DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a):
The remarks take the position that the fully fabricated multi-column scanning electron microscopy system has support in paragraph [0072]. This has not been found persuasive. Specifically paragraph [0072] of the originally filed specification recites:
“Advantages of the embodiments of the present disclosure include fabricating and aligning multi-column SEM systems with decreased pitch spacing and tighter tolerances. Advantages of the present disclosure also include forming better-matching substrate array assemblies by inspecting substrate arrays and sorting the substrate arrays based on inspection results. Advantages of the present disclosure also include improving the yield of fabricated electron-optical elements by partially fabricating electron-optical elements via a first set of fabrication processes, inspecting the partially-fabricated electron-optical elements, sorting the partially-fabricated electron-optical elements to matched sets based on inspection results, aligning the matched sets of partially-fabricated electron-optical elements, bonding the partially-fabricated electron-optical elements to a substrate array, and fully fabricating the bonded electron-optical elements via a second set of fabrication processes. Advantages of the present disclosure also include preventing charging and reducing cross talk between multiple electron-optical column beam signals.”
That is, paragraph [0072] does teach fabricating and aligning multicolumn SEM systems. While [0072] teaches a partially fabricated state of electron optical elements and inspecting the partially fabricated electron optical elements, partial fabrication is not disclosed to be a multi-column SEM system. Indeed paragraph [0072] expressly recites fully fabricating the bonded electron optical elements via a second set of fabrication processes. There is no suggestion in paragraph [0072] that the partially fabricated electron optical elements may be functionally used in a multi-column SEM system. The difference between a partially fabricated electro-optical element and a fully fabricated optical element are further supported in paragraph 0071 which recites “the one or more slots 308 are extended to the edge of the one or more partially-fabricated multipole beam deflectors 210 at the one or more grooves 312 via a cutting process, where the cutting process segments the one or more partially-fabricated multipole beam deflectors 210 into individual beam deflector poles 210a, thus fully-fabricating the one or more multipole beam deflectors 210”
That is, without the cutting process, the multipole beam deflectors would not be formed, therefore would require full fabrication before usable in the disclosed SEM. The remarks point to paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and figures 3A-3B, however this portion of the specification expressly teaches that figures 3A-3B are partially fabricated electron optical elements having work areas suggesting that further fabrication is necessary before the electron optical elements. There is no support disclosed for using the partially fabricated electron optical elements in a multi-column SEM, therefore the remarks have been found unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103:
The remarks have been found persuasive. However, under a new interpretation of Jeong, the amended subject matter is taught as discussed herein below.
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, 9 and 23-25 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description for “wherein one or more grooves are cut into the circumferential raised outer area, wherein each groove of the one or more grooves are cut to align with a corresponding slot that is partially cut into the barrel portion and the disc portion”. Specifically, claim 1 requires a multi-column scanning electron microscope comprising a column assembly…a plurality of column electron optical elements. That is, claim 1 requires a multi-column scanning electron microscopy system. Figure 1 shows the claimed system. However, claim 1 requires the plurality of column electron optical elements in a partially fabricated state as evidenced by paragraph [0079]-[0081] of the published application. In particular, paragraph [0081] recites “the one or more slots 308 are extended to the edge of the one or more partially-fabricated multipole beam deflectors 210 at the one or more grooves 312 via a cutting process, where the cutting process segments the one or more partially-fabricated multipole beam deflectors 210 into individual beam deflector poles 210a, thus fully-fabricating the one or more multipole beam deflectors 210”
That is, the specification does not teach a multi-column scanning electron microscope having a partially fabricated multipole beam deflectors where grooves are aligned with slots. Instead the specification teaches a multi column scanning electron microscope system comprising fully fabricated 3D optical elements seen in figure 3D. The fully fabricated system does not have grooves and slots. Instead the slot and grooves are cut to segment deflectors 210 into individual deflector poles. Therefore, this final deflector is formed into the column that is used in the electron microscopy system of figure 1 not the partially fabricated deflector claimed by aligning groves of the disk with slots of the barrel.
Claims 9 and 23-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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 1, 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US pgPub 2006/0131698) in view of Oh et al. (US pgPub 2016/0247659) or alternatively in view of Okumura et al. (JP2002-198294A) (copy of publication and translated abstract submitted with the parent application 15/612,862 on 07/27/2018) in view of Sears (US pgPub 20160329189) and further in view of Kametani et al. (US pgPub 2007/0075257).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong et al. teach a multi-column scanning electron microscopy system ([0033]) comprising:
a column assembly comprising (fig. 1a, 120, 140, 150):
a first substrate array assembly (140); and
at least a second substrate array assembly (any of 120, 150),
wherein a substrate array comprising: at least one of the first substrate array assembly (140) includes:
a composite substrate (fig. 5, LTCC substrate 140 best seen in figure 5) formed from a plurality of substrate layers ([0040], note: “multi-layer LTCC substrate 140” better seen in figure 5), wherein the composite substrate includes a plurality of holes (holes in substrate 140 seen in figures 1 and 5 for each electron beam from sources 114);
a plurality of electrical components embedded within the plurality of substrate layers ([0040] wiring 146);
at least one contact pad (external terminal 148, see figure 1b is interpreted to be a contact pad since it provides voltages to electrodes 144 ([0040])) coupled to at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the composite substrate (each termainal148 conducting voltage to electrodes 144 contact pads (electrodes 144) associated with each electrode 134, figure 6 labels the electrodes a-h, wherein a, c, e, and g are interpreted to be the at least one bonding pads, note: [0040] for electrodes 144 electrically connected to deflection device 134 and paragraph [0042] for separately activated electrodes a-h);
wherein the at least one contact pad is located on an unshielded portion of the top surface or the bottom surface of the composite substrate (as seen in figure 1b, each 148 is external to the microarray 100([0040]), thus unshielded by any component of the microarray )
at least one signal contact pad coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface of the composite substrate (external terminal 148 (see figure 1B) is interpreted to be a contact pad since it provides a potential to electrode 144 ([0040]) and electrodes 144 associated with electrodes 134, wherein the signal electrodes are interpreted to be b, d, f and h); and
a plurality of column electron-optical elements (134 in figure 5), wherein each of the plurality of column electron-optical elements includes a plurality of 3D electron optical elements (deflector elements 134 are wafer-scale, thus three dimensional (albeit thin)) bonded to at least one signal contact pad of the one or more signal contact pads ([0040] 134 electrically connected to contact pad 144 via conductive epoxy resin).
While Jeong teaches separately activating each electrode 144 and thus each deflection device 134 ([0042]), Jeong does not specifically disclose that any of the deflector electrodes a-h are grounded, thus Jeong fails to disclose the at least one bonding pad 144 coupled to deflector electrodes a, c, e and g to be grounded.
However, grounding every other electrode in an octupole was known to the art. For instance, Oh et al. teaches “one octupole deflector may be used for deflection of an electron beam. In this case, in the structure of the deflector shown in FIG. 3, a deflection voltage is applied to only upper, lower, left, and right electrodes 1-1', 1-3', 1-5', and 1-7' of the octupole deflector and the other electrodes 1-2', 1-4', 1-6', and 1-8' are grounded”.
Oh modifies Jeong by suggesting only to apply voltages to every other electrode and thus providing for grounded bonding pads.
Since both inventions are directed towards octupole deflectors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make every other bonding pad 144 grounded when it is desired to create a quadrupole field.
Alternatively, Okumura teaches a ground electrode 12 between each deflection electrode 13 (figure 1 shows 4 ground electrodes 12 and 4 deflection electrodes 13).
Okumura modifies Jeong by teaching the grounding of every other electrode.
Since both inventions are directed towards octupole deflectors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ground every other electrode in order to reduce the crosstalk between deflecting electrodes (see translated abstract).
The combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing each electron optical element to include a disc portion and a parrel portion.
However Searches teach a 3D electron optical element including a disc portion and a barrel portion (see annotated figure 1F in the Final Rejection of 30 September 2025).
Sears modifies the combined device by suggesting a barrel and disc arrangement for the upper and/or lower deflector electrodes of Jeon (sears [0035] and Jeong 134 is above and below the substrate).
Since both inventions are directed towards upper and lower deflector electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the disc and barrel arrangement of Sears in each of the electrodes 134 of Jeong because the arrangement allows for compensation/cancellation by the upper deflector assembly otherwise generated by the lower deflector assembly ([0026]) therefore resolving issues with chromatic aberration as a result of deflection.
The combined device further differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing wherein each of the plurality of 3D electron optical elements includes a disc portion and a barrel portion, wherein each disc portion forms a circumferential raised outer area, wherein a raised region of a particular 3D electron optical element surrounds a hole of the particular 3D electron optical element to offset an inner area of the disc portion from a substrate surface, wherein one or more grooves are cut into the circumferential raised outer area, wherein each groove of the one or more grooves are cut to align with a corresponding slot that is partially cut into the barrel portion and the disc portion.
However, Kametani et al. et al. teach wherein the 3D electron optical element (fig. 3) includes a disc portion (90 integrated with 81-88 disc portion see figure 4 and portion of 90 attached to disc portion of 81-88) and a barrel portion (barrel portion of 81-88 extending through 90), wherein each disc portion forms a circumferential raised outer area (90, see figure 5 shows a circumferential raised area relative to lower ring, see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
614
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a raised region (raised region of 90 formed by grooves 91 best seen in figure 7a, seen in figure 3, but not annotated) of a particular 3D electron optical element surrounds a hole of the particular 3D electron optical element (fig. 3, raised areas of 90 surrounds a hole 89 of the conical and cylindrical portion of the deflector ) to offset an inner area of the disc portion (81-88 (i.e. 80) are inner towards the optical axis with respect to 90 as seen in cross-sectional view in figure 2) from a substrate surface (90 offsets 80 from substrate 70, see figure 1), wherein one or more grooves are cut into the circumferential raised outer area (91 are cut into 90 as seen in figure 7a), wherein each groove of the one or more grooves are cut to align with a corresponding slot that is partially cut into the barrel portion and the disc portion (slots 81d-88d are aligned with grooves 91 as seen in figures 3, 5 and 7, [0027]) Note the limitation “grooves are cut” is a product by process limitation. Since the claim is directed towards the product, the process of making does not distinguish the claim over the prior art (see MPEP 2113). However, cutting the slits is supported in paragraph [0009]. Figure 5 shows partially cut slits 81d-88d)
Kametani et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting grooves and slits for the barrel and disc arrangement the combined device.
Since both inventions are directed towards barrel and disc arrangements for the deflector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the grooves and slit arrangement for the disc and barrel arrangement of the combined device because by assembling the electrode material into an insulating member integrally without separating the electrode material into each electrode member and by forming slits therein and then splitting the electrode material allows an deflector to be manufactured easily and very accurately ([0013]). That is, Kametani suggests an integral assembly and then splitting the electrodes of Joeng in view of the combined device, therefore enabling a more accurate assembly of the deflector.
Regarding claim 9, Jeong teaches wherein the first substrate array assembly is arranged in a first bonded substrate array stack (140, interpreted to be in a first bonded substrate stack array (i.e. bonded to 120)), wherein the at least a second substrate array assembly is arranged in at least a second bonded substrate array stack (150 is a second bonded substrate stack array (i.e. bonded to 120 via 140)), wherein the first bonded substrate array stack and the at least a second bonded substrate array stack are bonded (150 is bonded to 140, [0028] teaches 150 is attached to 140 (i.e. bonded as seen in figure 1b)).
Regarding claim 24, Jeong teaches wherein the plurality of column electron-optical elements are positioned over the plurality of holes in the composite substrate (as seen in figure 5).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. in view of Oh et al. (US pgPub 2016/0247659) or alternatively in view of Okumura et al., in view of Sears and in view of Kametani and further in view of Wieland et al. (US pgPub 2011/0266418).
Regarding claim 23, Jeong teaches wherein at least one of the one or more ground contact pads or the one or more signal contact pads are positioned in an unshielded portion of at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface of the composite substrate (fig. 1B shows external terminal 148 (one of the signal contact pads) external to the microarray 100 ([0040]) thus unshielded by a component of the microarray))
The combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing wherein a portion of at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface of the composite substrate is shielded with a metal contact layer to mitigate at least one of charging or cross-talk between components of the substrate array.
However, Wieland et al. teach wherein a portion of at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface of the composite substrate is shielded with a metal contact layer to mitigate at least one of charging or cross-talk between components of the substrate array ([0013] and [0079] and fig. 7 teaches a conductive top layer shield 140 to prevent cross talk between neighboring modulators. Figure 7 shows top layer 140 over components of the composite substrate 100 having an array of apertures 135. Thus shielding components of the substrate array components).
Wieland et al. modifies the combined device by providing a shielding layer to the beam modulators of the substrate array of Jeong for shielding crosstalk between elements thereof.
Since both inventions are directed towards deflector arrays for charged particle beam systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to place the cross-talk shield of Wieland over the substrate 140 of Jeong because the “shield serves the purpose of preventing cross-talk between neighboring modulators” ([0079]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US pgPub 2006/0131698) in view of Oh et al. (US pgPub 2016/0247659) or alternatively in view of Okumura et al. (JP2002-198294A) (copy of publication and translated abstract submitted with the parent application 15/612,862 on 07/27/2018) in view of Sears (US pgPub 20160329189) and further in view of Kametani et al. (US pgPub 2007/0075257) and further in view of Hamaguichi (US pgPub 2003/0189180).
Regarding claim 25, the combined device in view of Kametani suggests inserting the deflector including the barrel portion in a hole of the substrate (see figure 3), however differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing wherein each of the plurality of 3D electron optical elements include the barrel portion inserted in a hole of the plurality of holes in the composite substrate.
However, Hamaguchi et al. teach each of the plurality of 3D electron optical elements (figs. 21a and 21b, deflectors 190) include a barrel portion (190, [0116]) inserted in a hole (194) of the plurality of holes (plurality of holes seen in figures 21a/b) in the composite substrate (186).
Hamaguchi modifies the combined device by suggesting the use of octupole cylindrical electrodes as the octupole that can deflect the electron beam at high speed ([0116]) and placing them in the aperture 194.
Since both inventions are directed towards an octupole deflector in a deflector array, it would have been obvious to adopt the cylindrical octupole structure inserted into a blocking unit aperture of Hamaguchi in the combined device because the cylindrical electrodes provide for high speed deflection ([0116]).
Relevant art:
Platzgummer (US pgPub 2010/0288938) teaches all the composite limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the office action of 06/25/2019 in parent application 15/612862. Platzgummer could be used in combination with the above references to make obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881