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 29 April 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 16 over Urbanus, claim 13 over Urbanus in view of Zhang, claim 15 over Urbanus in view of Casares, and claims 18-20 over Urbanus in view of Frosien, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kasuya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0085925 A1), hereinafter Kasuya.
Regarding claim 16, Kasuya discloses an aperture body (FIG. 6, elements 6, 49) for passing a portion of a charged particle beam (paragraph 0078) propagating along a beam path comprising an axis (FIG. 6, central vertical axis), the aperture body comprising:
an aperture portion (FIG. 3, aperture 8) defining an opening around the axis (paragraph 0078), the aperture portion comprising adjacent to the opening an up-beam facing surface (FIG. 6, upper surface of element 6); and
a chamber portion around the up-beam facing surface (FIG. 6, volume enclosed by element 49), wherein the up-beam facing surface is configured to deflect at least some of the charged particles in the beam path that impinge the up-beam facing surface (FIG. 6, back scattered electrons 12) onto a surface of the chamber portion, wherein the up-beam facing surface is orthogonal to the axis (FIG. 6) and is adjoining the opening defined by the aperture portion (FIGs. 3, 6), and wherein the up-beam facing surface extends radially inwards in a flat manner from the chamber portion to the opening defined by the aperture portion (FIG. 6: element 6 extends inwards towards the central vertical beam axis from the lower end of element 49 toward aperture 8).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Kasuya teaches the structural limitations of the up-beam facing surface, i.e., the up-beam facing surface is capable of having charged particles impinge the up-beam facing surface, as shown in FIG. 6 and disclosed at lines 8-9 of paragraph 0080, “back scattered electrons 12 reflected by the extraction electrode 6 and proceeding upward”. Kasuya further teaches that element 6 is capable of receiving various applied voltages (paragraph 0075), and that the combination of elements 6 and 49 modify the electric fields between the electron source 1 and element 6 (paragraph 0076). Therefore, the up-beam facing surface 6 is capable of deflecting charged particles which impinge the up-beam facing surface 6 onto a surface of the chamber portion 49; the limitations of the claim are met.
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.
Claims 1, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuya in view of Ward et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,034,612 A), hereinafter Ward.
Regarding claim 1, Kasuya discloses an aperture body (FIG. 6, elements 6, 49) for passing a portion of a charged particle beam (paragraph 0078) propagating along a beam path comprising an axis (FIG. 6, central vertical axis), the aperture body comprising:
an up-beam facing surface (FIG. 6, upper surface of element 6); and
a chamber portion (FIG. 6, volume enclosed by element 49) comprising an up-beam end (FIG. 6, upper end of element 49) and a down-beam end (FIG. 6, lower end of element 49), wherein:
the up-beam facing surface comprises an aperture portion (FIG. 3, aperture 8) that is configured to define an opening around the beam path (paragraph 0078),
the up-beam facing surface is orthogonal to the axis (FIG. 6) and is adjoining the opening defined by the aperture portion (FIGs. 3, 6); and
the up-beam facing surface extends radially inwards in a flat manner from the down-beam end to the opening defined by the aperture portion (FIG. 6: element 6 extends inwards towards the central vertical beam axis from the lower end of element 49 toward aperture 8).
Kasuya fails to disclose an up-beam plate, wherein the up-beam plate extends radially inwards from the up-beam end and the up-beam plate is configured to define an entrance opening on the up-beam end of the chamber portion around the beam path, wherein: the opening defined by the aperture portion is smaller than the entrance opening.
However, Ward discloses an up-beam plate (FIG. 1, element 31), wherein the up-beam plate extends radially inwards from the up-beam end (FIG. 1: element 31 extends radially inwards from up-beam end of chamber portion 30) and the up-beam plate is configured to define an entrance opening (FIG. 1, entrance opening 34) on the up-beam end of the chamber portion around the beam path (FIG. 1, beam path 13),
wherein:
the opening defined by the aperture portion (FIG. 1, aperture portion 35) is smaller than the entrance opening (column 3, lines 40-46).
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 Kasuya to include an up-beam plate, wherein the up-beam plate extends radially inwards from the up-beam end and the up-beam plate is configured to define an entrance opening on the up-beam end of the chamber portion around the beam path, wherein: the opening defined by the aperture portion is smaller than the entrance opening, based on the teachings of Ward that this arrangement advantageously produces a narrower, collimated beam (Ward, column 3, lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 12, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body according to claim 1.
In addition, Kasuya discloses that the up-beam facing surface is configured to deflect charged particles in the beam path that impinge the up-beam facing surface (FIG. 6, back scattered electrons 12) onto a surface of the chamber portion.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Kasuya teaches the structural limitations of the up-beam facing surface, i.e., the up-beam facing surface is capable of having charged particles impinge the up-beam facing surface, as shown in FIG. 6 and disclosed at lines 8-9 of paragraph 0080, “back scattered electrons 12 reflected by the extraction electrode 6 and proceeding upward”. Kasuya further teaches that element 6 is capable of receiving various applied voltages (paragraph 0075), and that the combination of elements 6 and 49 modify the electric fields between the electron source 1 and element 6 (paragraph 0076). Therefore, the up-beam facing surface 6 is capable of deflecting charged particles which impinge the up-beam facing surface 6 onto a surface of the chamber portion 49; the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 13, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body according to claim 1.
In addition, Kasuya discloses that the aperture portion is cylindrically symmetric (paragraph 0078 discloses a diameter of aperture 8, i.e., the aperture is circular).
Regarding claim 14, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body according to claim 1.
In addition, Kasuya discloses that the chamber portion is a tubular portion (paragraph 0075: protrusion 49 is circular, with a height in the vertical direction as shown in FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body according to claim 1.
In addition, Kasuya discloses that the up-beam facing surface of the aperture body is rotationally symmetrical around the axis (the upper portion of FIG. 31 shows that up-beam facing surface 6 of the aperture body is circular).
Regarding claim 17, Kasuya as applied to claim 16 discloses the aperture body of claim 16.
In addition, Kasuya discloses that the chamber portion comprises: a tubular portion extending up-beam from the aperture portion (paragraph 0075: protrusion 49 is circular, with a height in the vertical direction as shown in FIG. 6).
Kasuya fails to disclose an up-beam plate extending radially inward from an up-beam end of the tubular portion, the up-beam plate defining an opening of larger diameter than the opening in the aperture portion.
However, Ward discloses an up-beam plate (FIG. 1, element 31) extending radially inward from an up-beam end of the tubular portion (FIG. 1: element 31 extends radially inwards from up-beam end of tubular portion 30), the up-beam plate defining an opening (FIG. 1, entrance opening 34) of larger diameter (column 3, lines 40-46) than the opening in the aperture portion (FIG. 1, aperture portion 35).
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 Kasuya to include an up-beam plate extending radially inward from an up-beam end of the tubular portion, the up-beam plate defining an opening of larger diameter than the opening in the aperture portion, based on the teachings of Ward that this arrangement advantageously produces a narrower, collimated beam (Ward, column 3, lines 40-46).
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urbanus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0137010 A1), hereinafter Urbanus.
Regarding claim 3, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body according to claim 1.
Kasuya in view of Ward fails to disclose a thermal conditioning portion for thermal conditioning of the aperture body.
However, Urbanus discloses a thermal conditioning portion (FIG. 7b, element 105) for thermal conditioning of the aperture body (paragraph 0135, lines 1-4).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward to include a thermal conditioning portion for thermal conditioning of the aperture body, based on the teachings of Urbanus that this provides efficient cooling of multiple components within the system (Urbanus, paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 4, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 3 discloses the aperture body according to claim 3.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that the thermal conditioning portion (FIG. 7b) comprises a thermal conditioning channel (FIG. 7b, element 105a), wherein at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is configured to support a flow of thermal conditioning fluid (paragraph 0135, lines 1-4) through the aperture body (FIG. 3, element 82).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that the thermal conditioning portion comprises a thermal conditioning channel, wherein at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is configured to support a flow of thermal conditioning fluid through the aperture body, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this provides efficient cooling of multiple components within the system (Urbanus, paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 5, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that the thermal conditioning channel at least partially surrounds the axis (paragraph 0135, lines 1-4: the thermal conditioning fluid is circulated through sequential electrodes 71-80; as seen in FIG. 3, elements 71-80 are stacked in the vertical direction surrounding axis A; therefore, as the fluid is passed through sequential electrodes, it surrounds the axis A).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that the thermal conditioning channel at least partially surrounds the axis, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this provides more efficient heat exchange and cooling of the system (Urbanus, paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 6, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is configured to circulate a thermal conditioning fluid (paragraph 0135, lines 1-4) at least partially around the aperture portion (FIG. 3, element 82).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is configured to circulate a thermal conditioning fluid at least partially around the aperture portion, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this provides efficient cooling of multiple components within the system (Urbanus, paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 7, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that the at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is configured to circulate the thermal conditioning fluid multiple times around the aperture portion (paragraph 0135, lines 1-4: the thermal conditioning fluid is circulated through sequential electrodes 71-80; as seen in FIG. 3, elements 71-80 are stacked in the vertical direction surrounding aperture 82; therefore, as the fluid is passed through sequential electrodes, it circulates multiple times around the aperture).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that the at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is configured to circulate the thermal conditioning fluid multiple times around the aperture portion, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this provides more efficient heat exchange and cooling of the system (Urbanus, paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 8, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is shaped as a loop (FIG. 7b, element 105a).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that at least part of the thermal conditioning channel is shaped as a loop, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this configuration provides the advantage of homogeneous cooling of the electrodes (Urbanus, paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 9, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that the thermal conditioning channel has a cross-sectional shape that has two reflective axes (FIG. 7a, axis VIIb and FIG. 7b, vertical axis).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that the thermal conditioning channel has a cross-sectional shape that has two reflective axes, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this configuration provides the advantage of homogeneous cooling of the electrodes (Urbanus, paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 10, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that the thermal conditioning channel is dimensioned to have a substantially constant cross-sectional area along its length (paragraph 0127, lines 1-3).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that the thermal conditioning channel is dimensioned to have a substantially constant cross-sectional area along its length, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this configuration provides the advantage of homogeneous cooling of the electrodes (Urbanus, paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 11, Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus as applied to claim 4 discloses the aperture body according to claim 4.
In addition, Urbanus discloses that at least a portion of the thermal conditioning channel has a radially inner most surface around at least part of the axis that is equidistant to a beam path facing surface of the aperture body (paragraph 0125, lines 9-13).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward and Urbanus to include that at least a portion of the thermal conditioning channel has a radially inner most surface around at least part of the axis that is equidistant to a beam path facing surface of the aperture body, based on the additional teachings of Urbanus that this configuration provides the advantage of homogeneous cooling of the electrodes (Urbanus, paragraph 0125).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frosien (U.S. Patent No. 9,245,709 B1), hereinafter Frosien.
Regarding claim 18, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body of claim 1.
Kasuya in view of Ward fails to disclose a flood column for charged particle flooding of a sample.
However, Frosien discloses a flood column (FIG. 2, element 152) for charged particle flooding (column 4, lines 4-20) of a sample (FIG. 2, element 52).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward to include a flood column for charged particle flooding of a sample, based on the teachings of Frosien that the flood column improves the throughput of the charged particle system (Frosien, column 4, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 19, Kasuya in view of Ward and Frosien as applied to claim 18 discloses the flood column of claim 18.
In addition, Kasuya discloses a combination of a blanking electrode (FIG. 13, element 22) and the aperture body (FIG. 13), wherein the blanking electrode is positioned in the up-beam direction relative to the aperture body (FIG. 13: the beam is emitted along the beam axis in the downward direction by electron source 1, and blanking electrode 22 is positioned higher on the beam axis in the vertical direction than the aperture body), and wherein the blanking electrode is configured to selectively deflect the charged particle beam onto the up-beam facing surface of the aperture body so as to substantially prevent any portion of the charged particle beam from passing through a down-beam opening of the chamber portion (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 20, Kasuya in view of Ward as applied to claim 1 discloses the aperture body of claim 1.
In addition, Kasuya discloses a charged particle tool (FIG. 10) comprising:
a primary column (paragraph 0098) for directing a primary charged particle beam (FIG. 10, element 10) onto a surface of the sample (FIG. 10, element 34); and
a detector (FIG. 10, element 35) for detecting charged particles emitted from the surface of the sample due to the primary charged particle beam (paragraph 0100).
Kasuya in view of Ward fails to disclose a flood column for charged particle flooding of a sample.
However, Frosien discloses a flood column (FIG. 2, element 152) for charged particle flooding (column 4, lines 4-20) of a sample (FIG. 2, element 52).
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 Kasuya in view of Ward to include a flood column for charged particle flooding of a sample, based on the teachings of Frosien that the flood column improves the throughput of the charged particle system (Frosien, column 4, lines 19-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schut (U.S. Patent No. 3,866,079 A), hereinafter Schut, teaches an aperture body for passing a portion of a charged particle beam propagating along a beam path comprising an axis, the aperture body comprising: an up-beam facing surface; and a chamber portion comprising an up-beam end and a down-beam end, wherein the up-beam facing surface comprises an aperture portion that is configured to define an opening around the beam path, wherein the up-beam facing surface is configured to deflect charged particles in the beam path that impinge the up-beam facing surface onto a surface of the chamber portion.
Chisholm (GB Patent No. 2195203 A), hereinafter Chisholm, teaches an aperture body for passing a portion of a charged particle beam propagating along a beam path comprising an axis, the aperture body comprising: an up-beam facing surface; and a chamber portion comprising an up-beam end, a down-beam end, and an up-beam plate, wherein the up-beam plate extends radially inwards from the up-beam end and the up-beam plate is configured to define an entrance opening on the up-beam end of the chamber portion around the beam path, wherein: the up-beam facing surface comprises an aperture portion that is configured to define an opening around the beam path, the opening defined by the aperture portion is smaller than the entrance opening, the up-beam facing surface is orthogonal to the axis and is adjoining the opening defined by the aperture portion; and the up-beam facing surface extends radially inwards from the down-beam end to the opening defined by the aperture portion.
Williams et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,354,111 A), hereinafter Williams, teaches a charged particle tool comprising: a flood column for charged particle flooding of a sample.
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
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights