DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and 23-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a):
Claim 1 as amended requires a disc portion and a barrel portion and slots cut through the barrel portion and the disc portion to segment the 3D electron optical element into a plurality of individual beam deflector poles. This represents a method of manufacturing the 3D electron optical elements discussed in paragraphs [0068] and [0071]. However, the claim is a product, specifically a multi-column scanning electron microscopy system that requires a plurality of 3D electron optical elements including a disc and a barrel portion. As now amended the claim also requires the disc portion and barrel portion to be cut through to segment the 3D electron optical element. While the specification does support a multi-column scanning electron microscopy system fully fabricated with individual bead deflector poles, the instant specification is silent with respect to a multi-column scanning electron microscopy system that is both partially fabricated (as evident by the requirement of a barrel, disc with raised region and slots) and fully fabricated (as evident by the requirement of cutting the disc portion and barrel portion to segment the 3D electron optical elements into a plurality of individual beam deflector poles). That is, there is no support for the fully fabricated multi column scanning electron microscopy system to have a barrel portion, disc portion and segmented individual pole pieces.
Moreover, this raises issues under 112(b) because the claim scope cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim requires by a disc portion, barrel portion and individual beam deflector poles. However, since the disc portion and barrel portion are cut to segment into individual beam deflector poles, the disc portion and barrel portion cannot exist within the multi beam system claimed. In other words, there cannot be all three of a disc portion a barrel portion and individual deflector poles. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires the barrel and disc portion or merely individual segmented deflector poles.
For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the claim requires segmented disc portion and a segmented barrel portion forming a plurality of individual beam deflector poles.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103: Jeong in view of Oh or Okumura in view of Sears and further in view of Kametani.
The remarks have been found persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. In light of the new amendment the cutting is treated as product by process. It is noted that the claim does not requires the raised portion to be integral with the electrode, therefore any raised element bonded to the electrode is sufficient to be the raised portion of the disc portion. Moreover, it is noted that the barrel claimed is interpreted to be the depth of the electrodes. The claim does not require the barrel to extedn from the disc, therefore the depth of electrodes in Jeong are interpreted as the barrel.
Lastly, it is noted that Kametani while withdrawn herein teaches issues with assembling deflector electrode assemblies in the manner suggested by Jeong ([0007]) and suggests cutting after attachment in the same manner as claimed ([0009]). However, because the claims require a product by process and the barrel and protrusions are not particularly claimed to distinguish the claimed invention over Jeong, this Kametani is withdrawn and a new grounds rejection is 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
137
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
942
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
130
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specifically, the claim requires a multi-column scanning electron microscopy system comprising….a plurality of column electron optical elements….each of the plurality of 3D electron optical elements includes a disc portion and a barrel portion…slots are cut through the barrel portion and the disc portion, wherein the one or more slots extend to an edge of the disc portion to segment the 3D electron optical elements into a plurality of individual beam deflector poles”, however there is no support for a plurality of 3D electron optical elements including a disc portion and a barrel portion and a plurality of individual beam deflector poles. That is, the segmentation of the disc and barrel portion would preclude the 3D electron optical elements from having disc and barrel portions.
MPEP 2163 recites:
“New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement.:
Here, the claim requires a scanning electron microscope with optical elements that are partially and fully fabricated. Since the specification only supports a fully fabricated electron microscope (see figure 1 and paragraph [0027] of the published application), claiming partial fabricated 3D electron optical elements with completing fabrication (via cutting) of individual deflector components within the electron microscope is not supported. That is, there is no support for an electron microscope having a 3D electron optical element having a disc portion and barrel portion that are subsequently cut to form individual electron optical elements. Instead, the electron microscope does not have any disc or barrel portion, but rather electron optical components comprising a multipole deflector ([0051] of the published application)
Therefore claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 9 and 23-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite for requiring the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a). Specifically, the claim requires by a disc portion, barrel portion and individual beam deflector poles. However, since the disc portion and barrel portion are cut to segment into individual beam deflector poles, the disc portion and barrel portion cannot exist within the multi beam system claimed. In other words, there cannot be all three of a disc portion a barrel portion and individual deflector poles. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires the barrel and disc portion or merely individual segmented deflector poles.
For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the claim requires segmented disc portion and a segmented barrel portion forming a plurality of individual beam deflector poles.
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).
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 disc portion and a barrel portion (see annotated figure below, wherein disc portion is interpreted as a segmented disc and the barrel is interpreted as the depth of the deflector elements 134),
PNG
media_image4.png
690
1074
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein each disc portion forms a circumferential raised outer area (paragraph [0040] teaches an conductive epoxy between 134 and 144, thus circumferential raised outer area of electrodes 134),
PNG
media_image5.png
671
767
media_image5.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 disc portion 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 verticle direction) by epoxy (interpreted raised region of the segmented electrode 134))),
wherein one or more slots are cut through the barrel portion and the disc portion (product by process limitation, since the product is indistinguishable from the claimed product, the process of fabricating the product is not sufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from that of Jeong1. See MPEP 2113),
PNG
media_image6.png
525
909
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more slots extend to an edge of the disc portion to segment the 3D electron optical element into a plurality of individual beam deflector poles (slots seen above are to an edge of the disc portion and segment the deflector into individual poles 134), wherein the raised region is formed on an outer circumferential area of the disc portion (epoxy (raised region) between 144 and 134 thus the outer circumferential area) and offsets the inner area of the disc portion 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:
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
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 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
1 Even if the process did distinguish the claimed invention from Jeong, Kametani relied upon in the office action of 07 January 2026 teaches assembling the deflector then cutting as claimed to improve accuracy. Therefore, cutting after attaching the deflector assembly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Prosecution Insights