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 (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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” in claim 1, “sensing unit” in claims 7 and 20, and “detection unit” in claim 14.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20200302584 A1) referred to as Zhang hereinafter and further in view of Simovitch (US 20220050060 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches A system for navigation accuracy, the system comprising: (“techniques for high-accuracy alignment of chip images into a composite image” Zhang, para. [0027]) a memory unit configured to store scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of tiles of a sample, (“imaging system 100 may be applied to align and stitch high-resolution images of tissue, brain cells or other cells, or other subjects of microscope scanning for which multiple high-resolution images at different locations are captured.” Zhang, para. [0041]) and (“Computing device 106 may include memory 114 configured to store images 120.” Zhang, para. [0031])
the tiles belong to a periodic array of structural elements that exhibit at least one microscopic dimension, (“the overlap region may include a 3×3 grid of tiles, or a differently dimensioned grid of tiles (e.g., 3×4, 4×4, 100×100).” Zhang, para. [0042]) and (“because the circuit layout is highly repetitive, and circuits are often structured around a grid during manufacturing. Image processor 118 may use the frequency information to align signal peaks (e.g. along the x and y dimensions) based on the grid structure.” Zhang, para. [0071])
wherein the tiles comprise a reference tile of a known location (“The geometric alignment of these multiple images can be calibrated so that systematic misalignment can be estimated. Although the relative positions of these images drift as time goes by, the change is relatively small.” Zhang, para. [0051]) and (“Once image processor 118 has identified cell structures (as described above), image processor 118 may then determine a list of reference cells (e.g., the most representative cells, in the center of the cluster of similar cells). Image processor 118 may then designate any outlier cells (e.g. ones with a noisy patch) as anomalies and correct them using the reference cells as a guide.” Zhang, para. [0075])
wherein there is an overlap region between each set of adjacent tiles, each overlap region comprises an overlap segment of one of the structural elements; (“Image processor 118 may include feature matcher 130. Once feature extractor 128 has identified a distributed set of distinguishing feature points in each tile of the overlap region in each of the pair of images, feature matcher 130 may attempt to match identified feature points in the first image with corresponding identified feature points in the second image.” Zhang, para. [0046])
and a location circuit that comprises one or more integrated circuits, and is configured to determine locations of the tiles based on locations of sets of adjacent tiles; (“partitioning a first overlap region of a first image of the pair into a first plurality of grid tiles and partitioning a second overlap region of a second image of the pair into a second plurality of grid tiles, the first overlap region and the second overlap region being overlapping regions of the first image and the second image;” Zhang, para. [0007]) and (“FIG. 5 depicts a pair of images 146, 148 selected from images 120 (FIG. 1). Image processor 118 may determine that image 146 has an overlapping region 150 with image 148, based on the images' microscope stage coordinates, indicating the position of the microscope stage with respect to ICD 108 (FIG. 1) when ICD 108 captured the images. Image processor 118 may align image 146 with image 148 by matching individual feature points 154 within overlapping region 150.” Zhang, para. [0062])
wherein the location circuit is configured to determine a location of each set based on (i) a process variation that appears in an overlap segment of the set, (“an image processor computes an estimated overlap region for the two images, based on a set of image coordinates, such as a set of microscope stage coordinates (610).” Zhang, para. [0065]) (ii) the known location, (“the image processor may compute a set of feature descriptors indicative of the identified feature points (606, 616).” Zhang, para. [0065]) and (iii) a presence of the overlap segment of the set within each tile of the set. (“The image processor, based on a respective set of microscope stage coordinates associated with each image, determines an approximate overlapping region in each image 1110).” Zhang, para. [0076])
However, Zhang does not teach and location error prone tiles,
Simovitch teaches and location error prone tiles, (“Scanning equipment including an imager and configured to scan a region of a sample. [0062] A processing and memory circuitry including the computerized system and a sample analysis module (e.g. a wafer analysis module). The sample analysis module is configured to detect potential defects in one or more areas of the region taking into account displacement mappings of the one or more areas generated by the displacement analysis module of the computerized system.” Simovitch, para. [0060])
Zhang and Simovitch are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in SEM.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in light of Simovitch’s location of error prone tiles. One would have been motivated to do so because it can optimize the computation time while satisfying accuracy requirements. (Simovitch, para. [0225])
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches wherein the location circuit is configured to determine the process variation, for each set, by applying a spatial frequency transform on pixels of the overlap region of the set. (“image processor 118 may include frequency analyzer 134 (detailed further in FIG. 5, below). Frequency analyzer 134 may compute a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for the images 120 to determine periodic features, such as repetitive patterns within the images. Frequency analyzer 134 may compare the frequency data to the results of bundle adjuster 132 to further refine the image alignment.” Zhang, para. [0049])
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches wherein the spatial frequency transform is a two-dimensional spatial frequency transform. (“The example of FIG. 8 depicts a computed 2-dimensional FFT 812 for image 810 (one of images 120 of FIG. 2.. Image processor 118 may use the frequency information to align signal peaks (e.g. along the x and y dimensions) based on the grid structure.)” Zhang, para. [0071])
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches wherein the location circuit is configured to determine, for each set, (a) a first coordinate of the overlap segment of the set based on the process variation that appears in the overlap segment of the set, (“an image processor computes an estimated overlap region for the two images, based on a set of image coordinates, such as a set of microscope stage coordinates (610). The image processor may partition the overlap region for each image into a plurality of normalized tiles, and then analyze each tile for one or more distinctive feature points (604, 614).” Zhang, para. [0065])
and (b) a second coordinate of the overlap segment of the set based on the presence of the overlap segment of the set within each tile of the set. (“The alignment coordinate refers to the 3D vector that provides the best alignment for the overlap region, and the net result of bundle adjustment is the best-fit adjustment based on minimizing the net error associated with the alignment of the images.” Zhang, para. [0067])
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches wherein the structural elements are arranged in a repeating pattern along a single axis of repetition, (“Frequency analyzer 134 may compute a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for the images 120 to determine periodic features, such as repetitive patterns within the images.” Zhang, para. [0049]) wherein the second coordinate is a single axis of repetition coordinate. (“Structural analysis may include, for example, extracting frequency data describing the frequency of repeated structures and patterns within the images of the integrated circuit.” Zhang, para. [0059])
Regarding claim 6, Zhang does not teach wherein the location circuit is configured to determine a location of a suspected defect positioned within a target tile of the tiles by determining locations of location error prone tiles that span between the reference tile and the target tile.
Simovitch teaches wherein the location circuit is configured to determine a location of a suspected defect positioned within a target tile of the tiles by determining locations of location error prone tiles that span between the reference tile and the target tile. (“It is noted that for each of the image frames pertaining to areas in die 702′, along slices scanned from bottom-to-top, the displacements of the (frame) targets are computed relative to positions thereof as given by reference data of the respective area (possibly after rescaling of the reference data based on up-to-date system coordinates). In contrast, for each of the image frames pertaining to areas in die 702″, along slices scanned from bottom-to-top, the displacements of the (frame) targets are computed relative to calibrated positions of corresponding (frame) targets in image frames pertaining to previously scanned areas in die 702′.” Simovitch, para. [0202])
Zhang and Simovitch are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in SEM.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in light of Simovitch’s determining a location of the suspected defect. One would have been motivated to do so because it can optimize the computation time while satisfying accuracy requirements. (Simovitch, para. [0225])
Regarding claim 8, refer to the explanation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, refer to the explanation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, refer to the explanation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, refer to the explanation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, refer to the explanation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, refer to the explanation of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium for navigation accuracy, the non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that once executed by a system, cause the system to (“computer-readable media generally may correspond to (1) tangible computer-readable storage media, which is non-transitory or (2) a communication medium such as a signal or carrier wave.” Zhang, para. [0079])
Regarding rest of claim 15, refer to the explanation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, refer to the explanation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, refer to the explanation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, refer to the explanation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, refer to the explanation of claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Simovitch, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 20180218878 A1) referred to as Xu hereinafter.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Simovitch does not teach SEM optics that is configured to scan the tiles of the sample with an electron beam; a sensing unit that is configured to detect particles emitted due to the scan and generate detection signals indicative of the structural elements within the tiles of the sample; and an image processor that is configured to generate the SEM images of the tiles based on the detection signals.
However, Xu teaches SEM optics that is configured to scan the tiles of the sample with an electron beam; (“The SEM system 120 includes an electron source/accelerator 122 and one or more focusing lenses 124 and one or more steering elements (e.g., conductive plates) 126 that together produce a primary electron beam 104 that is directed to a sample 102.” Xu, para. [0027])
a sensing unit that is configured to detect particles emitted due to the scan and generate detection signals indicative of the structural elements within the tiles of the sample; (“a microscopy system for imaging a sample can include a focused ion beam system configured to direct a focused ion beam onto a sample, a scanning electron microscope system configured to direct an electron beam onto the sample, a plurality of charged-particle detectors, each detector being configured to monitor an electrical current on the detector, and a first controller configured to receive a plurality of signals indicative of the electrical currents on the plurality of charged particle detectors and configured to control automatically properties of a focused ion beam produced by the focused ion beam system in response to the received signals.” Xu, para. [0007])
and an image processor that is configured to generate the SEM images of the tiles based on the detection signals. (“The different values of the parameter can be selected for different tiles of an image of a surface of the sample.” Xu, para. [0010]) and (“images can be generated by processing the signal collected by the detector with a processor to generate an image.” Xu, para. [0027])
Zhang, Simovitch, and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in SEM.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang and Simovitch in light of Xu’s electron beam and sensing unit. One would have been motivated to do so because it can improve FIB-SEM reliability, allowing a FIB-SEM system to operate continuously for long time periods while generating large imaged volumes. (Xu, para. [0004])
Regarding claim 14, refer to the explanation of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, refer to the explanation of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20050263702 A1 Defect Inspection And Charged Particle Beam Apparatus
This application has a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS. This application has been granted special status under Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program. Extensions of time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARDIS SOHRABY whose telephone number is (571)270-0809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am till 6pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PARDIS SOHRABY/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights