DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 11,462,380 B2 (“380 Patent”). 380 Patent issued on October 4, 2022 with claims 1-20 from application 17/266,792, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2019/067882 filed on July 3, 2019, and claims priority to EP 18191043 filed on August 28, 2018.
This application was filed on October 1, 2024. Since this date is after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant filed these claims and demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 380 Patent.
The most recent amendment was filed on October 1, 2024. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-11 and 13-20: Original
Claim 12: Amended
Claims 21-23: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
380 Patent (US 11,462,380 B2)
Kruit (US 2017/0243717 A1)
Brodie (US 2017/0229279 A1)
Ren (US 2017/0213688 A1)
Feuerbaum (US 2006/0237659 A1)
Frosien (US 9,035,249 B1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruit.
Claim 3, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Brodie.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Ren.
Claims 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Feuerbaum.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Frosien.
Claims 10, 11, and 23 contain allowable subject matter.
Summary of the Claims
380 Patent is directed to an apparatus and method for inspecting a substrate by scanning the substrate with a plurality of electron beamlets. Claim 21 is representative:
21. An apparatus configured to direct charged particles towards an object, the apparatus comprising:
an addressable deflector configured and arranged to independently displace each beamlet of a plurality of beamlets of charged particles to impinge on a selected target location; and
instructions, when executed by at least one processor, programmed to control, or cause control of, the addressable deflector such that at least one beamlet has its pitch changed with respect to its nearest neighbors when emitted from the addressable deflector for generating an irregular grid on a surface of the object.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 21 are the independent claims. Apparatus claim 1 recites the elements of claim 21 and further recites a condenser lens, a scan deflector, and an objective lens. Claims 12 and 15 recite a method (or a computing device executing a method) with steps corresponding to the apparatus claims.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “an electric field for steering the charged particle passing through the array of apertures” in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because the claim previously recites “a charged particle beam” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the claimed electric field steers the beam through the apertures or merely one particle out of the beam. Based on 380 Patent specification and similar claim 10, Examiner suggests that Applicant amend “the charged particle” to “the charged particle beam” in line 7.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruit.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kruit discloses an apparatus for inspecting a substrate having a pattern thereon (Figures 1, 2, 5A, and 6B-C), the apparatus comprising:
a condenser lens 26 configured to receive a plurality of electron beamlets and reduce a divergence thereof (i.e., lens unit 26 reduces the divergence of beamlets 25; paragraph [0100]; see also lens 86 in Figure 5A);
a scan deflector configured and arranged to displace the beamlets as a group to scan a surface of the substrate (i.e., Kruit discloses that a deflection unit “similar” to the one shown in Figure 6A “comprising said first substrate 882 and/or said second substrate 883 can be used at or in said objective lens unit 87 for scanning the primary electron beams 85′ over the surface of the sample 13”; see Figures 5A and 6A; paragraph [0127])
an objective lens configured and arranged to focus the beamlets onto the surface of the substrate (i.e., lens unit 27 focuses beamlets onto to substrate/sample 13; paragraph [0100]; see also lens 87 in Figure 5A);
an addressable deflector configured and arranged to independently displace each beamlet to impinge on a selected target location (i.e., Figure 6B shows a deflector 893 with electrodes 897 and 898 that can be adjusted individually for each opening 895; paragraph [0132]; Kruit discloses that this deflector is separate from the above-discussed scan deflector that is “used at or in said objective unit 87”; paragraph [0127]); and
instructions, when executed by at least one processor, programmed to control, or cause control of, the addressable deflector such that at least one beamlet has its pitch changed with respect to its nearest neighbors when emitted from the addressable deflector for generating an irregular grid on the surface of the substrate (i.e., controllers 11 and 12 are processing units executing instructions that control the system including the deflectors; Figure 1; paragraph [0097]; again, Kruit discloses the addressable deflector shown in Figure 6B “allows adjusting the deflection of each primary electron beam 85 in the x-direction and/or y-direction individually”; paragraph [0132]).
PNG
media_image2.png
591
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kruit discloses an aberration correcting deflector configured and arranged to controllably displace the beamlets to correct aberrations (i.e., Kruit discloses deflector 894, in addition to an addressable deflector 893, for correcting rotational alignment/aberration; Figure 6B; paragraphs [0128]-[0132]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kruit discloses that the addressable deflector and the aberration correcting deflector are embodied in a single array of apertures and associated electrodes or are disposed in conjugate planes at least in the sense they are disposed in a same plane (i.e., Figure 6C shows a combined addressable deflector and aberration correcting deflector; paragraphs [0133]-[0137]).
Regarding independent claim 12, as similarly discussed with regard to claim 1, Kruit discloses a method of inspecting a substrate having a pattern thereon (Figures 1, 2, 5A, and 6B-C), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of selected target locations on the substrate (i.e., controllers 11 select target locations for electron beamlets; paragraphs [0097]-[0098]) ;
scanning the substrate with a plurality of electron beamlets (e.g., deflector 88 scans substrate 13 with beamlets 85; Figure 5A), wherein the scanning comprises individually addressing, using an addressable deflector, the beamlets to impinge on the selected target locations independently such that at least one beamlet has its pitch changed with respect to its nearest neighbors when emitted from the addressable deflector for generating an irregular grid on the surface of the substrate (i.e., Figure 6B shows a deflector 893 with electrodes 897 and 898 that can be adjusted individually for each opening 895; paragraph [0132]; Kruit discloses that this deflector is separate from an additional scan deflector that is “used at or in said objective unit 87”; paragraph [0127]); and
detecting reflected, transmitted, or secondary electrons of the beamlets and generating images of the selected target locations (i.e., multi-sensor detector system 8 detects secondary electron beams 9 and “contains image information of the part of the sample 13 inspected by the particular multi-beam electron column unit 1, 1′.”; Figure 1; paragraph [0098]; see also multi-sensor detector system 28 in Figure 2 and paragraphs [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 14, Kruit discloses that the scanning comprises individually deflecting each beamlet independently using an array of individually addressable electrodes of the addressable deflector (i.e., Figure 6B shows a deflector 893 with electrodes 897 and 898 that can be adjusted individually for each opening 895; paragraph [0132]).
Regarding independent claim 15, the claim recites steps similar to those discussed above with regard to independent claim 12. Kruit discloses a computing device including memory and at least one processor (i.e., assembly controller 12 and unit controllers 11, which inherently include memory and at least one processor for carrying out disclosed activities such as “retrieval of data” and “controlling the functioning of the various elements”; paragraphs [0097]-[0098]), the at least one processor being operable to control an inspection device to at least
obtain a plurality of selected target locations on the substrate (i.e., controllers 11 select target locations for electron beamlets; paragraphs [0097]-[0098]) ;
scan the substrate with a plurality of electron beamlets (e.g., deflector 88 scans substrate 13 with beamlets 85; Figure 5A), wherein the scanning comprises individually addressing, using an addressable deflector, the beamlets to impinge on the selected target locations independently such that at least one beamlet has its pitch changed with respect to its nearest neighbors when emitted from the addressable deflector for generating an irregular grid on the surface of the substrate (i.e., Figure 6B shows a deflector 893 with electrodes 897 and 898 that can be adjusted individually for each opening 895; paragraph [0132]; Kruit discloses that this deflector is separate from an additional scan deflector that is “used at or in said objective unit 87”; paragraph [0127]); and
detect reflected, transmitted, or secondary electrons of the beamlets and generate images of the selected target locations (i.e., multi-sensor detector system 8 detects secondary electron beams 9 and “contains image information of the part of the sample 13 inspected by the particular multi-beam electron column unit 1, 1′.”; Figure 1; paragraph [0098]; see also multi-sensor detector system 28 in Figure 2 and paragraphs [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 17, Kruit discloses that the scanning comprises individual deflection of each beamlet independently using an array of individually addressable electrodes of the addressable deflector (i.e., Figure 6B shows a deflector 893 with electrodes 897 and 898 that can be adjusted individually for each opening 895; paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 18, Kruit discloses that the at least one processor is further operable to control the inspection device to controllably displace the beamlets to correct aberrations (i.e., Kruit discloses deflector 894, in addition to an addressable deflector 893, for correcting rotational alignment/aberration; Figure 6B; paragraphs [0128]-[0132]).
Regarding independent claim 21, Kruit discloses an apparatus configured to direct charged particles towards an object (Figures 1, 2, 5A, and 6B-C), the apparatus comprising:
an addressable deflector configured and arranged to independently displace each beamlet of a plurality of beamlets of charged particles to impinge on a selected target location (i.e., Figure 6B shows a deflector 893 with electrodes 897 and 898 that can be adjusted individually for each opening 895; paragraph [0132]; Kruit discloses that this deflector is separate from the above-discussed scan deflector that is “used at or in said objective unit 87”; paragraph [0127]); and
instructions, when executed by at least one processor, programmed to control, or cause control of, the addressable deflector such that at least one beamlet has its pitch changed with respect to its nearest neighbors when emitted from the addressable deflector for generating an irregular grid on a surface of the object (i.e., controllers 11 and 12 are processing units executing instructions that control the system including the deflectors; Figure 1; paragraph [0097]; again, Kruit discloses the addressable deflector shown in Figure 6B “allows adjusting the deflection of each primary electron beam 85 in the x-direction and/or y-direction individually”; paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 22, Kruit discloses a source configured to generate the charged particles (i.e., emitter 2 in Figure 1 or emitter 22 in Figure 2; paragraphs [0094] and [0099]).
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.
Claim 3, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Brodie.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Kruit discloses an apparatus as discussed above with regard to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a micro lens array to correct a field curvature. However, Brodie teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Kruit, including an apparatus for inspecting a substrate including lenses configured to receive electron beamlets and direct the beamlets onto the substrate surface (Brodie, Figures 1-3). Brodie further teaches a micro lens array 104 configured and arranged to controllably displace the beamlets to correct a field curvature, wherein the micro lens array is configured and arranged to controllably displace the beamlets in a focus direction to correct the field curvature (Brodie, Figure 3; paragraphs [0021]-[0024]). Regarding claims 3 and 7, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a micro lens array as taught by Brodie in the apparatus disclosed by Kruit to advantageously compensate for field curvature of the beamlets and ensure that the beamlets are properly focused on the flat substrate (Brodie, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Kruit discloses a computing device as discussed above with regard to claim 15, but does not specifically disclose controllably displacing the beamlets to correct a field curvature. Again, Brodie teaches in a related system, a micro lens array 104 configured and arranged to controllably displace the beamlets to correct a field curvature (Brodie, Figure 3; paragraphs [0021]-[0024]). Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a controllable micro lens array as taught by Brodie in the computing device disclosed by Kruit to advantageously compensate for field curvature of the beamlets and ensure that the beamlets are properly focused on the flat substrate (Brodie, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Ren.
Regarding claim 6, Kruit discloses an apparatus as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2, including an addressable deflector 893 and aberration correcting deflector 894 (Figure 6B), but does not specifically disclose that the aberration correcting deflector is configured and arranged to controllably displace the beamlets in a radial direction to correct aberrations. However, Ren teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Kruit, including scanning a substrate 8 with a plurality of electron beamlets 102-1, 102-2, and 102-3 (Ren, Figures 5A-B; paragraphs [0078]-[0079]. Ren further teaches an aberration correcting deflector (i.e., field lens 534) configured and arranged to controllably displace the beamlets in a radial direction to correct aberrations (Ren, paragraphs [0078]-[0079]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an aberration correcting deflector for controllably displacing the beamlets in a radial direction as taught by Ren in the system disclosed by Kruit in order to advantageously correct radial aberration.
Claims 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Feuerbaum.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kruit discloses an apparatus as discussed above with regard to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a movable stage. However, Feuerbaum teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Kruit, including an apparatus for inspecting a substrate 16 including deflectors 59 configured to receive electron beamlets and direct the beamlets onto the substrate surface (Feuerbaum, Figure 6; paragraphs [0085]-[0087]). Feuerbaum further teaches a movable stage 18 configured to hold the substrate during the inspecting, wherein the movable stage is configured to move the substrate relative to the beamlets during the inspecting (Feuerbaum, paragraph [0081]; see also Figure 1 and paragraph [0040]). Regarding claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a movable stage as taught by Feuerbaum in the system disclosed by Kruit in order to advantageously enable the substrate to be moved as desired to properly expose it to the electron beams. Feuerbaum specifically teaches that such a moveable stage can be used with deflectors that also move the beams relative to the substrate (Feuerbaum, paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 20, Kruit discloses a computing device as discussed above with regard to claim 15, but does not specifically disclose moving the substrate relative to the beamlets during the inspecting. Again, Feuerbaum teaches in a related system, a movable stage 18 configured to hold the substrate during the inspecting, wherein the movable stage is configured to move the substrate relative to the beamlets during the inspecting (Feuerbaum, paragraph [0081]; see also Figure 1 and paragraph [0040]). Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a controllably movable stage as taught by Feuerbaum in the computing device disclosed by Kruit in order to advantageously enable the substrate to be moved as desired to properly expose it to the electron beams. Feuerbaum specifically teaches that such a moveable stage can be used with deflectors that also move the beams relative to the substrate (Feuerbaum, paragraph [0081]).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Frosien.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Kruit discloses a method and a computing device as discussed above with independent claims 12 and 15, including controllers 11 selecting target locations for electron beamlets (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]). Kruit is silent with respect to how target locations are selected.
However, Frosien teaches a method that is related to the one disclosed by Kruit including scanning a substrate 8 with a plurality of electron beamlets 4A-E and detecting reflected, transmitted, or secondary electrons of the beamlets and generating images of selected target locations (Frosien, Figure 1A; column 5, lines 56-67; column 6, lines 1-44). Frosien further teaches that selected target locations are selected on the basis of a measure of criticality, and/or wherein the selected target locations are selected dependent on characteristics of the pattern (e.g., Frosien teaches that one may select “only imaging of sensitive areas, which have increased defect potential”; column 1, lines 49-54). Regarding claims 13 and 16, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select target locations based on criticality as taught by Frosien in the method and computing system disclosed by Kruit in order to advantageously concentrate on more important locations of the substrate in a limited amount of time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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:
The prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly teach an apparatus including the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations of claims 10, 11, and 23 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims and as well as claim 23 may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), particularly wherein the addressable deflector has independently addressable electrodes comprising:
an array of apertures configured to allow passage of an electron or charged particle beam therethrough;
an array of electrodes, each electrode of the array positioned proximate a respective aperture, the electrodes configured and arranged to, when energized, produce an electric field for steering the electron or charged particle beam passing through the array of apertures:
a first set of electrical leads extending in a first direction across the array of electrodes, the first set of electrical leads being in electrical communication with an array of switches, the switches being controllable by energizing leads of the first set of electrical leads; and
a second set of electrical leads extending in a second direction across the array of electrodes different from the first direction, the second set of electrical leads being in electrical communication with the array of switches, such that when the switches are opened in response to energizing leads of the first set of electrical leads, charge from a respective one of the second set of electrical leads is allowed to flow to charge a selected electrode of the array of electrodes.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this reissue application is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Patricia Engle at (571) 272-6660; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/Patricia L Engle/ SPRS, Art Unit 3991