DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on June 17th, 2026. Claim 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 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 1-14 and 18-20 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 recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction: recite the limitation in line 24 after the limitation to “a first direction” in line 30.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second direction" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction: recite the limitation in line 24 after the limitation to “a second direction” in line 31.
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) 1-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka) in view of US 2005/0211921 (Wieland et al.).
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 (fig. 1-3, element 21), 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 (fig. 2-3, element 21a);
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 (fig. 2-3, element 21b);
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 (electrode surfaces are inherently configured to do this, also “The electrostatic deflector has a structure which sandwiches the charged particle beams using a pair of electrodes (electrode pair), and applies an electric potential difference to the electrode pair to generate an electric field between the pair of electrodes, thereby deflecting the charged particle beams.” P 4);
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 (electrode surfaces are inherently configured to do this, also “The electrostatic deflector has a structure which sandwiches the charged particle beams using a pair of electrodes (electrode pair), and applies an electric potential difference to the electrode pair to generate an electric field between the pair of electrodes, thereby deflecting the charged particle beams.” P 4);
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 (fig. 2-3, element 21); and
the device is hardwired, or has a controller set up (fig. 1, elements 12-13), 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 generation device 12 generates command values to apply electric potential differences to the plurality of first electrode pairs and plurality of second electrode pairs, based on the target positions on the substrate.”).
Yamanaka does not explicitly teach an embodiment in which the first direction is opposite to the second direction. However, Yamanaka discloses a controller that selects the potential differences “based on target positions”. It is this examiner’s opinion that this inherently includes control in opposite directions, because if the appropriate target positions are chosen the controller will generate potential differences that result in deflecting in opposite directions.
Alternatively, Wieland discloses controlling pairs of parallel electrode surfaces to apply deflections in opposite directions (‘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, see fig. 4, element 18 to show that the electrode pairs face each other). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the controller of Yamanaka to apply deflections in opposite directions as in Wieland if deflecting in opposite directions was desired.
Regarding claim 2, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the first deflection amount is different from a magnitude of the second deflection amount (“The generation device 12 generates command values to apply electric potential differences to the plurality of first electrode pairs and plurality of second electrode pairs, based on the target positions on the substrate.” note that the controller will apply the potentials necessary to generate deflections in whatever magnitudes are necessary to reach the target positions, including, if the appropriate target positions are chosen, different magnitudes).
Regarding claim 3, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein each pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set is configured to electro-statically interact with an entire line of sub-beams in the multi-beam to apply a deflection to paths of sub-beams (electrode surfaces are inherently configured to do this, also “The electrostatic deflector has a structure which sandwiches the charged particle beams using a pair of electrodes (electrode pair), and applies an electric potential difference to the electrode pair to generate an electric field between the pair of electrodes, thereby deflecting the charged particle beams.” P 4).
Regarding claim 4, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein each pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces in the set is configured so that it is capable of deflecting only one line of sub-beams in the multi-beam (fig. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein all of the pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces are arranged in the same plane as each other, the plane being substantially orthogonal to a charged particle optical axis (fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein each pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is configured to apply an electric field between its first and second planar surfaces for electro-statically deflecting all of the paths of sub-beams in a line of sub-beams (“The electrostatic deflector has a structure which sandwiches the charged particle beams using a pair of electrodes (electrode pair), and applies an electric potential difference to the electrode pair to generate an electric field between the pair of electrodes, thereby deflecting the charged particle beams.” P 4); and the applied electric field is substantially orthogonal to a charged particle optical axis (fig. 2-3 show charged particle axis is orthogonal to plane of electrodes).
Regarding claim 7, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein, when in use, each pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces applies a substantially constant electric field between its first and second planar surfaces for deflecting all of the paths of sub-beams in a line of sub-beams (intended use).
Regarding claim 8, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein each pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is configured to apply an electric field that differs in direction and/or magnitude from the electric fields applied by the one or more other pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces such that the applied deflection to each line of sub-beams in a multi-beam is different in direction and/or magnitude (inherent, the electrodes can accept any values of potential differences and therefore are configured to apply electric fields in any combinations of magnitude and directions desired).
Regarding claim 9, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein, for each of one or more pairs of parallel planar electrode surfaces, an applied electric field by a pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces is equal in magnitude, and opposite in direction, to the applied electric field by another pair of parallel planar electrode surfaces (intended use, also “The generation device 12 generates command values to apply electric potential differences to the plurality of first electrode pairs and plurality of second electrode pairs, based on the target positions on the substrate.” note that the controller will apply the potentials necessary to generate electric fields in whatever magnitudes are necessary to reach the target positions, including, if the appropriate target positions are chosen, electric fields equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, see also alternative grounds with respect to Wieland).
Regarding claim 10, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein, when viewed along a charged particle optical axis, the positions of the sub-beams within the multi-beam substantially correspond to the vertices of a substantially square grid, a substantially rhombic grid and/or a substantially skewed or shifted square grid (fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland discloses the multi-beam manipulator device according to claim 1, wherein, when viewed along a charged particle optical axis, the positions of the sub-beams within the multi-beam substantially correspond to the vertices of a substantially hexagonal grid and/or a substantially skewed or shifted hexagonal grid (fig. 2, note that while the sub-beams are not shown in a hexagonal grid, the same electrodes and voltages could be used with a hexagonal array of beams since any location within each pair of electrodes will experience the same deflection).
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland 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 or Yamanaka in view of Wieland 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 or Yamanaka in view of Wieland 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 or Yamanaka in view of Wieland 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) or US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka) in view of US 2005/0211921 (Wieland et al.).
Regarding claim 18, Yamanaka or Yamanaka in view of Wieland 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.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0211921 (Wieland et al.) in view of US 2013/0344700 (Yamanaka).
The following annotated figure is referenced;
PNG
media_image2.png
584
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 an electrified first pair of planar electrode surfaces of a set of electrodes comprising a plurality of pairs of planar electrode surfaces, the first pair of 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 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 electrode surfaces, wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction, the second electric field applied using an electrified second pair of planar electrode surfaces of the set of electrodes, the second pair of 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 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, see annotated figure above to show the pairs of electrode surfaces, see also fig. 4, element 18).
Wieland does not disclose that the planar electrode surfaces are parallel, instead depositing them on an aperture plate in a manner that curves around the apertures. However, electrostatic deflectors comprising sets of parallel planar electrode surfaces are known at least from Yamanaka (fig. 1-3, element 21), 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 method of Wieland to use parallel electrode surfaces if desired, and method would proceed identically since in either case the same electric field is created for the same potentials at the locations where the sub-beams cross, as the electrodes are symmetrical about the beams in either case.
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).
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 filed June 17th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 102 (now 103) rejections over Wieland, applicant argues that the strips 19 of Wieland are coplanar and therefore cannot be made to face each other.
The strips of Wieland are indeed coplanar in XY plane, as are applicant’s (see applicant’s figure 4 for example), but the sides facing the beam are still facing, as easily seen in the annotated figure below;
PNG
media_image3.png
584
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also regarding the 102 (now 103) rejections over Wieland, applicant argues that the examiner’s position that the electrodes are not part of the step and the deflecting action can be performed in the exact same manner with any pair of electrodes is untenable because it appears to assert that, for all method claims ever granted that recite physical structure, that physical structure can just be read out of the claim.
Examiner does not contend that for all method claims ever granted that recite physical structure, that physical structure can just be read out of the claim. Examiner contends that the method step refers to a specific set of actions rather than a specific set of physical structures, and any differences in physical structures must result in a difference in how the steps are performed to result in a difference in process. Deflecting a beam with an electrostatic deflector requires the specific action of applying a potential difference across a pair of electrodes, and this action will proceed in the same manner whether the electrodes are parallel or curved, so there is no difference in the process. If, on the other hand, the applied art was a magnetic deflector, the process would proceed differently because the actions required to deflect with a magnetic field are different from the actions required to deflect with an electric field, so the structural difference would result in a process difference.
Regarding the 102 rejections over Yamanaka, applicant argues that Yamanaka does not disclose a set-up for deflecting the sub-beams in opposite directions.
The only “set-up” required for deflecting the sub-beams in opposite directions is a controller capable of controlling the potentials applied to each electrode, which Yamanaka does disclose. However, in the interest of compact prosecution examiner has made an alternative rejection under 103 citing Wieland to show actual deflection in opposite directions.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights