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 .
Claims 1-17 are present for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: “sectioned diagonally” should be “cut diagonally” because claim 1 further recites “the plurality of structural elements is cut”, and claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites “the diagonal cut”. Also, “the images” should be “the image”.
Regarding claim 2, “the 2D coordinates” should be “2D coordinates”, “the position” should be “a position”.
Regarding claim 4, “imaging” should be “obtaining the 2D image”, “(SEM)” should be “(SEM),”, and “(AFM)” should be “(AFM),”.
Regarding claim 5, it seems “mesh 3D” means “3D mesh”, therefore, claim 5 should be amended accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, “after each diagonal cut” should be “after each diagonal cut.”
Regarding claim 13, “the 2D coordinates” should be “2D coordinates”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 17 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/754,,126 (reference application).
18/754,131 claims
1
4
7
9
10
12
17
18/754,126 claims
1
1
1
7
1
10
16
18/754,131 Claim 1
18/754,126 Claim 1
1. A method for generating a representative 3D reconstruction of a plurality of periodic structural elements of a wafer, the method comprising:
1. A method for metrology of a wafer comprising a plurality of sites each site comprising one or more 3D structural elements, the method comprising the steps of: a. depositing, on each of a subset of the plurality of sites, a deposition layer using a gas injection system (GIS) and a charged-particle gun,
obtaining a 2D image of a top view of the plurality of structural elements, sectioned diagonally in a compound angle allowing 3D volumetric sampling, such that each of the plurality of structural elements is cut at a different height thereof; and
b. projecting, on each of a subset of the plurality of sites, a focused ion beam (FIB) at a predefined mechanical angle (α) and at a controllable plane rotation (ψ), thereby generating a diagonal cut in each of the subset of sites, c. scanning each of the diagonal cuts using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) configured to provide a top view of the subset of sites, to obtain an image at different depths of each of the subset of sites;
generating a representative 3D reconstruction of the structural elements, based on the images.
d. applying an algorithm on the image, the algorithm configured to generate a reconstruction of the one or more 3D structural elements or a component thereof in the subset of sites; e. determining a characteristic and/or dimension of the one or more 3D structural elements and/or the component thereof in the subset of sites; and f. determining a quality/attribute of a wafer manufacturing process based on the determined characteristic and/or dimension of the one or more 3D structural elements and/or component thereof, while maintaining the integrity of the plurality of sites excluding the subset of sites.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of 18/754,126 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of the 18/754,131.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 5, 6, and 8-16 are 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 the limitation "the GL reconstructed image" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reconstructed image" in line 1, and “the point cloud” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, claim 5 recites “ for each pixel”, it is not clear where the pixels are from, “the 2D image” recited in claim 1 or “the reconstructed image” in claim 5. Moreover, the term “coarse” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “coarse” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "calculating the output pixel GL" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the point cloud" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the one or more volumetric measurements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the volumetric measurements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the wafer production line" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, the term “suitable” in claim 11 is a relative/subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, it recites “a top view image” in line 4. It is not clear whether the “top view image” is the same as or different than the “2D image of a top view” recited in its parent claim 1.
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 12.
In addition, claim 13 recites the limitation “generating the point cloud” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “about 5-10 nm” in line 2. It is not clear what is the scope of “about 5-10 nm”. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takamasu (Takamasu et al., 3D-Profile Measurement of Advanced Semiconductor Features by Using FIB as Reference Metrology).
Regarding claim 1, Takamasu discloses A method for generating a representative 3D reconstruction of a plurality of periodic structural elements of a wafer (Takamasu, Abstract, on-wafer 3D-profile metrology with FIB slope cut and CD-SEM measuring, a few micrometers wide on a wafer is coated and cut by 45-degree slope using FIB tool, p. 7, Figure 14 (b), showing a 3D-map of the slop cut area as a 3D profile of the a plurality of periodic structural elements), the method comprising:
obtaining a 2D image of a top view of the plurality of structural elements, sectioned diagonally in a compound angle allowing 3D volumetric sampling, such that each of the plurality of structural elements is cut at a different height thereof (Takamasu, p. 5, last para., disclosing coating a semiconductor structure on a wafer, then the structures is cut at 45-dedgree slope, obtaining a 3D profile image by top down CD-SEM imaging, p. 6, Figure 10, showing a plurality of structural elements ((a)), sectioned diagonally in a compound angle allowing 3D volumetric sampling, such that each of the plurality of structural elements is cut at a different height thereof ((c)), p. 7, Sec. 3.3, 1st para., disclosing obtaining AFM image of FIB-to-CDSEM slope cut by AFM wide area scan, Figure 13 (c), showing AFM image, indicating the AFM image can correspond to a 2D image of a top view of the plurality of structural elements, sectioned diagonally in a compound angle allowing 3D volumetric sampling, such that each of the plurality of structural elements is cut at a different height thereof); and
generating a representative 3D reconstruction of the structural elements, based on the images (Takamasu, Abstract, on-wafer 3D-profile metrology with FIB slope cut and CD-SEM measuring, a few micrometers wide on a wafer is coated and cut by 45-degree slope using FIB tool, p. 5, last para., disclosing coating a semiconductor structure on a wafer, then the structures is cut at 45-dedgree slope, obtaining a 3D profile image by top down CD-SEM imaging, p. 6, Figure 10 (d), showing an image for 3D-profile, p. 7, Sec. 3.3, 1st para., disclosing the FIB-to-CDSEM slope cut surface is measured by AFM wide area scan, and a 3D map is obtained, Figure 13(c), showing AFM image, Figure 14 (b), showing a 3D-map of the slop cut area as a 3D profile of the a plurality of periodic structural elements, indicating the 3D map can correspond to a representative 3D reconstruction of the structural elements generated based on the AFM image).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
222
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the imaging of the top view of the diagonal cut is performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) an atomic force microscope (AFM) or focused ion beam (FIB) imaging (Takamasu, p. 5, last para., disclosing coating a semiconductor structure on a wafer, then the structures is cut at 45-dedgree slope, obtaining a 3D profile image by top down CD-SEM imaging, p. 7, Sec. 3.3, 1st para., disclosing the FIB-to-CDSEM slope cut surface is measured by AFM wide area scan, and a 3D map is obtained).
Regarding claim 17, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 17. In addition, Takamasu discloses a processing circuitry (Takamasu, Abstract, disclosing using FIB (Focused Ion Beam) processing and CD-SEM (Critical Dimension Scanning Electron Microscope) images measurement, a FIB micro sampling system, p. 5, Sec. 3.1, 1st para., disclosing obtaining cross sectional CD-SEM top down images, p. 7, Sec. 3.3, 1st para., disclosing the FIB-to-CDSEM slope cut surface is measured by AFM wide area scan, and a 3D map is obtained, the imaging devices to obtain CD-SEM and AFM images and the generating of 3D map would involve a processing circuitry).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu.
Regarding claim 2, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1, comprising generating a point cloud based on the 2D coordinates of each pixel in the image, and on one or more known parameters related to a plane of the diagonal cut relative to the plurality of structural elements (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 14, showing the 3D map (b) as a point cloud generated based on 2D coordinates of each pixel in the image regarding (a), and on one or known parameters related to a plane of the diagonal cut relative to the plurality of structural elements (depth/height)), wherein each point in the point cloud at least represents the position of each pixel in a 3D space, grey level (GL) thereof (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 14 (b) showing each point in the 3D map as the point cloud represents the position of each pixel in a 3D space,, with different color on coating and low height places. Although Takamasu does not expressly disclose grey level (GL) thereof, before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use grey level values instead of color values, the motivation would have been to save memory/storage space because grey level values require smaller memory/storage space than color values); creating at least one GL reconstructed image of a section view of the point cloud (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 15 (b), showing sectional view of the 3D map as a reconstructed image of a section view of the point cloud. Although Takamasu does not expressly disclose grey level (GL) thereof, before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use grey level values instead of color values, the motivation would have been to save memory/storage space because grey level values require smaller memory/storage space than color values); and performing, on the at least one GL reconstructed image, one or more volumetric measurements to characterize the plurality of structural elements or one or more components thereof (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 15 (b), showing a sectional view with measurements of heights of points that can correspond to volumetric measurements to characterize the plurality of structural elements or one or more components thereof). Although Takamasu does not expressly disclose grey level (GL) thereof, before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use grey level values instead of color values, the motivation would have been to save memory/storage space because grey level values require smaller memory/storage space than color values.
Regarding claim 3, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising segmenting the GL reconstructed image using an image analysis algorithm to identify one or more components of the plurality structural elements (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 15 (b), showing a sectional view with different color and/or intensity to identify slope cut and coating as one or more components of the plurality structural elements. Although Takamasu does not expressly disclose grey level (GL) thereof, before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use grey level values instead of color values, the motivation would have been to save memory/storage space because grey level values require smaller memory/storage space than color values).
Regarding claim 9, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more volumetric measurements comprise a width of a structure, a layer thickness, a height of a structure, a recess of a layer, a radius of a structure, an angle of a structure or any combination thereof (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 15 (b), showing a sectional view with measurements of heights of points corresponding a structure and width of a structure).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu in view of US Patent Publication No. 20140192234 A1 to Christoph et al.
Regarding claim 6, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 4. However, Takamasu does not expressly disclose wherein calculating the output pixel GL comprises linear interpolation between the closest surrounding points.
On the other hand, Christoph discloses calculating the output pixel GL comprises linear interpolation between the closest surrounding points (Christoph, para. [0049], disclosing the gray value is calculated for each target pixel from the gray values of the surrounding pixels by linear interpolation, indicating the surrounding pixels can correspond to the closest surrounding points whose values can be linearly interpolated to calculate the output pixel GL for the target pixel).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu with Christoph. The suggestion/motivation would have been to produce a bright image without blurring to avoid measurement falsifications, as suggested by Christoph (see Christoph, para. [0005]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu in view of US Patent Publication No. 20190147586 A1 to Ikeda et al.
Regarding claim 7, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1. However, Takamasu does not expressly disclose further comprising preprocessing the obtained 2D image and performing measurements thereon.
On the other hand, Ikeda discloses preprocessing the obtained 2D image and performing measurements thereon (Ikeda, para. [0074], disclosing the preprocessing section applies the preprocessing filter to the input image, para. [0089], disclosing generating preprocessing image, and generating measurement result by performing postprocessing, FIG. 3, showing input image going through preprocessing section, CNN engine, and postprocessing section).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu with Ikeda. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow a feature of a defect to be more reliably extracted, as suggested by Ikeda (see Ikeda, para. [0074]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 106844983 B to Zheng et al.
Regarding claim 8, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1. However, Takamasu does not expressly disclose generating a 2D and/or 3D model of the plurality of structural elements, based on multiple section views derived from the point cloud.
On the other hand, Zheng discloses generating a 2D and/or 3D model of the plurality of structural elements, based on multiple section views derived from the point cloud (Zheng, Translation, para. [n0087], disclosing acquiring point cloud data of structures, extracting 2D information such as the front, side, and top views of the structure, and constructing a 3D model, indicating the front, side, and top views of the structure can correspond to multiple section views derived from the point cloud, and the 3D model can correspond to the 3d model of the plurality of structural elements generated based on these views).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Zheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide structure damage investigation and analysis, as suggested by Zheng (see Zheng, Translation, para. [n0087]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu in view of Lorusso (Lorusso et al., Enabling CD SEM Metrology for 5nm Technology Node and Beyond).
Regarding claim 10, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1. However, Takamasu does not expressly disclose determining a quality/attribute of a wafer production line, based on the volumetric measurements.
On the other hand, Lorusso discloses determining a quality/attribute of a wafer production line, based on the volumetric measurements (Lorusso, p. 2, last para., disclosing measurements for ADI (After Develop Inspection) wafers, p. 5, Figure 4, showing measurements on wafers during the different stage of a wafer production line such as after HM etching, after MTH etching, and after encapsulation, 2nd para., disclosing measurement of the structures of the wafer at different stages to determine the resistance, conductance, etc. as attributes of a wafer production line).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Lorusso. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide failure analysis and quantification of the resistance variability of wafers, as suggested by Lorusso (see Lorusso, p. 5, last para.).
Regarding claim 11, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1. However, Takamasu does not expressly disclose being suitable for in-line implementation into the wafer production line.
On the other hand, Lorusso discloses being suitable for in-line implementation into the wafer production line (Lorusso, p. 2, last para., disclosing measurements for ADI (After Develop Inspection) wafers, p. 5, Figure 4, showing measurements on wafers during the different stage of a wafer production line such as after HM etching, after MTH etching, and after encapsulation, 2nd para., disclosing measurement of the structures of the wafer at different stages to determine the resistance, conductance, etc., indicating such measurements are suitable for in-line implementation into the wafer production line including these different stages/processes). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Lorusso. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide failure analysis and quantification of the resistance variability of wafers, as suggested by Lorusso (see Lorusso, p. 5, last para.).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu in view of US Patent Publication No. 20210350999 A1 to Fukuda.
Regarding claim 12, Takamasu discloses the method of claim 1. However, Takamasu does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of structural elements are cut diagonally at least twice, wherein each subsequent of the diagonal cuts is performed at a deeper plane than a preceding diagonal cut, and wherein obtaining the top view of the diagonal cut comprises obtaining a top view image after each diagonal cut.
On the other hand, Fukuda discloses wherein the plurality of structural elements are cut at least twice, wherein each subsequent of the cuts is performed at a deeper plane than a preceding cut, and wherein obtaining the top view of the cut comprises obtaining a top view image after each cut (Fukuda, FIG. 18A, showing the plurality of structural elements are cut at least twice (three times), wherein each subsequent of the cuts is performed at a deeper plane than a preceding cut (cross section B is deeper than cross section A, and cross section C is deeper than cross section B), and a top view image is obtained after each cut). Because Takamasu discloses diagonal cuts, combining with Fukuda will allow the cuts of the structural elements to be diagonally and the combination of Takamasu and Fukuda would teach wherein the plurality of structural elements are cut diagonally at least twice, wherein each subsequent of the diagonal cuts is performed at a deeper plane than a preceding diagonal cut, and wherein obtaining the top view of the diagonal cut comprises obtaining a top view image after each diagonal cut.
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Fukuda. The suggestion/motivation would have been to image the target layer of the multilayer structure inside the sample, as suggested by Fukuda (see Fukuda, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Takamasu in view of Fukuda discloses the method of claim 12, wherein generating the point cloud is based on the 2D coordinates of all pixels in the obtained 2D images of each diagonal cut (Takamasu, p. 7, Figure 14, showing the 3D map (b) as a point cloud generated based on 2D coordinates of each pixel in the image regarding (a), Fukuda, FIG. 18A, showing the plurality of structural elements are cut at least twice (three times), wherein each subsequent of the cuts is performed at a deeper plane than a preceding cut (cross section B is deeper than cross section A, and cross section C is deeper than cross section B), and a top view image is obtained after each cut. Combining Takamasu and Fukuda could generating the point cloud based on the 2D coordinates of all pixels in the obtained cross-sectional images of each diagonal cuts). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Fukuda. The suggestion/motivation would have been to image the target layer of the multilayer structure inside the sample, as suggested by Fukuda (see Fukuda, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, Takamasu in view of Fukuda discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising cross-registration of the top view images of each of the diagonal cuts (Fukuda, para. [0125], disclosing feature amount extraction or pattern matching using the template registered in advance is performed, para. [0127], disclosing cross section C may be registered as a template, and a plurality of templates of cross sections A, B, and C may be prepared, and the template matching may be performed multiple times to identify whether the current visual field position is located at any cross-sectional position of A to C). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Fukuda. The suggestion/motivation would have been to image the target layer of the multilayer structure inside the sample, as suggested by Fukuda (see Fukuda, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, Takamasu in view of Fukuda discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the registration comprises utilizing one or more marks on the wafer, algorithmic correlation between the top view images, navigation data for each of the top view images or any combination thereof (Fukuda, para. [0125], disclosing feature amount extraction or pattern matching using the template registered in advance is performed, para. [0127], disclosing cross section C may be registered as a template, and a plurality of templates of cross sections A, B, and C may be prepared, and the template matching may be performed multiple times to identify whether the current visual field position is located at any cross-sectional position of A to C, the template matching can correspond to algorithmic correlation between the cross sections A to C as top view images). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu and Fukuda. The suggestion/motivation would have been to image the target layer of the multilayer structure inside the sample, as suggested by Fukuda (see Fukuda, para. [0008]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasu in view of Fukuda as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20220392793 A1 to Buxbaum et al.
Regarding claim 14, Takamasu in view of Fukuda discloses the method of claim 13. However, Takamasu or Fukuda does not expressly disclose a distance between each of the diagonal cuts is about 5-10 nm.
On the other hand, Buxbaum discloses a distance between each of the diagonal cuts is about 5-10 nm (Buxbaum, para. [0112],, disclosing wedge-cut a wafer at a slant angle, para. [0184], disclosing the slice distances between a set of slices can be 8nm or 10 nm).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Takamasu in view of Fukuda with Buxbaum. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a fast 3D image acquisition of the inspection volume inside the wafer, as suggested by Buxbaum (see Buxbaum, para. [0184]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art references on the record discloses the method of claim 1, wherein creating the reconstructed image of the section view comprises: a. sorting the points in the point cloud along a mesh 3D with a coarse resolution; b. for each pixel, finding closest surrounding points in the point cloud within a predefined radius; and c. calculating an output pixel GL, based on the surrounding points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611