DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on January 6th, 2026. 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “aberration correctors configured to reduce one or more aberrations in the sub-beams” in claims 1-14 and 16-20 and “field curvature correctors configured to reduce field curvature” in claims 1-14 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on the specification, it appears that “aberration correctors configured to reduce one or more aberrations in the sub-beams” corresponds to a deflecting element (described in connection with elements 124,125 and comprising a programmable deflector or multipole deflector) or field curvature correcto. A “field curvature corrector configured to reduce field curvature” comprising an aperture pattern of varying dimensions, also called a passive corrector by applicants (described in reference to element 126) or a electrostatic lens, also called an active corrector by applicants. Applicant also discloses that the “field curvature corrector” can take an “active form”, but does not disclose the structure of such an active form except to imply that electrodes are involved (‘The correction applied by each active corrector may be controlled by controlling the potential of each of one or more electrodes of the active corrector.’). Examiner initially thought this was an additional deflector, but after further consideration she suspects it more likely refers to the electrodes of the objective lens itself. It may also take an entirely different form not apparent to examiner.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “step for,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses functional language without reciting sufficient acts to perform the recited. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “(step for) reducing one or more aberrations in the sub-beams by aberration correctors, at least a sub-set of the aberration correctors positioned in, or directly adjacent to a respective one of the intermediate foci” and “(step for) reducing field curvature by the curvature correctors” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on the specification, it appears that “(step for) reducing one or more aberrations in the sub-beams by aberration correctors, … (at or near) one of the intermediate foci” corresponds to deflecting the sub-beams, and “(step for) reducing field curvature by the curvature correctors” corresponds to passing the sub-beams through a set of apertures of varying dimensions or applying voltages to the electrodes of an objective lens.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 6-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0243717 (Kruit) in view of US 2008/0023643 (Kruit et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Kruit discloses a charged particle assessment tool, comprising:
a condenser lens array configured to divide a beam of charged particles into a plurality of sub-beams and to focus each of the sub-beams to a respective intermediate focus (fig. 5A, element 84);
a plurality of objective lenses downstream from the intermediate foci, each objective lens configured to project a sub-beam from a corresponding condenser lens in the condenser lens array onto a sample (fig. 5A, element 87); and
aberration correctors configured to reduce one or more aberrations in the sub-beams, the aberration correctors comprising a second subset comprising one or more aberration correctors (fig. 5A, element 88, wherein ‘By providing an electro-magnetic deflection unit, any deviation or drift between the alignment between the first and second multi-aperture plate can be corrected by the electro-magnetic deflection unit.’) positioned in, or directly adjacent to, a respective one of the intermediate foci (‘the first focus plane is arranged in or near the collimator lens unit 26,’ where element 88 is located directly adjacent of the collimator lens as shown in fig. 5A wherein collimator lens unit is 86).
Kruit does not disclose a first subset of aberration correctors comprising a plurality of field curvature correctors configured to reduce field curvature. Kruit et al. discloses a charged particle tool including field curvature correctors configured to reduce field curvature (fig. 8, wherein ‘In FIG. 8, the 3-electrode lens array is shown with lens radius increasing for off-axial lenses, so as to correct field curvature.’ P 49). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the charged particle assessment tool of Kruit to include the field curvature correctors of Kruit et al. in the objective lens array so that the collimator lens could be removed, which would reduce the sources of aberrations and simplify the system.
Regarding claim 2, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein each of one or more field curvature correctors of the plurality of field curvature correctors is integrated with, or directly adjacent to, one or more of the objective lenses (Kruit et al., fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein a path of each sub-beam is substantially a straight line from each condenser lens to the corresponding objective lens (Kruit et al., fig. 8, this will be true of Kruit once collimator lens is removed).
Regarding claim 6, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the condenser lens array comprises a plurality of beam apertures for the dividing of the beam of charged particles into a corresponding plurality of sub-beams (fig. 5A, element 84).
Regarding claim 7, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the condenser lens array comprises a plurality of condenser lenses, each condenser lens configured to focus a different one of the sub-beams to the respective intermediate focus (fig. 2, elements 31 & 32, wherein ‘In addition, the beam splitter 24 comprises first electrodes 32 which together with the first multi-aperture plate 31 provides a first electrostatic lens array, wherein substantially each aperture of said first multi-aperture plate 31 in use comprises an electrostatic lens which focuses the electron beam which is created by said aperture. The electrostatic lenses of the first electrostatic lens array of the beam splitter 24 are arranged to focus the multiple primary electron beams 25 in a first focus plane.’ P 99, note that fig. 5A is discloses as being ‘an example of electron-optical components for the primary electron beams comprising a deflector subsystem for use in any one of the examples shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4;’ P 84).
Regarding claim 8, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 7, wherein:
each condenser lens comprises a condenser multi-electrode lens, the condenser multi-electrode lens comprising an entry electrode through which charged particles enter the condenser multi-electrode lens, an exit electrode through which charged particles exit the condenser multi-electrode lens, and at least one further electrode between the entry electrode and the exit electrode of the condenser multi-electrode lens (fig. 2, electrodes 32 and 31, note that fig. 5A is discloses as being ‘an example of electron-optical components for the primary electron beams comprising a deflector subsystem for use in any one of the examples shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4;’ P 84).
Kruit in view of Kruit et al. does not specifically disclose the tool is configured to control electric potentials of electrodes of each condenser multi-electrode lens such that there is substantially no difference in energy between particles entering and exiting the condenser multi-electrode lens. Controllers for controlling electric potentials of lenses 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 tool of Kruit in view of Kruit et al. to include such a controller to ensure that the desired foci and energies are achieved.
Regarding claim 9, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 8, wherein:
each objective lens comprises an objective multi-electrode lens, the objective multi-electrode lens comprising an entry electrode through which charged particles enter the objective multi-electrode lens, an exit electrode through which charged particles exit the objective multi-electrode lens, and at least one further electrode between the entry electrode and the exit electrode of the objective multi-electrode lens (fig. 2, elements 33 & 34, see also Kruit et al., fig. 8).
Kruit in view of Kruit et al. does not specifically disclose the tool is configured to control electric potentials of electrodes of each objective multi-electrode lens such that there is substantially no difference in energy between particles entering and exiting the objective multi-electrode lens. Controllers for controlling electric potentials of lenses 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 tool of Kruit in view of Kruit et al. to include such a controller to ensure that the desired foci and energies are achieved.
Regarding claims 10 & 11, these claims refer to setting the potentials of electrodes to achieve aims, which amount to intended use. The claims are met as long as the electrode arrangements and controller for setting the potentials are present, which is addressed in the parent claims.
Regarding claim 12, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the claimed invention except it does not specify whether a separation between the entry electrode and the exit electrode of each condenser multi-electrode lens is larger than a separation between the entry electrode and the exit electrode of the corresponding objective multi-electrode lens. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a wider separation distance for the condenser lens than the objective lenses because the condenser lens is focusing a more divergent beam and requires a longer time in the electric field to achieve adequate focusing.
Regarding claim 13, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 1, further comprising an electron detection device configured to detect either or both of secondary electrons and backscattered electrons from the sample (fig. 2, element 28, note that fig. 5A is discloses as being ‘an example of electron-optical components for the primary electron beams comprising a deflector subsystem for use in any one of the examples shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4;’ P 84).
Regarding claim 14, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 13, wherein the electron detection device is configured to face the sample (fig. 2, detection device 28 faces sample 13).
Regarding claim 15, Kruit discloses an inspection method, comprising:
emitting a plurality of sub-beams of charged particles from a condenser lens array and focusing each sub-beam to a respective intermediate focus (‘The electrostatic lenses of the first electrostatic lens array of the beam splitter 24 are arranged to focus the multiple primary electron beams 25 in a first focus plane.’ P 99);
using a plurality of objective lenses downstream from the intermediate foci to project each sub-beam onto a sample (‘objective lens unit 27 for focusing said multiple primary electron beams 25 on said sample 13.’); and
reducing one or more aberrations in the sub-beams by aberration correctors (‘By providing an electro-magnetic deflection unit, any deviation or drift between the alignment between the first and second multi-aperture plate can be corrected by the electro-magnetic deflection unit.’ P 29), at least a first subset of the one or more aberration correctors positioned in, or directly adjacent to a respective one of the intermediate foci (‘the first focus plane is arranged in or near the collimator lens unit 26,’ where deflection unit 88 is located directly adjacent of the collimator lens as shown in fig. 5A wherein collimator lens unit is 86).
Kruit does not disclose a second subset of aberration correctors comprising a plurality of field curvature correctors to reduce field curvature, wherein reducing one or more aberrations in the sub-beams comprises reducing field curvature by field curvature correctors. Kruit et al. discloses an inspection method where field curvature is reduced by field curvature correctors (‘In FIG. 8, the 3-electrode lens array is shown with lens radius increasing for off-axial lenses, so as to correct field curvature.’ P 49). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the inspection method of Kruit to include the field curvature correction step of Kruit et al. so that the collimator lens could be removed, which would reduce the sources of aberrations and simplify the system.
Regarding claim 16, Kruit discloses a charged particle assessment tool, comprising:
a condenser lens array configured to divide a beam of charged particles into a plurality of sub-beams and to focus each of the sub-beams to a respective intermediate focus (fig. 5A, element 84);
a plurality of objective lenses downstream from the intermediate foci, each objective lens configured to project a sub-beam from a corresponding condenser lens in the condenser lens array onto a sample (fig. 5A, element 87); and
one or more aberration correctors configured to reduce one or more aberrations in the sub-beams, and each of at least a subset of the one or more aberration correctors is positioned in, or directly adjacent to, a respective one of the intermediate foci (fig. 5A, element 88).
Kruit does not disclose wherein a path of each sub-beam is substantially a straight line from each condenser lens to the corresponding objective lens. Kruit et al. discloses a microlens array that can be used as an objective lens array without needing to collimate the sub-beams (fig. 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the micro-lens array of Kruit et al. for the objective lens array of Kruit so that the collimator lens could be removed, which would reduce the sources of aberrations and simplify the system.
Regarding claim 17, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 16, further comprising a field curvature corrector configured to reduce field curvature (Kruit et al., ‘In FIG. 8, the 3-electrode lens array is shown with lens radius increasing for off-axial lenses, so as to correct field curvature.’).
Regarding claim 20, Kruit in view of Kruit et al. discloses the tool of claim 16, wherein the condenser lens array comprises a plurality of condenser lenses, each condenser lens being configured to focus a different one of the sub-beams to the respective intermediate focus and wherein:
each condenser lens comprises a condenser multi-electrode lens, the condenser multi-electrode lens comprising an entry electrode through which charged particles enter the condenser multi-electrode lens, an exit electrode through which charged particles exit the condenser multi-electrode lens, and at least one further electrode between the entry electrode and the exit electrode of the condenser multi-electrode lens (fig. 2, electrodes 32 and 31, note that fig. 5A is discloses as being ‘an example of electron-optical components for the primary electron beams comprising a deflector subsystem for use in any one of the examples shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4;’ P 84).
Kruit in view of Kruit et al. does not specifically disclose the tool is configured to control electric potentials of electrodes of each condenser multi-electrode lens such that there is substantially no difference in energy between particles entering and exiting the condenser multi-electrode lens. Controllers for controlling electric potentials of lenses 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 tool of Kruit in view of Kruit et al. to include such a controller to ensure that the desired foci and energies are achieved.
Claim(s) 4-5 & 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Kruit et al. as applied to claims 1 & 16 above, and further in view of US 10,176,965 (Breuer).
Regarding claims 4 & 18, Breuer discloses a charged particle tool wherein aberrations contributed by the objective lenses are at least partially compensated by aberrations contributed by the condenser lens array (‘The aberration correction element 210 in combination with the lens array 320 can provide an array of intermediate beamlet crossovers which possess the opposite off-axial aberrations (field curvature, field astigmatism, radial chromatic distortion, etc.) as the common objective lens.’). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the tool of Kruit to include the aberration balancing of Breuer to offset aberrations not caused by beam misalignment or field curvature.
Regarding claims 5 & 19, Breuer discloses a charged particle tool wherein off-axis aberrations contributed by the objective lenses are at least partially compensated by off-axis aberrations contributed by the condenser lens array (‘The aberration correction element 210 in combination with the lens array 320 can provide an array of intermediate beamlet crossovers which possess the opposite off-axial aberrations (field curvature, field astigmatism, radial chromatic distortion, etc.) as the common objective lens.’). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the tool of Kruit to include the aberration balancing of Breuer to offset aberrations not caused by beam misalignment or field curvature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed January 6th, 2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that examiner cites deflection unit 88 as the second subset of aberration correctors but also cites language relating to collimator lens unit 26, and therefore considers it unclear whether examiner is relying on element deflection unit 88 or collimator element 26 to teach the aberration correctors.
Examiner apologizes for the confusion. Examiner contends that deflection unit 88 correlates to the second subset of aberration correctors, not collimator lens unit 26. Examiner cited the passage related to collimator lens unit 26 to show that the deflection unit 88 is positioned directly adjacent to the intermediate loci (passage states that collimator lens unit 26 is positioned at intermediate loci, and deflection unit 88 is directly adjacent to collimator lens unit 26). Examiner has added verbiage to the rejection to clarify this.
Applicant argues that deflection unit 88 is not equivalent to the second subset of aberration correctors because deflection unit merely aligns beams to hit certain targets, namely respective lenses of the objective lens unit 87.
Aligning the beam to the respective lenses of the objective lens unit is how the aberration is corrected. In applicant’s own words “In an embodiment, aberration correctors 124 positioned in, or directly adjacent to, the intermediate foci 115 (or intermediate image plane 120) comprise deflectors to correct for the source 201 appearing to be at different positions for different beams. Correctors 124 can be used to correct macroscopic aberrations resulting from the source 201 that prevent a good alignment between each sub-beam 114 and a corresponding objective lens 118. The aberration correctors 124 may correct aberrations that prevent a proper column alignment.” (applicant’s specification, paragraph 49, emphasis added by examiner).
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