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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
One or more machine-readable hardware storage devices (claims 13, 19);
One or more processing devices; and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices (claims 14, 20).
No new matter should be entered.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 24 (e.g., specification page 8, line 3) and 26 (e.g., specification page 9, lines 13-14) have both been used to designate the wafer surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 29 (e.g., specification page 12, line 31) and 48 (e.g., specification page 7, lines 29-31) have both been used to designate the FIB axis.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 29 has been used to designate both the x-direction and the FIB axis (e.g., specification page 12, lines 26-31).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Wafer surface 55.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 2: reference character 15.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification discloses “control units” 70, 80, and 90 (see, e.g., page 8, lines 20-24). However, the specification does not disclose that the control units comprise “[o]ne or more machine-readable hardware storage devices” or “one or more processing devices” as recited in claims 13-14 and 19-20.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because they include reference characters (e.g., a, g, Q, a’) which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
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. Such claim limitations are: “an ion beam device configured to generate an ion beam” in claims 15 and 21. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed ion beam generation is a focused ion beam (FIB) generating device (see, e.g., page 7, lines 28-31).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
An original claim may lack written description support when a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Furthermore, unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167.
In this case, independent claim 1 recites the broad genus limitation “determining a rotation angle g” without limitations regarding the means or methods through which the rotation angle is determined. The specification only discloses determining the rotation angle using the equation
t
a
n
γ
=
t
a
n
θ
s
i
n
α
(page 11, Equation 6; and page 14). Other methods of calculating the rotation angle are known in the art, as evidenced by Tomimatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0278673 A1), hereinafter Tomimatsu, at paragraph 0079, Equation 14; however, there is no evidence in the instant specification that any means or methods of determining the rotation angle are contemplated outside of the narrow species of Equation 6. Therefore, the unlimited functional limitation “determining a rotation angle g” recited in independent claim 1 lacks written description support as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Similarly, independent claim 16 recites the broad genus limitation “determining a desired mill angle a’” without limitations regarding the means or methods through which the desired mill angle is determined. The specification only discloses determining the desired mill angle using the equations
c
o
s
α
'
=
c
o
s
θ
c
o
s
α
(page 11, Equation 8) or
c
o
s
α
'
=
c
o
s
α
1
+
s
i
n
2
α
*
t
a
n
2
γ
(page 11, Equation 9). Other methods of calculating the desired mill angle are known in the art, as evidenced by Meyer Timmerman Thijssen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0247554 A1), hereinafter Meyer Timmerman Thijssen, at paragraph 0038; as discussed below with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the claimed incidence angle α and mill angle α’ are equivalent to 90° - θ and 90° - θ’, respectively, in the disclosure of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen. Therefore, the equation
t
a
n
θ
'
=
t
a
n
θ
*
c
o
s
φ
disclosed at paragraph 0038 demonstrates a method of calculating the desired mill angle other than the narrowly disclosed species of the instant application. There is no evidence in the instant specification that any means or methods of determining the desired mill angle are contemplated outside of the narrow species of Equations 8 and 9. Therefore, the unlimited functional limitation “determining a desired mill angle a’” recited in independent claim 16 lacks written description support as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 17-21 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 16.
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 1-21 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.
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite a “rotation angle g” and a “scan angle Q”. Neither the specification nor the drawings contain any reference to angles labeled “g” or “Q”.
The equation recited in claim 16 includes a variable γ. The variable γ is not defined in the claims.
Claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1; claims 17-21 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 16.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 13-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tomimatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0278673 A1), hereinafter Tomimatsu.
Regarding claim 1, Tomimatsu discloses a method, comprising:
determining an incidence angle a (FIG. 8, angle between Z axis and surface SF, i.e., the incidence angle equals 90° - Ψ) at which an ion beam of an ion beam device (FIG. 8, beam from FIB lens barrel 11) impinges on a surface (FIG. 8, surface SF) of a semiconductor sample (FIG. 8, sample S);
determining a rotation angle g (paragraph 0062, rotation angle R) for the semiconductor sample around a rotation axis (paragraph 0047, lines 9-11, z axis) extending perpendicular to the surface (paragraph 0047, lines 6-7), the rotation axis extending through a cutting edge where the ion beam impacts the surface (FIG. 10: the ion beam along the Z axis impacts the surface at the edge along vector
E
→
1
T
R
of milled surface plane CS; rotation axis z extends through said edge, intersecting with the beam along axis Z), the cutting edge defining an edge where a milled surface plane (FIG. 10, milled surface plane CS) extending oblique to the surface into the semiconductor sample intersects the surface (FIG. 8 shows milled surface plane CS extending oblique to the surface SF);
rotating the semiconductor sample around the rotation axis by the rotation angle g (paragraph 0057);
determining a scan angle Q (FIG. 9, scan angle α) between an adapted scan line (FIG. 9, element
E
→
1
T
) along which the ion beam is moved when impinging on the surface (paragraph 0068) and a default scan line of the ion beam (FIG. 7, default scan line
e
→
1
, i.e., the x axis) extending parallel to the surface (paragraph 0047, lines 17-19), the scan angle Q being determined based on the rotation angle g and the incidence angle a (paragraph 0082: the scan angle α is calculated from rotation angle R and tilt angle φ, wherein the tilt angle φ is calculated from the tilt angle Ψ, wherein the incidence angle is equal to 90° - Ψ);
adapting a scan line of the ion beam to the adapted scan line based on the scan angle Q (paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 13, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method (paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 14, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processing devices (paragraph 0095); and
one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method (paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 15, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 14 discloses the system of claim 14.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses an ion beam device (FIG. 1) configured to generate an ion beam (FIG. 1, ion beam 21).
Regarding claim 16, Tomimatsu discloses a method, comprising:
determining an incidence angle a (FIG. 8, angle between Z axis and surface SF, i.e., the incidence angle equals 90° - Ψ) at which an ion beam of an ion beam device (FIG. 8, beam from FIB lens barrel 11) impinges on a surface (FIG. 8, surface SF) of a semiconductor sample (FIG. 8, sample S);
determining a desired mill angle a’ (FIG. 8, angle between surface SF and surface CS, i.e., the desired mill angle equals 90° - Ψ) between the surface (FIG. 8, surface SF) and a milled surface plane extending oblique to the surface (FIG. 8, milled surface plane CS), the milled surface plane being generated by the ion beam (paragraph 0057, lines 16-18);
determining a scan angle Q (FIG. 9, scan angle α) between an adapted scan line (FIG. 9, element
E
→
1
T
) along which the ion beam is moved when impinging on the surface (paragraph 0068) and a default scan line of the ion beam (FIG. 7, default scan line
e
→
1
, i.e., the x axis) extending parallel to the surface (paragraph 0047, lines 17-19), the scan angle Q being determined based on the incidence angle a and the mill angle a’ (paragraph 0082, last sentence: the scan angle α is determined using the angles φ and R; equations 14 and 16 show that φ and R both depend on Ψ; the incidence angle a and the mill angle a’ are both equal to 90° - Ψ as discussed supra); and
impinging the ion beam along the adapted scan line (paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 19, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method (paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 20, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processing devices (paragraph 0095); and
one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising the method (paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 21, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 20 discloses the system of claim 20.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses an ion beam device (FIG. 1) configured to generate an ion beam (FIG. 1, ion beam 21).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kataoka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0277925 A1), hereinafter Kataoka.
Regarding claim 3, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses determining the scan angle Q for a plurality of rotation angles (paragraphs 0082 and 0092); and
adapting the scan line of the ion beam for each of the rotation angles (paragraph 0068 discloses that the scan line is adapted “[i]n the second FIB processing”; paragraph 0092 discloses that further FIB processing may be performed, with associated calculations of the disclosed angles; therefore, the scan line is adapted, in each FIB processing, in accordance with the plurality of rotation angles).
Tomimatsu fails to disclose impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g.
However, Kataoka discloses impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample (paragraph 0010) by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g (paragraph 0100).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu to include impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g, based on the teachings of Kataoka that this reduces undesirable machining streaks on the surface (Kataoka, paragraph 0149).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu in view of Kataoka as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0247554 A1), hereinafter Meyer Timmerman Thijssen.
Regarding claim 4, Tomimatsu in view of Kataoka as applied to claim 3 discloses the method of claim 3, including impinging the ion beam on the surface with the adapted scan line (Tomimatsu, paragraph 0068; see claim 3/1 supra).
Tomimatsu in view of Kataoka fails to disclose alternatingly impinging the ion beam on the surface when the rotation angle is +g and -g.
However, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses alternatingly impinging the ion beam on the surface when the rotation angle is +g and -g (paragraph 0090 and FIG. 12: the ion beam impinges on the surface at the first rotation angle of +55° at step 1004; the ion beam then impinges on the surface at the second rotation angle of -55° at step 1210).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu in view of Kataoka to include alternatingly impinging the ion beam on the surface when the rotation angle is +g and -g, based on the teachings of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen that this improves the uniformity of the angle of formed structures in the sample (Meyer Timmerman Thijssen, paragraph 0090).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen.
Regarding claim 5, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses that the milled surface has a mill angle a’ with the surface (FIG. 8, angle between surface SF and surface CS, i.e., the mill angle equals 90° - Ψ) which changes with the scan angle Q (paragraph 0082, last sentence: the scan angle α is determined using the angles φ and R; equations 14 and 16 show that φ and R both depend on Ψ; the mill angle a’ is equal to 90° - Ψ as discussed supra).
Tomimatsu fails to disclose that a maximum change of the rotation angle g is determined based on the maximum change of the mill angle a’.
However, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses that a maximum change of the rotation angle g is determined based on the maximum change of the mill angle a’ (paragraph 0049, lines 11-14; the second rotation angle φ (which is changed from the first rotation angle) is determined based on the change of the slant angle from first slant angle to second slant angle θ’; FIG. 3 of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen shows that slant angle θ’ is measured with respect to the axis 306 normal to the surface plane of the sample; therefore, the angle corresponding to the claimed mill angle α’ is equivalent to 90° - θ’).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu to include that a maximum change of the rotation angle g is determined based on the maximum change of the mill angle a’, based on the teachings of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen that the relationship between the change in the rotation angle and the change in the mill angle enables the system to form structures on different portions of the substrate while minimizing complicated adjustments in the etching system (Meyer Timmerman Thijssen, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 6, Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen as applied to claim 5 discloses the method of claim 5.
In addition, Meyer Timmerman Thijssen discloses the equation
sin
θ
'
=
s
i
n
(
θ
)
1
+
c
o
s
2
θ
*
t
a
n
2
ϕ
(paragraph 0038, line 23). Lines 14-15 of paragraph 0038 disclose that ϕ is a rotation angle for the sample 302 around a rotation axis extending perpendicular to the surface (X axis, FIG. 3). FIG. 12 of the instant application shows that incidence angle α and mill angle α’ are measured with respect to the XY surface plane of the sample; FIG. 3 of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen shows that incidence angle θ and mill angle θ’ are measured with respect to the axis 306 normal to the surface plane of the sample. Therefore, the angles corresponding to the claimed incidence angle α and mill angle α’ are equivalent to 90° - θ and 90° - θ’, respectively, in the disclosure of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen. According to the trigonometric reduction formulae (The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, 2008), sin(90°±θ) = cos(θ). Therefore, the equation disclosed in Meyer Timmerman Thijssen is mathematically equivalent to the claimed equation.
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen to include determining the mill angle a’ using the equation
cos
α
'
=
c
o
s
α
1
+
s
i
n
2
α
*
t
a
n
2
γ
, based on the additional teachings of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen that this equation enables the system to form structures on different portions of the substrate while minimizing complicated adjustments in the etching system (Meyer Timmerman Thijssen, paragraph 0038).
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen as respectively applied to claims 6 and 5 above, and further in view of Kataoka.
Regarding claim 8, Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of claim 6.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses determining the scan angle Q for a plurality of rotation angles (paragraphs 0082 and 0092); and
adapting the scan line of the ion beam for each of the rotation angles (paragraph 0068 discloses that the scan line is adapted “[i]n the second FIB processing”; paragraph 0092 discloses that further FIB processing may be performed, with associated calculations of the disclosed angles; therefore, the scan line is adapted, in each FIB processing, in accordance with the plurality of rotation angles).
Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen fails to disclose impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g.
However, Kataoka discloses impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample (paragraph 0010) by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g (paragraph 0100).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen to include impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g, based on the teachings of Kataoka that this reduces undesirable machining streaks on the surface (Kataoka, paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 9, Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen as applied to claim 5 discloses the method of claim 5.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses determining the scan angle Q for a plurality of rotation angles (paragraphs 0082 and 0092); and
adapting the scan line of the ion beam for each of the rotation angles (paragraph 0068 discloses that the scan line is adapted “[i]n the second FIB processing”; paragraph 0092 discloses that further FIB processing may be performed, with associated calculations of the disclosed angles; therefore, the scan line is adapted, in each FIB processing, in accordance with the plurality of rotation angles).
Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen fails to disclose impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g.
However, Kataoka discloses impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample (paragraph 0010) by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g (paragraph 0100).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen to include impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g, based on the teachings of Kataoka that this reduces undesirable machining streaks on the surface (Kataoka, paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 11, Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen as applied to claim 5 discloses the method of claim 5.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses determining the scan angle Q for a plurality of rotation angles (paragraphs 0082 and 0092); and
adapting the scan line of the ion beam for each of the rotation angles (paragraph 0068 discloses that the scan line is adapted “[i]n the second FIB processing”; paragraph 0092 discloses that further FIB processing may be performed, with associated calculations of the disclosed angles; therefore, the scan line is adapted, in each FIB processing, in accordance with the plurality of rotation angles).
Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen fails to disclose impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g.
However, Kataoka discloses impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample (paragraph 0010) by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g (paragraph 0100).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen to include impinging the ion beam on the surface while rotating the semiconductor sample by a rotation angle +g and a rotation angle -g, based on the teachings of Kataoka that this reduces undesirable machining streaks on the surface (Kataoka, paragraph 0149).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Shen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0037000 A1), hereinafter Shen.
Regarding claim 17, Tomimatsu as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Tomimatsu discloses rotating the semiconductor sample (paragraph 0057) around a rotation axis (paragraph 0047, lines 9-11, z axis) extending perpendicular to the surface (paragraph 0047, lines 6-7) by a rotation angle g (paragraph 0062, rotation angle R), wherein the rotation axis extends through a cutting edge where the ion beam impinges on the surface (FIG. 10: the ion beam along the Z axis impacts the surface at the edge along vector
E
→
1
T
R
of milled surface plane CS; rotation axis z extends through said edge, intersecting with the beam along axis Z), and the cutting edge defines an edge where the milled surface plane intersects the surface (FIG. 10, milled surface plane CS); and
determining the rotation angle g based on the incidence angle a (paragraph 0079, equation 14: the rotation angle R is calculated using the angle Ψ; the incidence angle is equal to 90° - Ψ as discussed supra).
Tomimatsu fails to disclose that rotating the semiconductor sample compensates a scan angle Q not equal zero; and determining the rotation angle g based on the scan angle Q.
However, Shen discloses that rotating the semiconductor sample compensates a scan angle Q not equal zero (paragraphs 0042-0043: rotation occurs to ensure all regions have equivalent ion beam incidence to compensate for variation in tilt angle, i.e., scan angle); and
determining the rotation angle g based on the scan angle Q (paragraphs 0042-0043: rotation occurs to ensure all regions have equivalent ion beam incidence to compensate for variation in tilt angle, i.e., scan angle).
Therefore, 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 Tomimatsu to include that rotating the semiconductor sample compensates a scan angle Q not equal zero; and determining the rotation angle g based on the scan angle Q, based on the teachings of Shen that this improves the uniformity of ion beam irradiation at the sample surface (Shen, paragraph 0066).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biberger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0318908 A1), hereinafter Biberger, teaches impinging an ion beam on a sample surface while rotating the sample.
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0183017 A1), hereinafter Wang, teaches determining a rotation angle of a sample based on an incidence angle of an ion beam.
Klochkov et al. (WO Patent No. 2021180600 A1), hereinafter Klochkov, teaches a maximum change of a mill angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights