DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not disclose the grooves are formed in the inner wall of a magnetic core. Examiner disagrees as Fig. 3 of Salvesen teaches the front pole piece 11 and pole piece 10 may be integrally formed (see paragraph [0033]). It can be viewed that the space around pole piece 10 (which is smaller in diameter than the integrally formed front pole piece 11) forms a groove between front pole piece 11 and the yoke 12.
Applicant further argues that the main wire portions are external, sealed containers to house coil windings without integration of the wires into the core material itself. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., lack of external, sealed containers to house coil windings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the coils 20 of the prior art do, in fact, extend along the grooves (space around pole piece 10) of the magnetic core (pole piece 10) (see Fig. 4 as an example).
Applicant further argues the amended claim recites each current wire has a return wire portion that is routed outside the magnetic core. Examiner now cites Fig. 6 to show the coils 20 bound both within the grooves (space between pole pieces 10) and return outside the magnetic core (outside yoke 12) (see Fig. 6).
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2112, subsection (II), There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.
According to paragraph [0036] of the instant application, a magnetic core is disposed between the main wire portion and the return wire portion, thereby serving as a magnetic shield. As such, Fig. 6 of Salvesen shows the orientation of the coil 20 to be around the magnetic core (yoke 12 and pole piece 10) to be adjacent to the pole piece 10 inside the multipole lens and the return wire portion outside the magnetic core (yoke 12 and pole piece 10) would inherently have the coil serve as a magnetic shield for the magnetic core.
Applicant further argues the prior art of record is directed to solving a different problem and takes a different approach. According to MPEP 2131, a claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is "not novel") over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Here, each and every element is taught and therefore even if the prior art solves a different problem, the claim has not been distinguished over the prior art.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salvesen (US PGPub 2007/0023673, hereinafter Salvesen).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 6 of Salvesen discloses a multipole lens (pole pieces 10 and yoke 12, see paragraph [0036]) comprising a magnetic core (pole piece 10 and yoke 12, see paragraph [0037]); and a plurality of current wires (coils 20, see paragraph [0038]), provided in an inner wall of the magnetic core (space between pole piece 10) (see Fig. 6), centers of the plurality of grooves (space between pole piece 10) being disposed axis-symmetrically (see Fig. 6) relative to a central axis of the magnetic core (pole piece 10 and yoke 12) (see paragraph [0045]), and main wire portions (coil 20) of the plurality of current wires (coil 20) are respectively disposed in within and extend along the of grooves (spaces between pole pieces 10 with yoke 12, see paragraph [0045] and Fig. 6), and each current wire (coil 20) further comprises a return wire portion (coil 20 outside yoke 12) disposed outside the magnetic core (pole piece 10 and yoke 12) such that the magnetic core is interposed between the main wire portions and the return wire portion (see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0045]).
According to MPEP 2112, subsection (II), There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.
According to paragraph [0036] of the instant application, a magnetic core is disposed between the main wire portion and the return wire portion, thereby serving as a magnetic shield. As such, Fig. 6 of Salvesen shows the orientation of the coil 20 to be around the magnetic core (yoke 12 and pole piece 10) to be adjacent to the pole piece 10 inside the multipole lens and the return wire portion outside the magnetic core (yoke 12 and pole piece 10) would inherently have the coil serve as a magnetic shield for the magnetic core.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 7A of Salvesen discloses each of the plurality of grooves (space around pole piece 100) includes a taper portion (tip towards center) expanding toward the inner wall, and an inner chamber in which the main wire portion (coil 20) of each current wire is disposed (see Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 6 of Salvesen discloses each current wire (coil 20) has a connection portion that guides each of the main wire portion (coil 20) into each groove (space around pole piece 100) from an outside of the magnetic core (coil portion outside yoke 12) (see Fig. 6), or guides the main wire portion from inside the groove (space around pole piece 100) to the outside of the magnetic core (see Fig. 6), and a non-magnetic spacer (flange 50, 51, see Fig. 7A and paragraph [0042]) is disposed between the connection portions of the current wires (coil 20) and the magnetic core (pole piece 100) (see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 4 of Salvesen discloses each current wire (coil 20) has a connection portion that guides each of the main wire portion into each groove (space around pole piece 100) from an outside of the magnetic core (pole piece 100) (see Fig. 7A), or guides the main wire portion from inside the groove to the outside of the magnetic core, the multipole lens further comprises magnetic lids (rear portion 110) that are facing each other in a longitudinal direction of the groove of the magnetic core see (Fig. 7A and paragraph [0048]), and a connection portion of the current wire (coil 20) are disposed in a through hole (through hole 13) provided between the magnetic core (pole piece 100) and one of the magnetic lids (rear portion 110) (see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 4 of Salvesen discloses each current wire (coil 20) has a return wire portion disposed outside the magnetic core (pole piece 100) (see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 4 of Salvesen discloses a plurality of electrodes (pole piece 10 and 11) configured to generate an electric field (see paragraph [0005]), wherein the plurality of electrodes are respectively disposed in the plurality of grooves (space around pole piece 10) of the magnetic core via insulators (insulating foil 15, see paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Salvesen discloses the multipole lens is a stage in an aberration corrector (see paragraph [0005]).
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.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvesen in view of Sohda et al. (US PGPub 2015/0076362, hereinafter Sohda).
Regarding claim 8, Salvesen discloses wherein each of the multistage multipole lenses includes a magnetic core (pole piece 10 and yoke 12, see paragraph [0037]) and a plurality of current wires (coil 20), a plurality of grooves (space between pole piece 10) are provided in an inner wall of the magnetic core (space between pole piece 10, see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0045]), centers of the plurality of grooves are disposed axis-symmetrically relative to a central axis of the magnetic core (pole piece 10 and yoke 12) (see paragraph [0045]), and the main wire portions (coil 20) of the plurality of current wires (coil 20) are respectively disposed within and extend along the plurality of grooves (space between pole piece 10 with yoke 12, see paragraph [0045]), and each of the plurality of current wires (coil 20) includes a return wire portion disposed outside of the magnetic core (pole piece 10 with yoke 12, see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0045]).
According to MPEP 2112, subsection (II), There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.
According to paragraph [0036] of the instant application, a magnetic core is disposed between the main wire portion and the return wire portion, thereby serving as a magnetic shield. As such, Fig. 6 of Salvesen shows the orientation of the coil 20 to be around the magnetic core (yoke 12 and pole piece 10) to be adjacent to the pole piece 10 inside the multipole lens and the return wire portion outside the magnetic core (yoke 12 and pole piece 10) would inherently have the coil serve as a magnetic shield for the magnetic core.
Salvensen discloses the multistage multipole lens can be used in charged particle devices, such as conventional electron microscopes, electron and ion beam registration devices, and ion processing and implantation devices in addition to electron beam measuring devices (see paragraph [0004]). A difference between Salvensen and the claimed invention explicitly disclosing the multistage multipole lenses used in a charged particle beam device comprising an electron gun to emit a primary electron beam, and an objective lens into which the primary electron beam passes through the aberration corrector is to be emitted. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fig. 1 of Sohda discloses an astigmatism corrector 119 and a deflection chromatic aberration corrector 120 (see paragraph [0026]) used to reduce aberrations in the electron beam 116. Sohda further discloses the source of the electron beam 116 is emitted from an electron gun 101 (see paragraph [0025]) and an objective lens (upper magnetic path 110, lower magnetic path 111, coil 112, see paragraph [0025]). In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Salvesen by using the multistage multipole lens in any conventional charged particle beam that requires aberration correction as it would have been obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Salvesen.
Regarding claim 9, Salvesen discloses the aberration corrector is configured to use a hexapole field (see paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 7A of Salvesen discloses a plurality of electrodes (pole piece 100 and 110) that are configured to generate an electric field that corrects a chromatic aberration (see paragraph [0004]), wherein the plurality of electrodes (pole piece 100 and 110) are respectively disposed in the plurality of grooves (space around pole piece 100) of the magnetic core via insulators (insulating foil 15, see paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claims 11-15, Salvesen discloses the multipole lens is a stage in an aberration corrector (see paragraphs [0004-0005]). Salvensen does not explicitly disclose the multistage multipole lens are used in multiple stages. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fig. 1 of Sohda discloses an astigmatism corrector 119 and a deflection chromatic aberration corrector 120 (see paragraph [0026]) used to reduce aberrations in the electron beam 116. Sohda further discloses the source of the electron beam 116 is emitted from an electron gun 101 (see paragraph [0025]) and an objective lens (upper magnetic path 110, lower magnetic path 111, coil 112, see paragraph [0025]). In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Salvesen by using the multistage multipole lens in any conventional charged particle beam at any objective lens for the purpose of reducing aberrations in the particle beam as taught by Salvesen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881