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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “too thin” which lacks a basis for comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tanner (EP 2 372 337).
Regarding claim 1, Tanner teaches a method comprising:
performing, with a charged particle system having a first milling setting, a first milling operation on a sample at a first time[0018-0019];
generating a first image of the sample based on the first milling operation (Fig. 3b, [0020-0021]);
determining, based on the first image, a first set of tracking features of the sample [0020-0021];
performing, with the charged particle system having the first milling setting, a second milling operation on the sample at a second time [0021];
generating a second image of the sample based on the second milling operation (Fig. 3c) ;
determining, based on the second image, a first change to the first set of tracking features [0021-0022];
and adjusting the first milling setting to a second milling setting based on the first change [0021-0022].
Regarding claim 2, Tanner teaches determining the first set of tracking features includes determining a first attribute (position, direction of feature fig. 3a-3g, col. 5-6) of the first set of tracking features;
determining the first change includes determining a first attribute change (direction) to the first attribute (Fig. 3a-3g, col. 5-6);
and adjusting the first milling setting (beam position/location) includes adjusting the first milling setting based on the first attribute change [0019-0023].
Regarding claim 3, Tanner teaches determining that a capping layer (unmilled substrate material [0025]) of the sample is milled too thin (redeposition) based on the first attribute change ([0025-0027]);
and adjusting the first milling setting (current settings [0028]) based on the determination that the capping layer is milled too thin (clean up step [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Tanner teaches the first attribute can include at least one of a position, shape, or size of each tracking feature of the first set of tracking features (position/shape, size, [0019-0023], fig. 3a-3g).
Regarding claim 5, Tanner teaches determining, based on the first image, a second set of tracking features (predetermined number of slices) of the sample [0034];
determining, based on the second image [0034], a second change (col. 9, ln. 10-15) to the second set of tracking features (image, [0034]);
and performing a comparison (610, fig. 6) between the first change and the second change, wherein adjusting the first milling setting is based on the comparison [0034-0035].
Regarding claim 6, Tanner teaches adjusting the first milling setting when the comparison is greater than a predetermined value [0035].
Regarding claim 7, Tanner teaches the predetermined value includes one of a predetermined distance (amount sliced; [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanner teaches determining the second set of tracking features (predetermined number of slices) includes determining a second attribute (direction) of the second set of tracking features (image [0034]);
determining the second change includes determining a second attribute change (position of beam or stage) to the second attribute (Direction);
and performing the comparison includes comparing the first attribute change (direction/position) and the second attribute change (direction/position, [0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanner teaches the first attribute change includes a first position change (repositioning, [0036]) and the second attribute change includes a second position change (repositioning, [0036]);
and adjusting the first milling setting includes adjusting the first milling setting based on the first position change and the second position change [0036-0037].
Regarding claim 10, Tanner teaches determining a first direction based on the first attribute change and a second direction based on the second attribute change (Fig. 3a-3f, [0034-0035]),
wherein adjusting the first milling setting includes adjusting the first milling setting based on the first direction and the second direction ([0034-0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanner teaches a determining an angle (directionality, up/down, left,right; [[0019-0021]) based on the first direction and the second direction (Fig. Fig 3a-3f), wherein adjusting the first milling setting includes adjusting the first milling setting based on the angle ([0019].
Regarding claim 12, Tanner teaches a determining a first rate of deformation based on the first attribute change (boundary box dimensions) and a second rate of deformation based on the second attribute change (boundary box dimensions),
wherein adjusting the first milling setting includes adjusting the first milling setting based on the first position change and the second position change ([0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Tanner teaches adjusting the first milling setting includes adjusting at least one of
a current used to generate an ion beam used to mill the sample (col. 2, ln. 30-35; [0051]),
a position of the sample ([0073], col. 6, ln. 25-30),
or a position of the ion beam [0073].
Regarding claim 16, Tanner teaches performing the milling operation at the first time and the second time includes milling a first portion ((31, fig. 3b) of the sample,
and the method further comprising performing, with the charged particle system having the second milling setting, a third milling operation ((33, fig. 3d) on the sample at a third time at a second portion of the sample different than the first portion (Fig. 3a-3g, [0019-0022]).
Regarding claim 17, Tanner teaches a system, comprising: one or more computing devices [0072]; and memory storing instructions, the instructions being executable by the one or more computing devices [0072], wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to:
perform, with a charged particle system having a first milling setting, a first milling operation on a sample at a first time (first slice [0072]);
generate a first image of the sample based on the first milling operation (beam image [0072], Fig. 3b, [0020-0021]);
determine, based on the first image, a first set of tracking features of the sample (analyze, [0072]);
perform, with the charged particle system having the first milling setting, a second milling operation on the sample at a second time (second slice [0072], [0021]);
generate a second image of the sample based on the second milling operation (Fig. 3c);
determine, based on the second image, a first change to the first set of tracking features ([0021-0022]);
and adjust the first milling setting to a second milling setting based on the first change ([0021-0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Tanner teaches determining
the first set of tracking features includes determining a first attribute (position, direction of feature fig. 3a-3g, col. 5-6) of the first set of tracking features;
determining the first change includes determining a first attribute change (direction) to the first attribute (Fig. 3a-3g, col. 5-6);
and adjusting the first milling setting (beam position/location) includes adjusting the first milling setting based on the first attribute change [0019-0023].
Regarding claim 20, Tanner teaches a non-transitory computing-device readable storage medium [0069],[0072] on which computing-device readable instructions of a program are stored, the instructions, when executed by one or more computing devices [0069],[0072], causing the one or more computing devices to perform a method, comprising:
performing, with a charged particle system having a first milling setting, a first milling operation on a sample at a first time (first slice, [0072];
generating a first image of the sample based on the first milling operation(beam image, [0072), Fig. 3b, [0020-0021]);
determining, based on the first image, a first set of tracking features of the sample ((Col. 16, ln 40-45), [0020-0021]);
performing, with the charged particle system having the first milling setting, a second milling operation on the sample at a second time (Second slice, [0072], [0021]);
generating a second image of the sample based on the second milling operation (Fig. 3c);
determining, based on the second image, a first change to the first set of tracking features [0021-0022];
and adjusting the first milling setting to a second milling setting based on the first change ([0021-0022]).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (KR 20230163340).
Regarding claim 13, Tanner teaches determining the first set of tracking features includes identifying features of a sample with imaging software [0034] but does not explicitly teaches using an artificial intelligence model used for image processing.
Miller directed to focused ion beam etching teaches identifying features of a sample with artificial intelligence model used for image processing (bottom of page 8). Because Miller teaches that artificial intelligence is operable for image processing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used artificial intelligence as the image processing in Tanner with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the determining the first set of tracking features of Tanner by providing it includes identifying features of a sample with artificial intelligence model used for image processing, as taught by Miller, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 A.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner and Miller as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 111222471).
Regarding claim 14, Tanner does not explicitly teach the artificial intelligence model includes a zero-shot foundational model.
Zang teaches an artificial intelligence model includes a zero-shot foundational model because it would be suitable for identifying unseen objects and recognition with zero samples [0005]. Zhang teaches zero shot AI models are operable for identifying unseen imagines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used Zhang’s zero shot model as the image processor in Tanner with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the artificial intelligence of Tanner by providing the artificial intelligence model includes a zero-shot foundational model, as taught by Miller, because it would be suitable for identifying unseen objects and recognition with zero samples ([0005] of Zhang) and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miller (KR 20230163340).
Regarding claim 19, Tanner teaches determining the first set of tracking features includes identifying features of a sample with imaging software [0034-0035], but does not explicitly teach an artificial intelligence model used for image processing.
Miller directed to focused ion beam etching teaches identifying features of a sample with artificial intelligence model used for image processing (bottom of page 8). Because Miller teaches that artificial intelligence is operable for image processing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used artificial intelligence as the image processing in Tanner with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the determining the first set of tracking features of Tanner by providing it includes identifying features of a sample with artificial intelligence model used for image processing, as taught by Miller, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights