1DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response the amendment on December 9th, 2025. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 .
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 1-8 and 11-12 are 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 now recites “causing one of the power supply noise and the ground noise to be present at both of the first blanking electrode and the second blanking electrode with a same amplitude and Alternating Current (AC) phase when the received blanking control signal is in an OFF state.” It is unclear what the addition of the modifying phrase “Alternating Current (AC)” before the phase is meant to add.
The phase is a phase of a noise signal (“one of the power supply noise and the ground noise”), which is inherently non-constant and therefore could loosely be considered AC (as opposed to DC), but is not a regular AC waveform. Both the ground and power supply provide DC signals (ground is ground, the power supply provides a constant VSS or VDD, depending on embodiment), so applicant cannot be attempting to claim any periodic effects that echo through the noise from an AC signal. For the purposes of examination, examiner will simply assume applicant is referring to the noise phase’s inherently non-DC nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2016/0064179 (Yamashita).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a charged particle beam device comprising:
a stage where a sample is mountable (fig. 1, element 105);
a charged particle gun performing charged particle emission to the sample (fig. 1, element 201);
a voltage source (multiple figures, element Vdd); and
a blanking control circuit configured to receive a blanking control signal, wherein the blanking control circuit includes:
a ground source (‘the ground potential’ throughout);
a first switching circuit to which a voltage is supplied from the voltage source (fig. 22 & 24, element 41, top MOSFET);
a second switching circuit having one end connected to ground (fig. 22 & 24, element 41, bottom MOSFET);
a third switching circuit having one end connected to ground (fig. 22 & 24, element 43, bottom MOSFET);
a fourth switching circuit to which a voltage is supplied from the voltage source (fig. 22 & 24, element 43, top MOSFET);
a first blanking electrode connected to the first switching circuit and the second switching circuit (multiple figures, element 24);
a second blanking electrode facing the first blanking electrode and connected to the third switching circuit and the fourth switching circuit (fig. 22 & 24, element 26); and
a control circuit controlling the first switching circuit, the second switching circuit, the third switching circuit, and the fourth switching circuit (fig. 1, element 130, see also fig. 22 & 24, input and cancel),
wherein, the first switching circuit, the second switching circuit, the third switching circuit, and the fourth switching circuit are arranged to prevent an electric field from being formed between the first blanking electrode and the second blanking electrode when the received blanking control signal is in an OFF state (‘When the potential of the control electrode 24 is a ground potential, since there is no potential difference, a corresponding beam 20 is not deflected.’ P 120).
Yashita does not appear to specify whether the connection to the ground potential applied to the switching circuits is the same (a common ground), though this would be consistent with typical practice in the art. If they do connect to a common ground, the claim limitation is anticipated. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the same source of ground to simplify the circuit.
The claimed wherein clause further specifies that any electric field caused by noise is also eliminated by causing one of the power supply noise and the ground noise to be present at both of the first blanking electrode and the second blanking electrode with a same amplitude and phase when in an OFF state. Yashita discloses that both electrodes are at ground potential in the specified blanking off state, and as discussed above the ground potential either is a common ground, or it would have been obvious to make it so. Therefore, the amplitude and phase of the ground noise will be the same entering the circuits. Once the ground noise enters the circuits 41 and 43, it is sent through the closed switches in the blanking off state and continue to the control and counter electrodes.
In the case of fig. 22, there is a single pull up resistor connected to the control electrode, over which the entire voltage drop occurs. Therefore, the amplitude and phase of the ground noise does not change, and the ground noise reaches the control electrode with the original amplitude and phase. The counter electrode experiences no voltage drop at all, being connected only to ground, and also passes the ground noise to the blanking electrode with the original amplitude and phase. Therefore, the circuit of fig. 22 of Yamashita is inherently arranged to cause the ground noise to be present at both of the first blanking electrode and second blanking electrode with a same amplitude and Alternating Current (AC) phase when the received blanking control signal is in an OFF state as long as the grounds are in fact a common ground.
It is noted that the pull-down resistor should be connected the common ground as well to prevent introduction of a second ground noise. Again, this is likely present, and alternatively obvious. Furthermore, the ratio of resistances between the protective and pull-down resistors makes this a non-issue anyway. See analysis of figure 24 to see why.
In the case of fig. 24, there is an additional protective resistor 69 between the switch and the control electrode. This would appear to create a voltage divider, since the current now has to travel through two resistors to reach the positive voltage at the pull up resistor. However, the control electrode must be brought down to ground potential for the blanker to work, so the resistances are chosen to ensure that essentially the entire voltage drop occurs over the pull up resistor, and hence essentially all the current flows through the protective resistor, again resulting in next to no change in amplitude of the noise (‘The resistance value of the pull-up resistor 66 is set to a sufficiently high value. For example, the resistance value is preferably greater than or equal to several tens of kΩ, and more preferably greater than or equal to 100 kΩ. Thereby, even when the output electric potential of the control circuit 41 is a ground potential, the electric power consumed by the pull-up resistor 66 can be small or substantially disregarded.’ P 117, also ‘Considering a voltage division ratio between the protective resistor 69 and the pull-up resistor 66, the resistance value of the protective resistor 69 is preferably lower than or equal to several hundreds of Ω, and more preferably lower than or equal to several tens of Ω, for example.’ P 129).
Again, no voltage drop occurs in the circuit connected to the counter electrode, and the noise still passes with the unchanged amplitude and phase from the common ground to the counter electrode. Therefore, the circuit of fig. 24 of Yamashita is inherently arranged to cause the ground noise to be present at both of the first blanking electrode and second blanking electrode with a same amplitude and phase when the received blanking control signal is in an OFF state as long as the grounds are in fact a common ground.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita discloses the charged particle beam device according to Claim 1,
wherein the control circuit puts the first switching circuit and the third switching circuit into a conducting state and puts the second switching circuit and the fourth switching circuit into a non-conducting state in turning on blanking (‘According to the comparative example, in the state where an L electric potential is applied to the input (IN) of the CMOS inverter circuit, the output (OUT) of the CMOS inverter circuit becomes a positive potential (Vdd), and it is controlled to be beam OFF by deflecting a corresponding beam 20 by an electric field due to a potential difference against the potential (ground potential) of the counter electrode 26 and performing blocking using the limiting aperture member 206.’ P 53 and ‘According to the fifth embodiment, in the state where an H electric potential is applied to the input (IN) of the CMOS inverter circuit, the output (OUT) of the CMOS inverter circuit becomes a ground potential, and the potential of the counter electrode 26 becomes a ground potential in spite of there being the pull-down resistor 60 and the protective resistor 69 because the current does not flow. Therefore, when the potential of the control electrode 24 is a positive potential (Vdd), it is controlled to be beam OFF by deflecting a corresponding beam 20 by a potential difference and performing blocking using the limiting aperture member 206.’ P 120), and
the control circuit puts the second switching circuit and the third switching circuit into a conducting state and puts the first switching circuit and fourth switching circuit into a non-conducting state in turning off blanking (‘On the other hand, in the state where an H electric potential is applied to the input (IN) of the CMOS inverter circuit, the output (OUT) of the CMOS inverter circuit becomes a ground potential. Since there is no potential difference against the potential (ground potential) of the counter electrode 26, a corresponding beam 20 is not deflected.’ P 53 and ‘When the potential of the control electrode 24 is a ground potential, since there is no potential difference, a corresponding beam 20 is not deflected. Therefore, it is controlled to be beam ON by letting beams pass through the limiting aperture member 206. Accordingly, when in normal use without any problems, an H electric potential is applied to the input (IN) of the CMOS inverter circuit.’ P 120).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita discloses the charged particle beam device according to Claim 1, wherein each of the first switching circuit, the second switching circuit, the third switching circuit, and the fourth switching circuit is a transistor element configured by a MOSFET or a bipolar transistor, a terminal of each of the second switching circuit and the third switching circuit connected to the common ground is a source terminal or an emitter terminal, and a terminal of each of the first switching circuit and the fourth switching circuit connected to the voltage source is a source terminal or an emitter terminal (multiple figures show MOSFETs in this configuration).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita discloses the charged particle beam device according to Claim 3, wherein the voltage source generates a positive voltage, the first switching circuit is configured by a first P-channel MOSFET, the second switching circuit is configured by a first N-channel MOSFET, the third switching circuit is configured by a second N-channel MOSFET, and the fourth switching circuit is configured by a second P-channel MOSFET (fig. 22, 24).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita as applied to claims 1 & 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita discloses the claimed invention except for the voltage source generating a negative voltage, the first switching circuit is configured by a first N-channel MOSFET, the second switching circuit is configured by a first P-channel MOSFET, the third switching circuit is configured by a second P-channel MOSFET, and the fourth switching circuit is configured by a second N-channel MOSFET. This is merely the inverse of the Yamashita set-up using a positive voltage and flipped MOSFET configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamashita to invert this manner because either option works identically and there are only two options for setting the polarities, see “obvious to try” rationale as outlined in KSR.
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita discloses the claimed invention except for capacitance value-adjustable variable capacitance capacitor is connected in parallel to the first switching circuit or the fourth switching circuit, and a resistance value-adjustable variable resistor is connected in series to the second switching circuit or the third switching circuit.
Variable capacitors and resistors are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamashita et al. to include such elements in the stated positions to allow for impendence matching, which will reduce the effect of noise from the capacitance of the switches (ringing after switch state change).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita discloses the charged particle beam device according to Claim 1, wherein a fifth resistor is connected in series between a first connection point between the first switching circuit and the second switching circuit and the first blanking electrode (fig. 24, element 24), or a sixth resistor is connected in series between a second connection point between the third switching circuit and the fourth switching circuit and the first blanking electrode (fig. 22, element 69). Yamashita does not disclose both resistors being used in the same embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed that both could be used simultaneously and this would allow for better impedance matching as well as more robust protection.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. as applied to claims 4-5 above, and further in view of US 7,495,877 (Havanur).
Regarding claims 7-8, Havanur discloses switching circuits with diodes connected between the drain and source terminals of MOSFETs (‘The reverse transient current diversion circuit includes a diode for conducting the reverse transient current from the drain.’ abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamashita to include diodes in the claimed locations as in Havanur to reduce transients, as disclosed in Havanur (‘The switching device further includes a transient reverse current diversion circuit connected to a drain of the low side MOSFET chip for diverting a reverse transient current therethrough whereby a reverse transient current in turning off the low side MOSFET chip is diverted from passing through a body diode of the low side MOSFET chip reducing a transient ringing oscillation.’ abstract).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,483,117 (Clement et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Clement et al. discloses a charged particle device with a blanking system including two pairs of facing blanking electrodes which are both switched on and off by selectively applying a blanking voltage one electrode while the other is kept at ground (fig. 3 & 4, elements 100A-D). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Yamashita et al. to include the third and fourth blanking electrode of Clements et al. to redistribute the energy of the beam on the aperture, as disclosed by Clements (‘The invention, by providing for substantially symmetric heating of the blanking aperture, particularly in comparison with the necessarily highly asymmetric heating of prior blanking arrangements, eliminates or minimizes variation of sequential exposure locations to levels which are insignificant relative to present and foreseeable minimum feature sizes and greatly improves the stitching together of sequential sub-field or shaped beam exposures to a degree not previously attainable.’).
When incorporating the second blanking electrode pair, it would have been obvious to use the same configuration for the blanking Yamashita uses for the first pair, that is, to use a fifth switching circuit to which a voltage is supplied from the voltage source; a sixth switching circuit having one end connected to the common ground; a seventh switching circuit having one end connected to the common ground; and an eighth switching circuit to which a voltage is supplied from the voltage source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record is US 4,710,640 (Kawasaki).
Regarding claim 10, Kawasaki discloses a charged particle beam device comprising:
a stage where a sample is mountable (fig. 1, element 6);
a charged particle gun performing charged particle emission to the sample (fig. 1, element 1);
a voltage source configured to generate a negative voltage (‘The voltage applied to the blanker 10 is generated by a circuit 8 … supplied with a voltage of -2 V.’); and
a blanking control circuit, wherein the blanking control circuit includes:
a ground (fig. 2, unlabeled);
a first transistor switch to which voltage is suppled from the voltage source (fig. 2, element 12);
a first resistor having one end connected to ground (fig. 2, element R1);
a second resistor having one end connected to ground (fig. 2, element R2);
a second transistor switch to which a voltage supplied from the voltage supply (fig. 2, element 13);
a first blanking electrode connected to the first resistor and the first transistor switch circuit (fig. 2, 11A);
a second blanking electrode facing the first blanking electrode and connected to the second transistor switch and the second resistor (fig. 2, element 11B); and
a control circuit controlling the first transistor switch and the second transistor switch (fig. 1, elements 7-8),
wherein a terminal of each of the first and second transistor switches connected to the voltage source is a source terminal or an emitter terminal (fig. 2)
wherein, the first resistor, the first transistor switch, the second transistor switch, and the second resistor are arranged to prevent an electric field from being formed between the first blanking electrode and the second blanking electrode when the received blanking control signal is in an OFF state (‘Then, when a low-level signal is supplied to the terminal DA and a high-level signal to the terminal DB, the blanking voltage at point α becomes 0 V,’).
Kawasaki does not disclose causing one of the power supply noise and the ground noise to be present at both of the first blanking electrode and the second blanking electrode with a same amplitude and phase when the received blanking control signal is in an OFF state. Kawasaki connects electrode 11A to a point between the ground and voltage sources with the switch closed during the blanking off states, so both power supply and ground noises will be present. Kawasaki connects electrode 11B directly to the power supply with no the connection to ground in the blanking off state, so only the power supply noise is present in this case. It would not have been obvious to change this because moving either connection point would break the invention. The configuration of Yamashita, which does teach or make obvious this feature, requires additional switches in place of the first and second resistors. Regarding claim 9, this is the inversion version of claim 10, with the transistors and resistors switched.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yamashita’s circuit configuration of fig. 22 has the pull-down resistor and protection resistor connected to only one of the wires which results in a difference in impedance, which will cause the ground noise applied to the control electrodes to not have the same amplitude and phase.
Examiner is unsure why applicant feels the number of wires connected to the resistors is relevant. While wires technically have a very small parasitic capacitance this is miniscule and not relevant. If the change in phase from parasitic capacitance of the wires was taken into consideration than applicant’s own configuration also fails because the ground travels through different wires with different parasitic capacitances on each side, so there a miniscule difference introduced there as well. If, on the other hand, we ignore this miniscule effect, the number of wires has no effect on the phase or amplitude of the ground noise traveling through the circuit.
Applicant argues that Yamashita’s circuit configuration of fig. 22 teaches a DC potential “Vdd” to the control electrodes.
Examiner agrees, but fail to see the relevance. Applicant’s power supply also applies a DC potential, which they also call Vdd in some embodiments (see applicant’s figures 5 & 11 for the ones using Vdd, most of applicant’s figures show DC potential Vss being applied instead, which has opposite polarity, but it is still DC). In fact, blanking control can only function with a DC potential, because if it was AC the blanking state would rapidly cycle from blanked to unblanked and back as the voltage cycles.
Applicant argues that Yamashita is not understood to have recognized the problem to which applicant’s invention is directed.
It is well established that simply recognizing additional advantages or latent properties does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that it is not sufficient that two references may be combined, but it is required that the must be some rational reason for making the asserted combination.
Examiner has not relied on a combination of references for the rejection of claim 1, only Yamashita, so it is unclear how this is relevant to the supposedly missing element. If applicant is suggesting that examiner needs to provide some rational reason to use common ground, the one element examiner states may not be in Yamashita (102/103 because it probably is a common ground, but not explicit that the grounds are the same) examiner has supplied as rational reason for using common ground – to simplify the circuit.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881