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 statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/5/2024 and 2/27/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because 135 is supposed to be the first temporal based roughness parameter (131) compared to the second temporal based roughness parameter (132) but 131 and 133 are being fed into 135. Likewise, 136 is supposed to be the first spatial based roughness parameter (133) compared to the second spatial based roughness parameter (134), but 132 and 134 are being fed into 136, as described in the specification (¶46-48). 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Roughness determination of a structural element in an electron beam image.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶36 charged particle tool is 60 should be 50.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 “processing circuit” should be “the processing circuit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “memory unit”… “store” in claim 1. Structural support is found in ¶27 of the originally filed specification.
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 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being so broad that it is unclear what is being claimed. Claim 1 recites “temporal noise sensed information generated by a temporal noise sensor that differs from an electron beam sensor used for generating the first electron beam image.” It is not clear what the temporal noise sensor is referring to. Applicant’s speciation uses identical wording to the claim with no examples or further detail to what it may be. It is not clear if it is a separate electron beam sensor, or a motion sensor, or a processor that generates new data, or something else entirely. Examiner would like to point out that saying what something is not does not adequately describe what it is. For purposes of examination examiner interprets it to mean a separate electron beam sensor as found in Bizen (Pub. No. US20230095456A1), and is further described in the art rejection below. Claims 8 and 15 are corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium claims to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claims.
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(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bizen (Pub. No. US20230095456A1) in view of Shintani (Pub. No. US20240297012A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bizen discloses A roughness determining computerized system, the roughness determining computerized system comprising: a memory unit that is configured to store: (Bizen Fig. 1 and ¶29 and 31; a recording unit is disclosed.) a first electron beam image of a structural element, the first electron beam image comprises a temporal noise component that is associated with a first acquisition process of the first electron beam image; (Bizen ¶43 and Fig. 6B; imaging a wafer on a target machine is disclosed.) and temporal noise related information, the temporal noise related information comprises at least one out of (a) a second electron beam image acquired by applying a second acquisition process that differs from the first acquisition process by a temporal parameter, (this limitation is given the patentable weight of “or” and is considered not to occur) or (b) temporal noise sensed information generated by a temporal noise sensor that differs from an electron beam related sensor used for generating the first electron beam image; (Bizen ¶40-41 and Fig. 6A and 6B; a pattern on a wafer is imaged using a SEM and the PSDmaster’ is obtained (see also ¶34-35 plurality of apparatuses can be used to obtain PSDmaster). Note this limitation is taken to mean a separate electron beam sensor from the electron beam sensor that measures the first electron beam image.).
Bizen discloses utilizing corrected information to calculate roughness, but not explicitly and a processing circuit configured to decouple the temporal noise component from the first electron beam image based on temporal analysis and spatial analysis related to the first electron beam image and the temporal noise related information.
Shintani, however, discloses and a processing circuit configured to decouple the temporal noise component from the first electron beam image based on temporal analysis and spatial analysis related to the first electron beam image and the temporal noise related information. (Shintani ¶45-48 and math 1; the PSD of the calibration image is used to remove temporal widening in the Fourier domain and is then inverse Fourier transformed back into the image domain. ¶52 explains this is done using a processor.)
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 system of Bizen with teachings of Shintani by including decoupling of temporal noise as in Shintani in order to provide a simple and low cost way to reduce blur artifacts (Shintani ¶6).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bizen in view of Shintani discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose wherein the processing circuit is configured to perform the temporal analysis and the spatial analysis by: calculating a first temporal based roughness parameter of the structural element based on the first electron beam image; (Bizen ¶43; the PSD of a wafer by the correction target machine is disclosed (PSDobs).) calculating a second temporal based roughness parameter of the structural element based on the temporal noise related information; (Bizen ¶41; PSD of a wafer on a reference machine is disclosed (PSDmaster).) calculating a first spatial based roughness parameter of the structural element based on the first electron beam image; (Bizen ¶40; random noise is known to have a constant intensity at any frequency. Random noise is removed from PSDobs ¶43.) calculating a second spatial based roughness parameter of the structural element based on the temporal noise related information; (Bizen ¶40; random noise is known to have a constant intensity at any frequency. Random noise is removed from PSDmaster ¶41) comparing the first temporal based roughness parameter of the structural element to the second temporal based roughness parameter of the structural element to provide a temporal comparison result; (Bizen ¶37 and 43 and Equation 2; PSDobs is corrected by subtracting (comparing) PSDmaster.) comparing the first spatial based roughness parameter of the structural element to the second spatial based roughness parameter of the structural element to provide a spatial comparison result; (Bizen ¶37 and 43 and Equation 2; PSDobs” (with noise removed) is corrected by subtracting (comparing) PSDmaster’(with noise removed)).) and determining based on the temporal comparison result and the spatial comparison result, the roughness parameter of the structural element. (Bizen ¶37 and 43 and Equation 2; PSDobs” (with noise removed) is corrected by subtracting (comparing) PSDmaster’(with noise removed)). The LERcorr (roughness parameter of the structural element) can then be calculated.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bizen in view of Shintani discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 2, as described above. They further disclose wherein the temporal noise related information is the second electron beam image. (Shintani ¶5-6; images are taken at two different scan speeds producing first and second electron beam images with different amounts of blur (noise).)
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 system of the combination of Bizen and Shintani by further including an option to image the circuit at two different scan speeds to produce images with different amounts of blur as described in Shintani, in order to be able to reduce temporal signal widening (Shintani ¶5-6).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bizen in view of Shintani discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 2, as described above. They further disclose wherein the temporal noise related information is the temporal noise sensed information. ; (Bizen ¶40-41 and Fig. 6A and 6B; a pattern on a wafer is imaged using a SEM and the PSDmaster’ is obtained (see also ¶34-35 plurality of apparatuses can be used to obtain PSDmaster))
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bizen in view of Shintani discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 5, as described above. They further disclose wherein processing circuit is configured to calculate the second temporal based roughness parameter of the structural element by performing a temporal transformation on the temporal noise related information, and by performing a temporal to spatial transformation on an outcome of the temporal transformation. (Bizen ¶41; PSD of a wafer on a reference machine is disclosed (PSDmaster). This is in the frequency domain therefore a transformation of image data was performed.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bizen in view of Shintani discloses the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose further comprising electron optics configured to acquire the first electron beam image. (Benzin ¶40 and Fig. 2; a scanning electron microscope is disclosed.)
Regarding claims 8-9, 11-14 they are the corresponding method claims to claims 1-2, and 4-7 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 15-16, 18-20 they are the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claims to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, and 17 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, and also resolving the 112(b) issues described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-5805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/MEREDITH TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights