DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 9/9/2024 and 10/9/2024 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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 20, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33 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. Claims 21-23 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claims 20 and 31 highlighted claim elements are vague and indefinite:
“analyze data representing the first SEM image to obtain one or more spatial-spectral characteristics; and
provide the enhanced image by applying one or more numerical compensations to data representing the second SEM image based on the one or more spatial-spectral characteristics obtained.”
The following claims 22 and 32 highlighted claim elements are vague and indefinite:
“wherein the one or more numerical compensations are applied in a Fourier domain.”
The following claims 24 and 33 highlighted claim elements are vague and indefinite because the term “fits” in image analysis is not clear:
”wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the inspection system to:
analyze data representing the first SEM image to recognize a feature in the first SEM image;
numerically blur the data representing first SEM image to simulate data representing a blurred SEM image acquired at the second resolution;
determine that a portion of the data representing the blurred SEM image fits a portion of data representing the second SEM image; and
in response to the determination that the portion of the data representing the blurred SEM image fits the portion of the data representing the second SEM image, recognize the portion of the data representing the second SEM image as a position containing the feature recognized in the first SEM image.”
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.
Claims 16-21, 25, 26, 28-31, 34, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth (US 6,812,462) in view of Sharma (US 2019/0005629).
Regarding claim 16, Toth teaches an inspection system, comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the inspection system to: acquire a first scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image at a first resolution (see col. 1 lines 15-27, Toth discusses SEM inspection tool may be configured for wafer inspection; see figure 1, figure 12, col. 3 lines 53-56, Toth discusses directing multiple beams on-axis and off-axis directed to the specimen at the same time period);
acquire a second SEM image at a second resolution, wherein the second resolution is lower than the first resolution (see col. 5 lines 60-67, Toth discusses a first beam at the lower resolution of 45 degree angle and a second beam at a higher resolution 90 degree angle; see col. 6 lines 57-59, Toth discusses 90degree beam generator uses a high resolution radial immersion lens and the 45 degree generator uses an axial lens. The beam convergence angle in SEM is the angle between the central axis of the electron beam and the outermost rays that are focused onto the sample. A smaller a results in a smaller spot size on the sample, leading to better resolution).
Toth does not expressly disclose provide an enhanced image, the enhanced image being provided by using the first SEM image as a reference to enhance the second SEM image. However, Sharma teaches provide an enhanced image, the enhanced image being provided by using the first SEM image as a reference to enhance the second SEM image(see para. 0030, 0069, 0072, 0080-0081, Sharma discusses neural network trained with first image data to enhance a low resolution SEM image into a high resolution image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 16. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Toth in this manner in order to improve scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement by using machine learning on reference image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Toth, while the teaching of Sharma continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a machine learning model to properly enhance an input SEM image. The Toth and Sharma systems perform SEM image enhancement, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 17, Sharma teaches wherein the enhanced image is provided by using one or more features extracted from the first SEM image to enhance the second SEM image (see para. 0069, 0072, Sharma discusses using a machine learning model to train images to enhance image data).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 17. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Regarding claim 18, Sharma teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the inspection system to extract a trained feature from the first SEM image using a machine learning network (see para. 0069, 0072, Sharma discusses using a machine learning model to train images to enhance new images).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 18. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Regarding claim 19, Sharma teaches wherein the enhanced image is provided by using the first SEM image as a reference to numerically enhance the second SEM image (see para. 0069, 0072, Sharma discusses using a machine learning model to train images to enhance image data).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 19. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Regarding claim 20, Sharma teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the inspection system to: analyze data representing the first SEM image to obtain one or more spatial-spectral characteristics (see figure 7, para. 0097, Sharma discusses image analysis of the image wave forms consisting of amplitudes and phase); and
provide the enhanced image by applying one or more numerical compensations to data representing the second SEM image based on the one or more spatial-spectral characteristics obtained (see figure 7, para. 0097-0098, Sharma discusses generating an enhanced image consisting of improved amplitudes and phase).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 20. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Regarding claim 21, Sharma teaches wherein the one or more spatial-spectral characteristics obtained comprise phase and amplitude characteristics (see figure 7, para. 0097, Sharma discusses image analysis of the image wave forms consisting of amplitudes and phase).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 21. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 21. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Regarding claim 25, Sharma teaches wherein the first resolution and the second resolution correspond to at least one of: an amount of signal averaging, a noise ratio of a SEM image frame, a pixel size, a SEM electron beam width of an on-axis electron beam of a multi-electron beam system, a SEM electron beam width of an off-axis electron beam of a multi-electron beam system, a SEM electron beam width of a single electron beam system, or a current supplied to a SEM electron beam (see para. 0082, Sharma discusses low signal-to-noise SNR image are lower quality images, while high SNR image is a higher quality image).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 25. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 25. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Regarding claim 26, Sharma teaches wherein the first SEM image is acquired using an on-axis electron beam of a multi-electron beam system and the second SEM image is acquired using an off-axis electron beam of the multi-electron beam system (see figures 3A and 3B, col. 4 lines 38-50, Toth discusses 40 scanning electron microscope (SEM) which provides two electron beam (e-beams) incident upon a specimen. In one embodiment, the SEM includes an e-beam generator system operable to direct a first e-beam at a first angle towards a first area of the specimen and to direct a second e-beam at a second angle towards the same area of the specimen).
The same motivation of claim 16 is applied to claim 26. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth with Sharma to derive at the invention of claim 26. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
Claim 28 is rejected as applied to claim 16 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 29 is rejected as applied to claim 17 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 30 is rejected as applied to claim 18 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 31 is rejected as applied to claim 20 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 34 is rejected as applied to claims 25 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 35 is rejected as applied to claims 26 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claims 22, 23, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth (US 6,812,462) in view of Sharma (US 2019/0005629) in view of Lazic et al. (US 2015/0243474).
Regarding claim 22, Toth and Sharma do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more numerical compensations are applied in a Fourier domain. However, Lazic teaches wherein the one or more numerical compensations are applied in a Fourier domain (see para. 0069-0084, Lazic discusses performing deconvolution using a Fourier transform to perform open angle correction on a SEM image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth and Sharma with Lazic to derive at the invention of claim 22. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Toth and Sharma in this manner in order to improve scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement by using machine learning on reference image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Toth and Sharma, while the teaching of Lazic continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a machine learning model to properly enhance an input SEM image. The Toth, Sharma, and Lazic systems perform SEM image enhancement, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 23, Toth and Sharma do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more numerical compensations are applied to deconvolve the second SEM image. However, Lazic teaches wherein the one or more numerical compensations are applied to deconvolve the second SEM image (see para. 0069-0084, Lazic discusses performing deconvolution using a Fourier transform to perform open angle correction on a SEM image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth and Sharma with Lazic to derive at the invention of claim 23. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Toth and Sharma in this manner in order to improve scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement by using machine learning on reference image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Toth and Sharma, while the teaching of Lazic continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a machine learning model to properly enhance an input SEM image. The Toth, Sharma, and Lazic systems perform SEM image enhancement, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 32, Sharma teaches wherein the one or more spatial-spectral characteristics obtained comprise phase and amplitude characteristics (see figure 7, para. 0097, Sharma discusses image analysis of the image wave forms consisting of amplitudes and phase). Lazic teaches wherein the one or more numerical compensations are applied in a Fourier domain to deconvolve the second SEM image (see para. 0069-0084, Lazic discusses performing deconvolution using a Fourier transform to perform open angle correction on a SEM image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth and Sharma with Lazic to derive at the invention of claim 32. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Toth and Sharma in this manner in order to improve scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement by using machine learning on reference image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Toth and Sharma, while the teaching of Lazic continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a machine learning model to properly enhance an input SEM image. The Toth, Sharma, and Lazic systems perform SEM image enhancement, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth (US 6,812,462) in view of Sharma (US 2019/0005629) in view of Jiang (US 2016/0322190).
Regarding claim 27, Toth and Sharma do not expressly disclose wherein the first SEM image is acquired using a low-current electron beam and the second SEM image is acquired using a high-current electron beam. However, Jiang teaches wherein the first SEM image is acquired using a low-current electron beam and the second SEM image is acquired using a high-current electron beam (see para. 0038, Jiang discusses switch between the high beam current mode and the low beam current mode to produce different SEM images; low beam current mode may be particularly useful for applications for which maximum resolution and high beam current mode for lower resolution).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Toth and Sharma with Jiang to derive at the invention of claim 27. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Toth and Sharma in this manner in order to improve scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image enhancement by using machine learning on reference image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Toth and Sharma, while the teaching of Jiang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a machine learning model to properly enhance an input SEM image. The Toth, Sharma, and Jiang systems perform SEM image enhancement, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ha et al. (US 2018/0330511) discusses electron beam tool configured to use multiple modes to generate electron beam images of the specimen with different illumination angles or collection angles.
Enyama et al. (US 2017/0025251) discusses inverse Fourier transformation and deconvolution.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights