DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10 June 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 and 12-13, that Tanimoto fails to disclose selecting a scan mode from a first or second scan mode as claimed, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims requires beam scanning in a broadly claimed first or second scan mode.
Many types of scan modes are known in the art, such as fast or slow scan modes (see, e.g., Suzuki et al., “Special Raster Scanning for Reduction of Charging Effects in Scanning Electron Microscopy”, 2014, hereinafter Suzuki), or randomized “spot-scan” modes (Lee et al., “Controlling radiolysis chemistry on the nanoscale in liquid cell scanning transmission electron microscopy, 2021, hereinafter Lee), for example. The leap-and-scan and continuous-scan modes disclosed in the present application are further examples of scan modes (see, e.g., page 12, paragraph 0058, “different scan modes (e.g., leap-and-scan mode, continuous scan mode)”, emphasis added; and page 17, paragraph 0073, “a multi-beam system…may operate in different scan modes. For example, a multi-beam system may operate in leap-and-scan mode for high resolution applications and in continuous scan mode for high current applications”, emphasis added), but the independent claims are not limited to a particular scan mode, nor does the specification define that the scan modes are limited to only leap-and-scan or continuous-scan modes.
Furthermore, while Tanimoto does disclose raster scanning, raster scanning is recognized in the art to include a multitude of scanning modes, such as raster scanning modes at different raster angles (see, e.g., Garg et al., “Failure investigation of fused deposition modelling parts fabricated at different raster angles under tensile and flexural loading”, 2017, hereinafter Garg), raster scanning modes at different raster velocities (Unocic et al., “Direct-write liquid phase transformations with a scanning transmission electron microscope”, 2016, hereinafter Unocic), or fine or coarse raster scanning modes (Gao et al., “High-speed raster-scanning synchrotron serial microcrystallography with a high-precision piezo-scanner”, 2018, hereinafter Gao), for example. In this case, Tanimoto discloses that the allocations of apertures shown in FIGs. 2B-2E are used in different raster scan modes, such as raster scanning with a different number or diameter of the primary beam(s) produced by altering the pass or block status of individual apertures (paragraphs 0034, 0049), i.e., each allocation corresponds to a different scan mode, the scan modes being differentiated by the different number or diameter of the primary beam(s). Therefore, the disclosure of Tanimoto meets the claimed limitations “in the first scan mode, a first two-dimensional (2D) set of apertures of an aperture array are used to inspect the wafer, and in the second scan mode a second 2D set of apertures of the aperture array are used to inspect the wafer”.
In response to applicant's arguments, see pages 13-14, that Platzgummer fails to disclose “the second 2D set of apertures partially overlaps with the first 2D set of apertures”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the case at hand, Platzgummer is not relied upon to teach the limitation “the second 2D set of apertures partially overlaps with the first 2D set of apertures”; rather, this limitation is taught by Tanimoto (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below).
In response to applicant’s arguments, see page 15, that Tanimoto, Xu, and Yasuda all disclose different types of scan modes, the beam allocations disclosed in Tanimoto are used in scan modes differentiated by the number or diameter of the beam(s) used for scanning (paragraph 0034). Tanimoto discloses that the allocated beams may be used in a continuous scanning process (paragraph 0040), and Xu discloses that “[e]ach column may independently use different beam conditions for imaging at different sites” (paragraph 0037, emphasis added). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the number or diameter of the beam(s) taught by Tanimoto, combined with the leap and scan mode taught by Xu and the continuous scan mode taught by Yasuda, meet the claimed limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0155134 A1), hereinafter Frosien, in view of Tanimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0230697 A1), hereinafter Tanimoto, and Platzgummer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0204253 A1), hereinafter Platzgummer.
Regarding claim 1, Frosien discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) structure (paragraph 0086, lines 3-5) comprising:
a first two-dimensional (2D) set of apertures (FIG. 1B, apertures 5A-5H) configured to be used in a scan mode (paragraph 0012, lines 6-10).
Frosien fails to disclose that the scan mode is a first scan mode; and a second 2D set of apertures configured to be used in a second scan mode different from the first scan mode; wherein the second 2D set of apertures partially overlaps with the first 2D set of apertures, and wherein the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode and the second 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the first scan mode.
However, Tanimoto discloses a first two-dimensional (2D) set of apertures (FIG. 2D, apertures denoted with solid circles) configured to be used in a first scan mode (paragraph 0034; FIG. 2D, ‘Allocation C’); and
a second 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2E, apertures denoted with solid circles) configured to be used in a second scan mode different from the first scan mode (paragraph 0034; FIG. 2E, ‘Allocation D’);
wherein the second 2D set of apertures partially overlaps with the first 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2E: the second 2D set of apertures includes inner and outer apertures, of which the inner apertures are the same as the first 2D set of apertures shown in FIG. 2D), and
wherein the second 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the first scan mode (FIG. 2E: the second 2D set of apertures includes inner and outer apertures, of which the outer apertures are not used in Allocation C, as shown by the dashed circles in FIG. 2D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien to include that the scan mode is a first scan mode; and a second 2D set of apertures configured to be used in a second scan mode different from the first scan mode; wherein the second 2D set of apertures partially overlaps with the first 2D set of apertures, and wherein the second 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the first scan mode, based on the teachings of Tanimoto that the different sets of apertures allow a user to configure the system based on a balance between a desired reduction in aberrations and a desired inspection speed (Tanimoto, paragraph 0034), and that these apertures provide a faster inspection speed due to the increased beam diameter resulting from the extra apertures (Tanimoto, paragraph 0034).
Frosien in view of Tanimoto fails to disclose that the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode.
However, Platzgummer discloses that the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode (paragraph 0064; FIG. 4 shows first 2D set of apertures 221 in use in a first scan mode, while FIG. 4a shows that none of the apertures 221 are used in the second scan mode, i.e., while second 2D set of apertures 222 is in use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto to include that the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode, based on the teachings of Platzgummer that apertures which are used in the first scan mode and not the second scan mode can produce varied beam shapes between modes as desired (Platzgummer, paragraph 0064).
Claims 2, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,399,872 A), hereinafter Yasuda.
Regarding claim 2, Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 discloses the structure of claim 1.
Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer fails to disclose that the first 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a jagged-edged rectangular shape.
However, Yasuda discloses that the first 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2A, apertures 15 in lines
23
1
through
23
8
) comprises an array of apertures forming a jagged-edged rectangular shape (FIG. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer to include that the first 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a jagged-edged rectangular shape, based on the teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 4, Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 discloses the structure of claim 1.
Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer fails to disclose that the first 2D set of apertures comprises: a first row of apertures; a second row of apertures; a third row of apertures; a fourth row of apertures; wherein: the first, second, third, and fourth rows are parallel to each other in a first direction; the first and third rows are offset from the second and fourth rows in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Yasuda discloses that the first 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2A, apertures 15 in lines
23
1
through
23
8
) comprises:
a first row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A (below), vertical row 1);
a second row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 2);
a third row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 3);
a fourth row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 4);
wherein:
the first, second, third, and fourth rows are parallel to each other in a first direction (annotated FIG. 2A: vertical rows 1-4 are parallel across their horizontal separation);
the first and third rows (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical rows 1, 3) are offset from the second and fourth rows (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical rows 2, 4) in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (annotated FIG. 2A: vertical rows 2 and 4 are offset from vertical rows 1 and 3 in the vertical direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer to include that the first 2D set of apertures comprises: a first row of apertures; a second row of apertures; a third row of apertures; a fourth row of apertures; wherein: the first, second, third, and fourth rows are parallel to each other in a first direction; the first and third rows are offset from the second and fourth rows in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, based on the teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: Annotated FIG. 2A (Yasuda)
Regarding claim 5, Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda as applied to claim 4 discloses the structure of claim 4.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the offset comprises apertures that do not overlap in the second direction (annotated FIG. 2A: vertical rows 1 and 3 comprise apertures which do not share a common vertical axis with the apertures in vertical rows 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda to include that the offset comprises apertures that do not overlap in the second direction, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 6, Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda as applied to claim 4 discloses the structure of claim 4.
In addition, Platzgummer discloses that the first and third rows (FIG. 10: vertical rows containing both square and hexagonal apertures) have a first length (FIG. 10: each vertical row containing square and hexagonal apertures has a length of 8 apertures) and the second and fourth rows (FIG. 10: vertical rows containing only square apertures) have a second length (FIG. 10: each vertical row containing only square apertures has a length of 4 apertures), and the first length is longer than the second length in the second direction (FIG. 10: the rows having both square and hexagonal apertures are longer in the vertical direction than the rows having only square apertures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda to include that the first and third rows have a first length and the second and fourth rows have a second length, and the first length is longer than the second length in the second direction, based on the additional teachings of Platzgummer that this allows for greater flexibility in the use of different aperture arrangements (Platzgummer, paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 7, Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda as applied to claim 6 discloses the structure of claim 6.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the first row, the second row, the third row, and the fourth row alternate in the first direction (annotated FIG. 2A: the set of vertical rows 1-4 repeats in groups of 4 in the horizontal direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda to include that the first row, the second row, the third row, and the fourth row alternate in the first direction, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 9, Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 discloses the structure of claim 1.
Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer fails to disclose that the first scan mode is a continuous scan mode.
However, Yasuda discloses that the first scan mode is a continuous scan mode (FIG. 14 shows continuous movement in the Y direction of the stage holding the sample during scanning in the same direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer to include that the first scan mode is a continuous scan mode, based on the teachings of Yasuda that using a continuous scan mode improves the detection of defects in the system (Yasuda, column 8, lines 4-15).
Regarding claim 10, Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda as applied to claim 9 discloses the structure of claim 9.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the first 2D set of apertures are configured to be rotated when operating in the continuous scan mode (FIG. 14 shows the rotation of aperture plate 12, which contains the first 2D set of apertures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto, Platzgummer, and Yasuda to include that the first 2D set of apertures are configured to be rotated when operating in the continuous scan mode, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on the sample (Yasuda, column 7, lines 58-66).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuiper et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0071696 A1), hereinafter Kuiper.
Regarding claim 8, Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 discloses the structure of claim 1.
Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer fails to disclose that the second 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a hexagonal shape.
However, Kuiper discloses that the second 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a hexagonal shape (FIG. 7, element 512).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer to include that the second 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a hexagonal shape, based on the teachings of Kuiper that a hexagonal arrangement of apertures provides the benefit of high aperture density with consistent beam influence (Kuiper, paragraph 0082, lines 9-12).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0286724 A1), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 11, Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer as applied to claim 1 discloses the structure of claim 1.
Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer fails to disclose that the second scan mode is a leap-and-scan mode.
However, Xu discloses that the second scan mode is a leap-and-scan mode (paragraph 0037, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Frosien in view of Tanimoto and Platzgummer to include that the second scan mode is a leap-and-scan mode, based on the teachings of Xu that using a leap-and-scan mode provides time between leaps to optimize beam conditions and correct positioning errors (Xu, paragraph 0037).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer.
Regarding claim 12, Tanimoto discloses a method for inspecting (paragraph 0024, lines 1-2) a wafer (FIG. 1, element 116) positioned on a stage (FIG. 1, element 117), the method comprising:
selecting a scan mode (paragraphs 0034, 0049) from a first scan mode (FIG. 2D, ‘Allocation C’) and a second scan mode (FIG. 2E, ‘Allocation D’) for inspecting the wafer (paragraph 0033, lines 9-20), wherein:
in the first scan mode, a first two-dimensional (2D) set of apertures (FIG. 2D, apertures denoted with solid circles) of an aperture array (FIG. 1, aperture array 108) are used to inspect the wafer (paragraph 0034), and
in the second scan mode, a second 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2E, apertures denoted with solid circles) of the aperture array (FIG. 1, aperture array 108) are used to inspect the wafer (paragraph 0034), wherein the second 2D set of apertures partially overlaps with the first 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2E: the second 2D set of apertures includes inner and outer apertures, of which the inner apertures are the same as the first 2D set of apertures shown in FIG. 2D); and
configuring the aperture array based on the selected scan mode (paragraph 0049),
wherein the second 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the first scan mode (FIG. 2E: the second 2D set of apertures includes inner and outer apertures, of which the outer apertures are not used in Allocation C, as shown by the dashed circles in FIG. 2D).
Tanimoto fails to disclose that the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode.
However, Platzgummer discloses that the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode (paragraph 0064; FIG. 4 shows first 2D set of apertures 221 in use in a first scan mode, while FIG. 4a shows that none of the apertures 221 are used in the second scan mode, i.e., while second 2D set of apertures 222 is in use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto to include that the first 2D set of apertures includes apertures not used in the second scan mode, based on the teachings of Platzgummer that apertures which are used in the first scan mode and not the second scan mode can produce varied beam shapes between modes as desired (Platzgummer, paragraph 0064).
Claims 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yasuda.
Regarding claim 13, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer fails to disclose that the first 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a jagged-edged rectangular shape.
However, Yasuda discloses that the first 2D set of apertures (FIG. 2A, apertures 15 in lines
23
1
through
23
8
) comprises an array of apertures forming a jagged-edged rectangular shape (FIG. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer to include that the first 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a jagged-edged rectangular shape, based on the teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 15, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer fails to disclose that the first 2D set of apertures comprises: a first row of apertures; a second row of apertures; a third row of apertures; a fourth row of apertures; wherein: the first, second, third, and fourth rows are parallel to each other in a first direction; the first and third rows are offset from the second and fourth rows in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Yasuda discloses that the first 2D set of apertures comprises (FIG. 2A, apertures 15 in lines
23
1
through
23
8
):
a first row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 1);
a second row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 2);
a third row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 3);
a fourth row of apertures (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical row 4);
wherein:
the first, second, third, and fourth rows are parallel to each other in a first direction (annotated FIG. 2A: vertical rows 1-4 are parallel across their horizontal separation);
the first and third rows (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical rows 1, 3) are offset from the second and fourth rows (annotated FIG. 2A, vertical rows 2, 4) in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (annotated FIG. 2A: vertical rows 2 and 4 are offset from vertical rows 1 and 3 in the vertical direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer to include that the first 2D set of apertures comprises: a first row of apertures; a second row of apertures; a third row of apertures; a fourth row of apertures; wherein: the first, second, third, and fourth rows are parallel to each other in a first direction; the first and third rows are offset from the second and fourth rows in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, based on the teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 16, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer and Yasuda as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the offset comprises apertures that do not overlap in the second direction (annotated FIG. 2A: vertical rows 1 and 3 comprise apertures which do not share a common vertical axis with the apertures in vertical rows 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer and Yasuda to include that the offset comprises apertures that do not overlap in the second direction, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 17, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer and Yasuda as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Platzgummer discloses that the first and third rows (FIG. 10: vertical rows containing both square and hexagonal apertures) have a first length (FIG. 10: each vertical row containing square and hexagonal apertures has a length of 8 apertures) and the second and fourth rows (FIG. 10: vertical rows containing only square apertures) have a second length (FIG. 10: each vertical row containing only square apertures has a length of 4 apertures), and the first length is longer than the second length in the second direction (FIG. 10: the rows having both square and hexagonal apertures are longer in the vertical direction than the rows having only square apertures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer and Yasuda to include that the first and third rows have a first length and the second and fourth rows have a second length, and the first length is longer than the second length in the second direction, based on the additional teachings of Platzgummer that this allows for greater flexibility in the use of different aperture arrangements (Platzgummer, paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 18, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer and Yasuda as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
In addition, Yasuda discloses that the first row, the second row, the third row, and the fourth row alternate in the first direction (annotated FIG. 2A: the set of vertical rows 1-4 repeats in groups of 4 in the horizontal direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer and Yasuda to include that the first row, the second row, the third row, and the fourth row alternate in the first direction, based on the additional teachings of Yasuda that this arrangement improves the precision of charged particle beams incident on a sample (Yasuda, column 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 20, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer fails to disclose that the first scan mode is a continuous scan mode.
However, Yasuda discloses that the first scan mode is a continuous scan mode (FIG. 14 shows continuous movement in the Y direction of the stage holding the sample during scanning in the same direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer to include that the first scan mode is a continuous scan mode, based on the teachings of Yasuda that using a continuous scan mode improves the detection of defects in the system (Yasuda, column 8, lines 4-15).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kuiper.
Regarding claim 19, Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer as applied to claim 12 discloses the method of claim 12.
Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer fails to disclose that the second 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a hexagonal shape.
However, Kuiper discloses that the second 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a hexagonal shape (FIG. 7, element 512).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tanimoto in view of Platzgummer to include that the second 2D set of apertures comprises an array of apertures forming a hexagonal shape, based on the teachings of Kuiper that a hexagonal arrangement of apertures provides the benefit of high aperture density with consistent beam influence (Kuiper, paragraph 0082, lines 9-12).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights