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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a):
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the fully fabricated SEM fully supported by the instant specification, therefore the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are overcome. See pages 9-11 of the remarks for persuasive arguments. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103: Jeong in view of Oh or Okumura.
The remarks have been found unpersuasive. Initially, the remarks argue that Jeong’s conductive epoxy is a separate adhesive material used to bond distinct components together and therefore is not an integral structure of the deflection device itself. This has not been found persuasive. Initially, the epoxy is conductive, therefore any potential applied to deflection device 134 is also received by conductive epoxy, since the conductive epoxy binds electrodes 134 to 140, 134 is also bonded to the conductive epoxy. Therefore, by the bond, the conductive epoxy is “integral” with the electrodes 134. It is noted that the instant specification does not use the word integral or define integral and therefore it is given it’s plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01 (III)).
In the instant case, it was known to the art that bonding two things together makes them integral. For example as evidenced by Sando (US pgPub 2013/0087717) “Both surfaces of the spacer are bonded with the electrodes opposing each other so that the spacer is integral with both the electrodes” (abstract) or Yamada (US pgPub 2013/0306878) “the etching terminating side in the sense of progress of etching of the substrate 11 and the surface of the device layer of the substrate 12 are accurately aligned with each other and the two substrates are subjected to fusion bonding and integrally combined with each other.”
That is one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood integral to include bonding.
MPEP 2111 (III) recites “T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application….the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms…In some cases it is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries”
Here, the instant specification fails to even use, let alone define the word integral, therefore, since it was known to the art that bonding items together allows the formation of an integral structure as evidenced at least by Sando and Yamada above, the conductive epoxy of Jeong is reasonably an integral part of the electrodes 134.
The remarks continue by persuasively arguing the product by process interpretation has been overcome. Specifically, as the product by process limitations have been canceled the claim interpretation is not applied herein below.
The remarks contend that the depth of the deflector elements 134 are not a barrel portion because it is a MEMS device that is essentially flat. This has not been found persuasive because, while in small dimensions, the depth of the aperture of each multiple structure 134 clearly forms a cylindrical portion (i.e. barrel portion) as illustrated in the annotated drawing below
PNG
media_image1.png
690
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim as currently drafted does not require the barrel assembly to extend or protrude from the disc portion, therefore a barrel portion formed by the disc portion is sufficient to teach the claimed “barrel” and “disc”.
The remarks continue by taking the position the specification describes that “the barrel portion may be inserted into a hole of the substrate array 200” and therefore a mere thickness of an electrode is not a barrel portion that can be inserted into a hole.
This has not been found persuasive. MPEP 2145 (VI) recites:
“Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”
Here, there is no structural claim requirement to suggest the barrel extends from the disc portion, nor does it require that a hole of the substrate surrounds the disc portion. Therefore, the claim fails to distinguish the barrel portion from a depth formed aperture of the multipole structure of Jeong.
Therefore, the remarks have been found unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “wherein the raised region is integrally formed on an outer circumferential area of the segmented disc portions”.
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).
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, thus bonded) wherein each of the plurality of 3D electron optical elements includes a plurality of individual beam deflector poles (each of 134 is an individual pole), wherein each individual beam deflector pole includes a segmented disc portion and a segmented parrel portion (see annotated figure below, wherein disc portion is interpreted as a segmented disc and the segmented barrel is interpreted as the depth of the deflector elements 134. The segments of the plates together form a disc (note the claim does not require the shape of the disc) and the depths together form a segmented cylinder (i.e. barrel), note the claim does not require the segmented barrel to extend above or below the disc),
PNG
media_image1.png
690
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the segmented disc portions form a circumferential raised outer area (paragraph [0040] teaches a conductive epoxy between 134 and 144, thus circumferential raised outer area of electrodes 134),
PNG
media_image2.png
671
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 segmented disc portions from a substrate surface (epoxy for each electrode 134 surrounds the hole in composite substrate to offset inner area from a substrate surface (i.e. entire electrode is raised because epoxy between 144/134, thus inner area over hole is raised (offset in a vertical direction) by epoxy (interpreted raised region of the segmented electrode 134))),
wherein one or more slots extend through the segmented barrel portions and the segmented disc portions to an edge of the 3D electron optical element to define the plurality of individual beam deflector poles (see annotated figure below, slots seen below are to an edge of the disc portion and segment the deflector into individual poles 134)
PNG
media_image3.png
525
909
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the raised region is integrally formed on an outer circumferential area of the segmented disc portions (epoxy (raised region) between 144 and 134 thus the outer circumferential area and integrally formed by bonding) and offsets the inner area of the segmented disc portions from the substrate surface at a distance equal to a height of the raised region (offsets by the height of the epoxy).
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).
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. 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) and further in view of Hamaguichi (US pgPub 2003/0189180).
Regarding claim 25, the combined device 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:
Kametani et al. (US pgPub 2007/0075257) teaches a barrel and disc portion that are cut after assembly (as in the disclosed invention)
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
Prosecution Insights