DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on November 4th, 2025. Claims 1-20 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 Interpretation – Device Claims
Claims 1-11 appear to consist entirely of two pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces. The remaining limitations consist entirely of relationships to charged particle beams that are not a part of the claimed manipulator. The array of beams is merely what is manipulated during intended use. Therefore, those claim limitations amount to intended use and only limit the device in that is must be capable of fulfilling the use, and none of the intended uses require any additional elements and amount to nothing more than more elaborate ways of claiming the two pairs of electrodes.
For example, claim 1 now includes the following limitation: “the device is configured so that the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces apply a first deflection amount to paths of sub-beams in a first direction and the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces apply a second deflection amount to paths of sub-beams in a second direction at a time when an entire line of sub-beams are being, or have been, deflected in the first direction by the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces.” The only structures required for this are the two pairs of electrodes. Any two pairs of electrodes are capable of (or configures to) do this. A pair of electrodes is inherently capable of deflecting charged particle beams, given the proper voltage during use. The amount, direction, and timing of the deflections are a function of the voltages applied to the electrodes during use and the relative positions of the electrodes and beams during use, and do not depend on any feature of the device itself, hence no features (beyond the existence of the two pairs of electrodes) are required to meet the limitation.
In the same manner, claims 12-14 and 19 appear to consist entirely of two sets of electrodes, each consisting of four parallel planar electrode surfaces and each set operating on a different plane, with claims 13-14 adding limitations to the relative directions of the sets. Claims 19 consists entirely of a limitation to the array of beams which are not part of the claimed manipulator and therefore is non-limiting. Claim 18 adds a third set on an additional plane.
Claim Interpretation – Process Claims
Claims 15-17 purport to be process claims, but fail to disclose any clearly discernible process steps. The claimed steps consist of “applying a(n) … electric field to … sub-beams to cause application of a … deflection amount”. Application of an electric field is not an action but high level conceptional description of the underlying physics that mediate the process, in much the same way “electro-static interacting” is. The actions needed to apply the electric field or performed using the electric field are not claimed.
There are essentially two ways of claiming what appears to be the intended action. The action can be claimed as a deflection (the action performed using the electric field). For example, “deflecting an entire first line of sub-beams of the multi-beam in a first direction” would be a very acceptable substitute for the first step and would overcome all the 112 and 101 rejections. The other way would be to claim how the electric field is applied, in which case suggested language might include “applying a potential difference to a first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces, such that an entire first line of sub-beams is deflected in a first direction”.
As discussed in the Office action dated April 30th, 2025, the claims will be assumed for the purposes of examination to claim deflections, that is, the first step is being interpretated to mean “deflecting an entire first line of sub-beams of the multi-beam in a first direction” and the second is being interpreted to mean “deflecting an entire second line of sub-beams of the multi-beam in a second direction opposite the first direction”.
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 15-17 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.
Claims 15-17 recite “applying a first electric field to a first entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam to cause application of a first deflection amount to the paths of sub-beams of the first line in a first direction, the first electric field applied using a first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces of a set of electrodes comprising a plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces”. It is unclear how the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces apply the electric field.
Claims 15-17 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.
Claims 15-17 recite “applying a second electric field to a second entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam to cause application of a second deflection amount to the paths of sub-beams of the second line in a second direction, the second electric field applied using a second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces of a set of electrodes comprising a plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces”. It is unclear how the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces apply the electric field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 & § 101
Claims 15-17 provides for a method consisting of application of electric fields to charged particle beams, but, since the claims do not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites an ‘application’ of an electric fields without any active, positive steps delimiting how the electric fields are actually applied.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of application of an electric field to sub-beams, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 2005/0211921 (Wieland et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Wieland et al. discloses a method of deflecting paths of a plurality of sub-beams in a multi-beam of charged particles, wherein the sub-beams arranged in an array in which the sub-beams are arranged in a plurality of lines, the lines of sub-beams being substantially parallel with each other across the array, the method comprising:
applying a first electric field to a first entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam to cause application of a first deflection amount is applied to the paths of sub-beams of the first line in a first direction, the first electric field applied using a first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces of a set of electrodes comprising a plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces, the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces configured so that they are capable of deflecting all of the sub-beams in the first line of sub beams and the parallel planar electrode surfaces of the first pair facing each other; and
applying a second electric field to a second entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam to cause application of a second deflection amount is applied to the paths of sub-beams of the second line in a second direction at a time when the first entire line of sub-beams are being, or have been, deflected in the first direction by the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces, wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction, the second electric field applied using a second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces of the set of electrodes, the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces configured so that they are capable of deflecting all of the sub-beams in the second line of sub-beams and the parallel planar electrode surfaces of the second pair facing each other (‘In one embodiment the first assembly is scanned in one direction while the next one is scanned in the opposite direction, by putting alternating voltages on the consecutive strips 19 as is shown in FIG. 5B. The first strip has for instance a positive potential, the second one a negative potential, the next one a positive etc. Say the scan direction is denoted y. One line of transmitted electron beamlets is then scanned in the -y-direction, while at the same time the next line is directed towards +y.’ P 106).
Regarding claim 16, Wieland et al. discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set comprises a first planar electrode surface that is arranged along a side of the first line of sub-beams and a second planar electrode surface that is arranged parallel to the first planar electrode surface and along an opposite side of the first line of sub-beams (fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 17, Wieland et al. discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set comprises a first planar electrode surface that is arranged along a side of the second line of sub-beams and a second planar electrode surface that is arranged parallel to the first planar electrode surface and along an opposite side of the second line of sub-beams (fig. 5B).
Claim(s) 1-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka discloses a multi-beam manipulator device configured to operate on paths of a plurality of sub-beams in a multi-beam of charged particles to deflect the plurality of sub-beam paths, wherein the sub-beams are arranged in an array in which the sub-beams are arranged in a plurality of lines, the multi-beam manipulator device comprising:
a set of electrodes comprising a plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces, wherein:
a first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set comprises a first planar electrode surface of the first pair that is arranged along a side of one of the lines of sub-beam paths and a second planar electrode surface of the first pair that is arranged parallel to the first planar electrode surface of the first pair, is arranged along an opposite side of the one of the lines of sub-beam paths and is arranged to face the first planar electrode surface of the first pair;
a second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set comprises a first planar electrode surface of the second pair that is arranged along a side of a different one of the lines of sub-beam paths and a second planar electrode surface of the second pair that is arranged parallel to the first planar electrode surface of the second pair, is arranged along an opposite side of the different one of the lines of sub-beam paths and is arranged to face the first planar electrode surface of the second pair;
the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is configured to electro-statically interact with an entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam;
the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is configured to electro-statically interact with an entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam;
the first direction is opposite to the second direction;
the plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces are configured so that they are capable of deflecting all of the lines of sub-beams in the array, the lines of sub-beams being substantially parallel with each other across the array; and
the device is configured so that the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces apply a first deflection amount to paths of sub-beams in a first direction and the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces apply a second deflection amount to paths of sub-beams in a second direction at a time when an entire line of sub-beams are being, or have been, deflected in the first direction by the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces (fig. 1-3, element 21).
Regarding claims 2-11, these consist entirely of intended use limitations and are rejected on the same figures. For example, claim 2 consists entirely of the following limitation “wherein a magnitude of the first deflection amount is different from a magnitude of the second deflection amount.” The difference in magnitude of the deflections depends only on the differences between the voltage applied during use, and not on any feature of the device itself. Therefore, the claim adds no limitations of patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka discloses a multi-beam manipulator arrangement comprising: the first multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1; and one or more further multi-beam manipulator devices, wherein each of the one or more further multi-beam manipulator devices is a multi-beam manipulator device configured to operate on paths of a plurality of sub-beams in a multi-beam of charged particles to deflect the plurality of sub-beam paths, wherein the sub-beams are arranged in an array in which the sub-beams are arranged in a plurality of lines, the multi-beam manipulator device comprising: a set of electrodes comprising a plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces, wherein: a first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set comprises a first planar electrode surface of the first pair that is arranged along a side of one of the lines of sub-beam paths and a second planar electrode surface of the first pair that is arranged parallel to the first planar electrode surface of the first pair and along an opposite side of the one of the lines of sub-beam paths; a second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set comprises a first planar electrode surface of the second pair that is arranged along a side of a different one of the lines of sub-beam paths and a second planar electrode surface of the second pair that is arranged parallel to the first planar electrode surface of the second pair and along an opposite side of the different one of the lines of sub-beam paths; the first pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is configured to electro- statically interact with an entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam so that it is capable of applying a first deflection amount to paths of sub-beams in a first direction; the second pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is configured to electro-statically interact with an entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam so that it is capable of applying a second deflection amount to paths of sub-beams in a second direction; the first direction is opposite to the second direction; the plurality of pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces are configured so that they are capable of deflecting all of the lines of sub-beams in the array, the lines of sub-beams being substantially parallel with each other across the array; wherein each multi-beam manipulator device is arranged at a different position along a charged particle optical axis of the multi-beam manipulator arrangement (fig. 1-3, elements 21 & 22).
Regarding claim 13, Yamanaka discloses the multi-beam manipulator arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the pairs of planar electrode surfaces are aligned: in the same direction within each multi-beam manipulator device; and in a different direction in each multi-beam manipulator device from another multi-beam manipulator device (fig. 1-3, elements 21 & 22).
Regarding claim 14, Yamanaka discloses the multi-beam manipulator arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the one or more further multi-beam manipulator devices comprises a second multi-beam manipulator device; and the pairs of planar electrode surfaces in the second multi-beam manipulator device are aligned substantially orthogonally and down-path with respect to the first multi-beam manipulator device (fig. 2-3, elements 21 & 22).
Regarding claim 19, Yamanaka discloses the multi-beam manipulator arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the array comprises three different sets of lines, wherein each set of lines is aligned in a different direction (non-limiting, see also annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 18, Yamanaka discloses the multi-beam manipulator arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the one or more further multi-beam manipulator devices comprises a second multi-beam manipulator device (fig. 1-3, element 22), wherein a pair of planar electrode surfaces in the first and second multi-beam-beam manipulator devices are aligned in a different direction (fig. 1-3, pairs 21a, 21b & 22a, 22b).
Yamanaka does not disclose a third multi-beam manipulator device, wherein a pair of planar electrode surfaces in the first, second and third multi-beam manipulator devices are each aligned in a different direction. It would have been obvious to add a third manipulator device in a third alignment direction if deflection in another direction were desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose the multi-beam manipulator arrangement according to claim 19, wherein, for at least one of the multi-beam manipulator devices, the one or more pairs of parallel electrode surfaces are configured to deflect the path of each line of sub-beams such that the path of each line of sub-beams crosses the paths of all of the other lines of sub-beams down-beam from the at least one of the multi-beam manipulator devices.
The closest prior arts of record are US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka) and US 2017/0213688 (Ren et al.). Yamanaka discloses the multi-beam manipulator arrangement according to claim 19, and Ren et al. discloses a multi-beam manipulator device with pairs of parallel electrode surfaces configured to deflect the path of each sub-beam in a line such that the path of each sub-beam crosses the paths of all of the other sub-beams down-beam (fig. 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C. 6B, 6C, and other, element 122).
There is no obvious reason to modify Yamanaka to configure one of the multi-beam manipulators as in Ren since Yamanaka is directed to scanning and Ren is directed to image formation. There is also no obvious reason to modify Ren to work on lines of sub-beams in an array, because this would prevent the common crossover point Ren is designed to create.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Wieland discloses two pairs of parallel planar electrodes comprising surfaces arranged along opposite sides lines of sub-beams and facing, but the facing surfaces are not the parallel planar surfaces, which are on a different side of the electrodes. The 102 rejections of claim 1-11 over Wieland has been withdrawn.
It is noted that this argument is also directed to the rejections of claims 15-17, but, given the tentative interpretation examiner has used that the claimed steps are deflections, the form of the electrodes is not considered to be a part of the step, and indeed the action of deflecting can be performed in the exact same manner with any pair of electrodes regardless of whether the facing surfaces are parallel or planar. Examiner agrees that if the claims were amended in manner to overcome the 112 and 101 rejections and also require the facing parallel planar surfaces this would overcome the 102 rejections over Wieland, but since the form of the electrodes does not change the deflection step itself, this would merely result in a 103 rejection over Wieland instead of a 102 rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed November 4th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections over Yamanaka, applicant traverses the rejections by noting that Yamanaka deflects the beams in the same direction, rather than opposite directions.
The direction of deflection is a function of the voltages applied during use. Any set of electrodes that are “configured to” deflect in the same direction are inherently “configured to” deflect in the opposite direction, since reversing the polarity of the voltage being applied during use results in reversal of the direction of reflection. Therefore, the difference is a difference of intended use requiring no change in the configuration of the electrodes or any aspect of the device. The difference lies solely in the manner of operating the device, and not in any aspect of the device itself.
As per Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." The device of Yamanaka and the claimed device are identical. Each and every structural limitation of the claims are met, and the device can perform all of the same functions, including deflection of charged particle beams. That Yamanaka does not disclose employing the device for deflection of lines of beams in opposite directions is irrelevant, as long as the device *could be* used in the claimed manner and would work. In this case, the device of Yamanaka could easily be employed for such a purpose, the operator need only apply voltages to the electrodes such that deflection in opposite direction would result. See also "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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