are aligned. The images 706 to 710 are obtained by adjusting the scan rotation angle such that the background region is brought to an upper side of the image).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include an alignment component that respectively correctively rotates the plurality of images according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions, thereby yielding a plurality of aligned images that are aligned with the target field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the image deformation unit, as taught in Harada, to rotate and normalize the visual boundary of the images. Such modification would allow for making the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing speed (as taught in Harada [0067]).
20. Regarding claim 6:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the system of claim 5. Hoque fails to teach that wherein the alignment component respectively applies drift-correction to the plurality of aligned images.
However, Harada teaches that wherein the alignment component (the alignment component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include correctively-rotating that given rotated image about the center or centroid of the target field of view by whatever angular displacement separates its respective scanning direction from the target scanning direction. [0040] teaches an image processing unit 210 which is provided with an image output unit that outputs images subjected to image processing in an image deformation unit that performs deformation such as moving and rotating of the image. [0065] teaches that the image deformation unit obtains an image rotation angle and rotates the image clockwise. An image 1304 shows a result of rotating an image 1305 by Ti degrees) respectively applies drift-correction to the plurality of aligned images ([0054] teaches that the edges of the wafer are made to be in parallel in the plurality of images through the scan rotation. Then, when an image deformation unit moves the images in parallel, the edges of the wafer are substantially at the same position in the images).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include that wherein the alignment component respectively applies drift-correction to the plurality of aligned images. Such modification would allow for comparative inspection between images (as taught in Harada [0054]).
21. Regarding claim 7:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the system of claim 6. Hoque fails to teach a crop component that respectively crops, after drift-correction and out of the plurality of aligned images, any pixels or voxels that are not present in the target field of view, thereby yielding a plurality of cropped images each having the same size as the target image.
However, Harada teaches a crop component that respectively crops, after drift-correction and out of the plurality of aligned images, any pixels or voxels that are not present in the target field of view, thereby yielding a plurality of cropped images each having the same size as the target image (the crop component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include removing, deleting, or otherwise cropping-out from the given aligned image whichever pixels or voxels that are not contained in the target image. [0065] teaches that a predetermined region image 1306 is cut out from the rotated image 1304. Such predetermined region image 1306 corresponds to cropped images each having the same size as the target image. [0053] teaches multiple images are captured).
PNG
media_image2.png
1061
1794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include a crop component that respectively crops, after drift-correction and out of the plurality of aligned images, any pixels or voxels that are not present in the target field of view, thereby yielding a plurality of cropped images each having the same size as the target image. Such modification would allow for making the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing speed (as taught in Harada [0067]).
22. Regarding claim 8:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the system of claim 7. Hoque further teaches that wherein the aggregation component (the aggregation component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include averaging together (e.g., via pixel-wise or voxel-wise averaging) the plurality of images) averages the plurality of images and the target image together, thereby yielding the aggregated image ([0026] teaches that the charged particle beam device images frames and rotates the scan direction for every frame by 90 and 180 degrees. [0028] teaches that the sample 109 is irradiated with the electron beam. [0034] teaches that the control device 120 performs an accumulation process of accumulating image data items acquired based on the scanning performed multiple times. The accumulation process is performed by averaging signals acquired by a plurality of frames for every pixel).
Hoque fails to teach the plurality of cropped images.
However, Harada teaches the plurality of cropped images ([0065] teaches that a predetermined region image 1306 is cut out from the rotated image 1304. [0054] teaches that a plurality of images are captured).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to incorporate the plurality of cropped images as taught in Harada into the accumulation process in Hoque. Such modification would allow for making the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing speed (as taught in Harada [0067]).
23. Regarding claim 13:
Hoque teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Hoque further teaches that wherein a target image of the plurality of images is captured according to the target scanning direction and has a target field of view of the specimen (as taught in [0042], the initial image captured according to a scanning direction corresponds to the target image captured according to the target scanning direction. Such captured image has a field of view).
Hoque fails to teach that wherein remaining images of the plurality of images have respectively resized fields of view that circumscribe the target field of view.
However, Harada teaches that wherein remaining images of the plurality of images have respectively resized fields of view that circumscribe the target field of view ([0065] teaches that when an image is rotated through image processing, the imaging field of view 1303 may be set to be larger than a desired observation region in advance).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include that wherein remaining images of the plurality of images have respectively resized fields of view that circumscribe the target field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Harada’s resized field of view to Hoque’s multi-frame rotational scanning sequence. Such modification would allow for solving the problem of indefinite pixel value during image processing (as taught in Harada [0065]).
24. Regarding claim 14:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13. Hoque fails to teach respectively correctively-rotating, by the device, the plurality of images according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions, thereby yielding a plurality of aligned images that are aligned with the target field of view.
However, Harada teaches respectively correctively-rotating, by the device (the device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include any processing hardware that processes electronic data. [0032] teaches that the program is executed by a processor (a CPU or a GPU)), the plurality of images according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions ([0040] teaches an image processing unit 210 which is provided with an image output unit that outputs images subjected to image processing in an image deformation unit that performs deformation such as moving and rotating of the image. [0065] teaches that the image deformation unit obtains an image rotation angle and rotates the image clockwise. An image 1304 shows a result of rotating an image 1305 by Ti degrees), thereby yielding a plurality of aligned images that are aligned with the target field of view ([0053]-[0054] teach that the images are aligned. The images 706 to 710 are obtained by adjusting the scan rotation angle such that the background region is brought to an upper side of the image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoque in view of Harada to include respectively correctively-rotating, by the device, the plurality of images according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions, thereby yielding a plurality of aligned images that are aligned with the target field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a processor (a CPU or a GPU) that executes image processing program, as taught in Harada, to rotate and normalize the visual boundary of the images. Such modification would allow for making the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing speed (as taught in Harada [0067]).
25. Regarding claim 15:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14. Hoque fails to teach respectively applying, by the device, drift-correction to the plurality of aligned images.
However, Harada teaches respectively applying, by the device (the device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include any processing hardware that processes electronic data. [0032] teaches that the program is executed by a processor (a CPU or a GPU)), drift-correction to the plurality of aligned images ([0054] teaches that the edges of the wafer are made to be in parallel in the plurality of images through the scan rotation. Then, when an image deformation unit moves the images in parallel, the edges of the wafer are substantially at the same position in the images).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include respectively applying, by the device, drift-correction to the plurality of aligned images. Such modification would allow for comparative inspection between images (as taught in Harada [0054]).
26. Regarding claim 16:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15. Hoque fails to teach respectively cropping, by the device and out of the plurality of aligned images, any pixels or voxels that are not present in the target field of view, thereby yielding a plurality of cropped images each having the same size as the target image.
However, Harada teaches respectively cropping, by the device (the device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include any processing hardware that processes electronic data. [0032] teaches that the program is executed by a processor (a CPU or a GPU)) and out of the plurality of aligned images, any pixels or voxels that are not present in the target field of view, thereby yielding a plurality of cropped images each having the same size as the target image ([0065] teaches that a predetermined region image 1306 is cut out from the rotated image 1304. Such predetermined region image 1306 corresponds to cropped images each having the same size as the target image. [0053] teaches multiple images are captured).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include respectively cropping, by the device and out of the plurality of aligned images, any pixels or voxels that are not present in the target field of view, thereby yielding a plurality of cropped images each having the same size as the target image. Such modification would allow for making the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing speed (as taught in Harada [0067]).
27. Regarding claim 17:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16. Hoque further teaches averaging, by the device (the device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include any processing hardware that processes electronic data), the plurality of images and the target image together, thereby yielding the aggregated image ([0026] teaches that the charged particle beam device images frames and rotates the scan direction for every frame by 90 and 180 degrees. [0028] teaches that the sample 109 is irradiated with the electron beam. [0034] teaches that the control device 120 performs an accumulation process of accumulating image data items acquired based on the scanning performed multiple times. The accumulation process is performed by averaging signals acquired by a plurality of frames for every pixel).
Hoque fails to teach the plurality of cropped images.
However, Harada teaches the plurality of cropped images ([0065] teaches that a predetermined region image 1306 is cut out from the rotated image 1304. [0053] teaches multiple images are captured).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to incorporate the plurality of cropped images as taught in Harada into the accumulation process in Hoque. Such modification would allow for making the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing speed (as taught in Harada [0067]).
28. Regarding claim 19:
A computer program product for facilitating charging artifact mitigation via scanning direction rotation ([0042] teaches sequentially rotating the sub-scan direction by 90 degrees), the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith ([0033] teaches an image processing unit includes an image memory. [0033] teaches a control device used to form an image), the program instructions executable by a processor ([0034] teaches that the control device 120 performs an accumulation process of accumulating image data items acquired based on the scanning performed multiple times) to cause the processor to:
access a scanning electron microscope that is loaded with a specimen ([0033] teaches a control device 120 controls the respective components of the scanning electron microscope. The control device 120 includes a signal processing device that performs signal process of a detection signal acquired by the detector 113);
cause the scanning electron microscope to respectively capture a plurality of images of the specimen according to a target scanning direction and a plurality of rotated scanning directions ([0026] teaches that the charged particle beam device images frames and rotates the scan direction for every frame by 90 and 180 degrees. An initial frame establishes the target scanning direction. [0028] teaches that the sample 109 is irradiated with the electron beam),
wherein the plurality of images exhibit respective charging artifacts ([0025] teaches that due to the electric charge, the drift or the image blurring, the contrast unevenness and unevenness of pattern edge luminance occurs when imaging is performed);
average the plurality of images, thereby yielding an aggregated image of the specimen ([0034] teaches that the control device 120 performs an accumulation process of accumulating image data items acquired based on the scanning performed multiple times. The accumulation process is performed by averaging signals acquired by a plurality of frames for every pixel), wherein a visibility of charging artifacts in the aggregated image is lesser than respective visibilities of charging artifacts in the plurality of images ([0041] teaches generating the image in a state in which the electric charge state within the frame is equalized, and it is possible to suppress influence caused by the charging).
Hoque fails to teach correctively-rotating those of the plurality of images that are captured according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions, such that the plurality of images are aligned with the target scanning direction; and average, after corrective-rotation, the plurality of images.
However, Harada teaches correctively-rotating those of the plurality of images that are captured according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions [0040] teaches an image processing unit 210 which is provided with an image output unit that outputs images subjected to image processing in an image deformation unit that performs deformation such as moving and rotating of the image. [0065] teaches that the image deformation unit obtains an image rotation angle and rotates the image clockwise. An image 1304 shows a result of rotating an image 1305 by Ti degrees), such that the plurality of images are aligned with the target scanning direction ([0053]-[0054] teach that the images are aligned. The images 706 to 710 are obtained by adjusting the scan rotation angle such that the background region is brought to an upper side of the image); processing, after corrective-rotation, the plurality of images ([0065]-[0067] teaches further processing of the images after corrective rotation).
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 Hoque in view of Harada to include correctively-rotating those of the plurality of images that are captured according to the plurality of rotated scanning directions, such that the plurality of images are aligned with the target scanning direction; and average, after corrective-rotation, the plurality of images. Although Harada does not specifically disclose the exact sequence of averaging after corrective-rotation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply such corrective-rotation in Harada before the accumulation process in Hoque, which would result in aligned images for further processing as suggested in Harada. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to make the visual layout constant in the field of view and improve the processing accuracy (as taught in Harada [0067]).
29. Regarding claim 20:
Hoque in view of Harada teaches the computer program product of claim 19. Hoque further teaches that wherein the target scanning direction and the plurality of rotated scanning directions are uniformly distributed within a 360- degree range ([0042] fig. 14 teaches sequentially rotating the sub-scan direction by 90 degrees. An initial frame establishes the target scanning direction. Four directions separated by equal 90-degree increments correspond to scanning directions that are uniformly distributed within 360-degree range).
Conclusion
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights