DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/19/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue that Chen fails to disclose or suggest beam angle configurability of the top lens of Chen’s condenser lens 1602 (or 1601 and top lens of 1602). However, Chen teaches the lens 1602 is configurable to adjust the beam angles (“The condenser lens 1602 adjusts the PE beam so that the beam current after the beam-limit aperture 1621 can be changed in a large range.” [0060]). The alternative set forth in the rejection is that a dual condenser lens was well known in the art, including the example of Frosien. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses adjustable condenser lenses including a source lens (reading as including the first condenser lens 212 of Frosien) and a condenser lens (including the second condenser lens 214 of Frosien). Further, it is noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114. Examiner respectfully suggests clarifying the structure of the source and condenser lenses.
The remarks argue there is no articulated reasoning for combining Chen and Frosien. The remarks argue that a skilled artisan would not have looked to Frosien because the field interaction is for multibeam systems where crosstalk needs to be minimized, and thus a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to apply the same technique. The remarks also argue the dual stage collimation is complicated. However, as discussed in the non-final rejection, the teaching of Frosien for the collimator lens system is directed to the non-multibeam beam collimation (see upstream of 224). The non-final sets forth a clear motivation a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references, namely the ability to switch between different operational modes, which further enables the ability to reduce field sensitivity or reduce electron-electron interaction ([0038]).
It is further noted that it has held that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
The remarks argue that Bertsche fails to disclose or suggest beam angle configurability of the top lens of Chen’s condenser lens. However, it is contended that this limitations is met for similar reasons as Chen and Frosien above.
The remarks regarding amended claim 3 are persuasive, and the prior art rejection of record is therefore withdrawn. However, it is noted that the apparatus claim recites the lenses being “configured to” but currently fails to explicitly recite a controller for controlling the lenses to perform the claimed functions, or provide said functionality in method form.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen in view of Frosien et al.
Claim(s) 1-5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20150060662 A1) [hereinafter Chen] in view of Frosien (US 20190066972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a charged particle apparatus for projecting a charged particle multi- beam to a sample (see e.g. fig 5a), the charged particle apparatus comprising:
a primary column (see fig 4c: 1600) configured to generate a primary beam towards a sample for assessment of the sample (see e.g. [0057]); and
a flood column (see e.g. 1600) for charged particle flooding of the sample (see [0060]), wherein the flood column is separate from the primary column (see fig 4c) and comprises:
a charged particle source (see 1601_1) configured to emit a charged particle beam along a beam path that is separate from a path of the primary beam (see fig 4c);
a source lens (see e.g. 1601, top lens in 1602) arranged down-beam of the charged particle source (see fig 4c);
a condenser lens (see e.g. bottom lenses in 1602) arranged down-beam of the source lens (see fig 4c); and
an aperture body (e.g. 1621, e.g. lower opening in 1641, 1642) arranged down-beam of the condenser lens (see fig 4c), wherein the aperture body is for passing a portion of the charged particle beam (see fig 4c); and
wherein the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set a beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (see [0060]).
Chen may fail to explicitly disclose the source lens being a separate lens group from the condenser lens group. However, Chen shows the condenser lens being formed from multiple lenses (see e.g. Chen, fig 4c: 1602) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these can be read as comprising the source lens and condenser lenses claimed. Alternately, the use of multiple stage condenser lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Frosien teaches using dual stage collimator lenses enables the ability to switch between focusing with and without crossovers, which enables selecting between reducing stray field sensitivity and reducing electron-electron interaction (see Frosien, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Frosien to enable the additional ability to control the beam and balance desired external and internal beam field interactions based on a given application of beam voltages, currents, etc. It has also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, the combined teaching would teach the source lens (including e.g. 1601; Frosien, fig 2: 212) configured to be controlled so as to variably set a beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (see figs 2-4) and upstream of the condenser lens (see including e.g. 214). Further, it is noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Chen and Frosien teaches the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (during focusing, will naturally change beam angles, see Chen, e.g. claim 1), thereby adjusting a lateral extent of the collimated charged particle beam (see Frosien, fig 2) down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body (required for intended operation of adjusting beam current, see Chen, [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Chen and Frosien fails to explicitly disclose wherein the source lens is configured to be controlled to focus the charged particle beam to a first cross-over point down-beam of the source lens and up-beam of the condenser lens to provide a larger divergence of the charged particle beam, and the condenser lens of the flood column is configured to be controlled so as to focus the charged particle beam to a second cross-over point down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body, such that the charged particle beam diverges down-beam of the aperture body. However, given the adjustability of the potentials applied to the lenses (see e.g. Frosien, figs 2,4), the limitation reciting the generation of crossovers specifies an intended use or field of use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use 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 claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Chen and Frosien teaches the flood column further comprises an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641, see generally [0054]) arranged down-beam of the aperture body (see fig 4c).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Chen and Frosien teaches the objective lens is configured to be controlled so as to adjust a focus of the charged particle beam, thereby adjusting a lateral extent of a beam spot formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample (see e.g. Chen, [0026,51]).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches a method for charged particle flooding of a sample using a flood column and a primary column comprised in a charged particle apparatus (see fig 4c), the method comprising:
emitting a charged particle beam along a beam path using a charged particle source (see e.g. 1601_1) of the flood column (1600), wherein the flood column is separate from the primary column (1300) and the beam path is separate from a path of a primary beam from the primary column (see fig 4c);
variably setting a beam angle (see [0060]) of the emitted charged particle beam using a source lens (see e.g. 1601, top lens in 1602) arranged down-beam of the charged particle source;
adjusting the beam angle (see [0060]) of the charged particle beam using a condenser lens (see e.g. bottom lenses in 1602) arranged down-beam of the source lens; and
passing a portion of the charged particle beam using an aperture body (e.g. 1621, e.g. lower opening in 1641, 1642) arranged down- beam of the condenser lens.
Chen may fail to explicitly disclose the source lens being a separate lens group from the condenser lens group. However, Chen shows the condenser lens being formed from multiple lenses (see e.g. Chen, fig 4c: 1602) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these can be read as comprising the source lens and condenser lenses claimed. Alternately, the use of multiple stage condenser lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Frosien teaches using that dual stage collimator lenses enables the ability to switch between focusing with and without crossovers, which enables selecting between reducing stray field sensitivity and reducing electron-electron interaction (see Frosien, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Frosien to enable the additional ability to control the beam and balance desired external and internal beam field interactions based on a given application of beam voltages, currents, etc. It has also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, or Chen and Frosien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 20180350552 A1) [hereinafter Morita] (the rejection will refer to Chen and Bertsche below but the same rationale applies to Chen and Frosien).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens of the flood column is further configured to be controlled so as to adjust the focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of the beam spot is smaller than a lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens. However, Morita teaches problems with thermal expansion of aperture plates, and teaches to correct them with fine adjustments using a multiple stage objective lens to adjust magnification (see Morita, [0042]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Morita with the objective lens system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to try to look for ways to overcome issues with thermal expansion, in the manner taught by Morita. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Morita teaches the objective lens of the flood column is configured to controlled so as to adjust the focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of the beam spot is smaller than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens (when objective lens is correcting for a spot shape that would otherwise be too large).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morita, for similar reasons as claim 6 above. It is furthermore well-understood in the art that where thermal expansion and thermal contraction describe the same phenomenon, and a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make appropriate precautions to cover a wider range of operating parameters, including correcting for cooler temperatures. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Morita teaches the objective lens of the flood column is further configured to be controlled to manipulate the charged particle beam such that a lateral extent of the beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens (when objective lens is correcting for a spot shape that would otherwise be too small).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morita, for similar reasons as claim 7 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Morita teaches the objective lens of the flood column is further configured to be controlled so as to adjust the focus of the charged particle beam to a cross-over point (see Morita, fig 1) up-beam of the sample (see fig 1), such that the lateral extent of the beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens (when objective lens is correcting for a spot shape that would otherwise be too small).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, or Chen and Frosien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frosien (US 9245709 B1) [hereinafter Frosien II] (the rejection will refer to Chen and Bertsche below but the same rationale applies to Chen and Frosien).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches the flood column further comprises a pair of scanning electrodes (see Chen, fig 4c: 1661) arranged down-beam of the aperture body (see 1621). It is unclear if the electrodes are a pair of electrodes or not, but the use of paired scanning electrodes was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, for example to provide XY deflection and/or enable improved control over the deflection. For example, Frosien II teaches a flood gun deflection system comprising a pair of scanning electrodes (see fig 4a: 412, 414) arranged down-beam of an aperture body (see generally 407). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of the known effective scanning electrodes known in the art to enable the ability to control XY deflection of the flood beam.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Frosien II teaches the pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as to scan the charged particle beam across the sample (see e.g. Chen, [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Frosien II teaches the pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as not to manipulate the charged particle beam (e.g. when not deflecting the beam at the middle of the scan). It is also noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2019025188 A1) [hereinafter Zhang] (US 20190043691 A1 will be used as a US equivalent)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches a controller (some kind of computer or controller required for intended operation of system, see e.g. Chen, claim 24) configured to selectively operate the flood column. The combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose operating using a high-density mode for charged particle flooding of a first areal size of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size. However, Zhang teaches adjusting beam currents and spot diameters for during pre-charging to provide more precise charging control and enhanced efficiency (see Zhang, [0039-42]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhang in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the improved flexibility and control to irradiate a wider range of targets with different flooding parameters, including but not limited to, a first areal size of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size (see [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang teaches an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see 1621), and wherein in the high-density mode, the objective lens is configured to be controlled so as to adjust a focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of a beam spot is smaller than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample (see e.g. Zhang, 100-200 μm vs. 0.1-500 μm, [0059,74]).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 12 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as in view of the rejection of claim 18 in view of Chen, Frosien, and Zhang, below.
Claim(s) 12, 14-15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Frosien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2019025188 A1) [hereinafter Zhang] (US 20190043691 A1 will be used as a US equivalent)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Chen and Frosien teaches a controller (some kind of computer or controller required for intended operation of system, see e.g. Chen, claim 24) configured to selectively operate the flood column. The combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose operating using a high-density mode for charged particle flooding of a first areal size of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size. However, Zhang teaches adjusting beam currents and spot diameters for during pre-charging to provide more precise charging control and enhanced efficiency (see Zhang, [0039-42]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhang in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the improved flexibility and control to irradiate a wider range of targets with different flooding parameters, including but not limited to, a first areal size of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size (see [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Chen, Frosien, and Zhang teaches an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see 1621), and wherein in the high-density mode, the objective lens is configured to be controlled so as to adjust a focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of a beam spot is smaller than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample (see e.g. Zhang, 100-200 μm vs. 0.1-500 μm, [0059,74]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Chen, Frosien, and Zhang teaches an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see 1621), and wherein in the low-density mode: the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens; and/or the condenser lens is configured to be controlled so as to focus the charged particle beam to a cross-over point down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body, such that the charged particle beam diverges down-beam of the aperture body; and/or the objective lens is configured to be controlled to manipulate the charged particle beam such that a lateral extent of the beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample; and/or a pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as not to manipulate the charged particle beam; and/or the source lens is configured to be controlled such that the charged particle beam diverges up- beam of the condenser lens (see e.g. Frosien, fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Chen, and Frosien may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches a charged particle tool for projecting a charged particle multi- beam (see e.g. fig 5a) to a sample, the charged particle tool comprising:
a primary column (see fig 4c: 1600) configured to generate a primary beam towards a sample for inspection of the sample (see e.g. [0057]); and
a flood column (see e.g. 1600) for charged particle flooding of the sample (see [0060]), wherein the flood column is separate from the primary column (see fig 4c) and comprising:
a charged particle source (see 1601_1) configured to emit a charged particle beam along a beam path that is separate from a path of the primary beam (see fig 4c);
a source lens (see e.g. 1601, top lens in 1602) arranged down-beam of the charged particle source (see fig 4c), wherein the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set a beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (see [0060]);
a condenser lens (see e.g. bottom lenses in 1602) arranged down-beam of the source lens (see fig 4c); and
an aperture body (e.g. 1621, e.g. lower opening in 1641, 1642) arranged down-beam of the condenser lens (see fig 4c), wherein the aperture body is for passing a portion of the charged particle beam (see fig 4c); and
a controller (required for intended operation of system)
Chen may fail to explicitly disclose the source lens being a separate lens group from the condenser lens group. However, Chen shows the condenser lens being formed from multiple lenses (see e.g. Chen, fig 4c: 1602) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these can be read as comprising the source lens and condenser lenses claimed. Alternately, the use of multiple stage condenser lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Frosien teaches using that dual stage collimator lenses enables the ability to switch between focusing with and without crossovers, which enables selecting between reducing stray field sensitivity and reducing electron-electron interaction (see Frosien, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Frosien to enable the additional ability to control the beam and balance desired external and internal beam field interactions based on a given application of beam voltages, currents, etc. It has also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, the combined teaching would teach the source lens (including e.g. 1601; Frosien, fig 2: 212) configured to be controlled so as to variably set a beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (see figs 2-4) and upstream of the condenser lens (see including e.g. 214). Further, it is noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
The combined teaching of Chen and Frosien may fail to explicitly disclose the controller configured to selectively operate the flood column using: a high-density mode for charged particle flooding of a first areal size of the sample; and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size.
However, Frosien teaches adjusting these parameters for particular operations (see [0073]). Zhang teaches adjusting beam currents and spot diameters for during pre-charging to provide more precise charging control and enhanced efficiency (see Zhang, [0039-42]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhang in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the improved flexibility and control to irradiate a wider range of targets with different flooding parameters, including but not limited to, a high-density mode for charged particle flooding of a relatively small area of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a relatively large area of the sample (see [0040]).
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Frosien, and Zhang, as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Frosien II.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Chen, Frosien, and Zhang may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Frosien II, for similar reasons as claim 9 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Frosein, Zhang, and Frosien II teaches an objective lens (see Frosien, fig 1: 10) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see fig 1), and wherein, in the high-density mode: the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens, and/or the condenser lens is configured to be controlled so as to collimate the charged particle beam, and the source lens configured to be controlled so as to variably set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens, thereby adjusting the lateral extent of the collimated charged particle beam down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body; and/or the objective lens is configured to be controlled so as to adjust a focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of a beam spot is smaller than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample; and/or a pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as to scan the charged particle beam across the sample (see Frosien II, fig 4a: 412, 414; Zhang, [0079]).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Chen, Frosien, and Zhang may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Frosien II, for similar reasons as claim 9 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Frosein, Zhang, and Frosien II teaches an objective lens (see Frosien, fig 1: 10) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see fig 1), and wherein, in the low-density mode: the source lens configured to be controlled so as to set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens; and/or the condenser lens configured to be controlled so as to focus the charged particle beam to a cross-over point down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body, such that the charged particle beam diverges down-beam of the aperture body; and/or the objective lens configured to be controlled to manipulate the charged particle beam such that a lateral extent of a beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample; and/or a pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as not to manipulate the charged particle beam (see Frosien II, fig 4a: 412, 414; when scanning at the center); and/or the source lens is controllable such that the charged particle beam diverges up-beam of the condenser lens (see e.g. Frosien, fig 2).
Chen in view of Bertsche et al.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 ,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20150060662 A1) [hereinafter Chen] in view of Bertsche et al. (US 7253410 B1) [hereinafter Bertsche].
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a charged particle apparatus for projecting a charged particle multi- beam to a sample (see e.g. fig 5a), the charged particle apparatus comprising:
a primary column (see fig 4c: 1600) configured to generate a primary beam towards a sample for assessment of the sample (see e.g. [0057]); and
a flood column (see e.g. 1600) for charged particle flooding of the sample (see [0060]), wherein the flood column is separate from the primary column (see fig 4c) and comprises:
a charged particle source (see 1601_1) configured to emit a charged particle beam along a beam path that is separate from a path of the primary beam (see fig 4c);
a source lens (see e.g. 1601, top lens in 1602) arranged down-beam of the charged particle source (see fig 4c);
a condenser lens (see e.g. bottom lenses in 1602) arranged down-beam of the source lens (see fig 4c); and
an aperture body (e.g. 1621, e.g. lower opening in 1641, 1642) arranged down-beam of the condenser lens (see fig 4c), wherein the aperture body is for passing a portion of the charged particle beam (see fig 4c); and
wherein the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set a beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (see [0060]).
Chen may fail to explicitly disclose the source lens being a separate lens group from the condenser lens group. However, Chen shows the condenser lens being formed from multiple lenses (see e.g. Chen, fig 4c: 1602) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these can be read as comprising the source lens and condenser lenses claimed. Alternately, the use of multiple stage condenser lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Bertsche teaches using multiple condenser lenses to form a desired cross sectional shape (see e.g. Bertsche, col 2, lines 36-37, col 3, lines 31-35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use multiple condenser lenses, including the known effective use of compound condenser lenses taught by e.g. Bertsche, as a routine skill in the art to try to further improve control over the beam focusing. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, it is noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche fails to explicitly disclose wherein the source lens is configured to be controlled to focus the charged particle beam to a first cross-over point down-beam of the source lens and up-beam of the condenser lens to provide a larger divergence of the charged particle beam, and the condenser lens of the flood column is configured to be controlled so as to focus the charged particle beam to a second cross-over point down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body, such that the charged particle beam diverges down-beam of the aperture body. However, given the adjustability of the potentials applied to the lenses, the limitation reciting the generation of crossovers specifies an intended use or field of use, and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use 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 claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches the flood column further comprises an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641, see generally [0054]) arranged down-beam of the aperture body (see fig 4c).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches the objective lens is configured to be controlled so as to adjust a focus of the charged particle beam, thereby adjusting a lateral extent of a beam spot formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample (see e.g. Chen, [0026,51]).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches a method for charged particle flooding of a sample using a flood column and a primary column comprised in a charged particle apparatus (see fig 4c), the method comprising:
emitting a charged particle beam along a beam path using a charged particle source (see e.g. 1601_1) of the flood column (1600), wherein the flood column is separate from the primary column (1300) and the beam path is separate from a path of a primary beam from the primary column (see fig 4c);
variably setting a beam angle (see [0060]) of the emitted charged particle beam using a source lens (see e.g. 1601, top lens in 1602) arranged down-beam of the charged particle source;
adjusting the beam angle (see [0060]) of the charged particle beam using a condenser lens (see e.g. bottom lenses in 1602) arranged down-beam of the source lens; and
passing a portion of the charged particle beam using an aperture body (e.g. 1621, e.g. lower opening in 1641, 1642) arranged down- beam of the condenser lens.
Chen may fail to explicitly disclose the source lens being a separate lens group from the condenser lens group. However, Chen shows the condenser lens being formed from multiple lenses (see e.g. Chen, fig 4c: 1602) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these can be read as comprising the source lens and condenser lenses claimed. Alternately, the use of multiple stage condenser lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Bertsche teaches using multiple condenser lenses to form a desired cross sectional shape (see e.g. Bertsche, col 2, lines 36-37, col 3, lines 31-35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use multiple condenser lenses, including the known effective use of compound condenser lenses taught by e.g. Bertsche, as a routine skill in the art to try to further improve control over the beam focusing. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frosien (US 20190066972 A1)
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens (during focusing, will naturally change beam angles), thereby adjusting a lateral extent of the collimated charged particle beam down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body (required for intended operation of adjusting beam current, see Chen, [0060]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the condenser lens of the flood column is configured to be controlled so as to collimate the charged particle beam. However, the collimation will occur based on a selected beam spot size and current, since that configuration would result in a collimated beam (see e.g. Chen, [0060]; Bertsche, col 3, lines 31-35). Further, the use of collimated flood beams was well known in the art. For example, Frosien teaches the condenser lens (see Frosein, fig 2,6: 214) of a flood column is configured to be controlled so as to collimate the charged particle beam (see e.g. fig 6, [0039]), which is suitable for multibeam exposure systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Frosien in the flood beam system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable the known effective flood beam control using collimated beams, and/or also enabling the additional ability to provide effective flooding for parallelized multibeam systems, in the manner taught by Frosien.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, or Chen and Frosien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 20180350552 A1) [hereinafter Morita] (the rejection will refer to Chen and Bertsche below but the same rationale applies to Chen and Frosien).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens of the flood column is further configured to be controlled so as to adjust the focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of the beam spot is smaller than a lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens. However, Morita teaches problems with thermal expansion of aperture plates, and teaches to correct them with fine adjustments using a multiple stage objective lens to adjust magnification (see Morita, [0042]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Morita with the objective lens system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to try to look for ways to overcome issues with thermal expansion, in the manner taught by Morita. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Morita teaches the objective lens of the flood column is configured to controlled so as to adjust the focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of the beam spot is smaller than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens (when objective lens is correcting for a spot shape that would otherwise be too large).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morita, for similar reasons as claim 6 above. It is furthermore well-understood in the art that where thermal expansion and thermal contraction describe the same phenomenon, and a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make appropriate precautions to cover a wider range of operating parameters, including correcting for cooler temperatures. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Morita teaches the objective lens of the flood column is further configured to be controlled to manipulate the charged particle beam such that a lateral extent of the beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens (when objective lens is correcting for a spot shape that would otherwise be too small).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Morita, for similar reasons as claim 7 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Morita teaches the objective lens of the flood column is further configured to be controlled so as to adjust the focus of the charged particle beam to a cross-over point (see Morita, fig 1) up-beam of the sample (see fig 1), such that the lateral extent of the beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens (when objective lens is correcting for a spot shape that would otherwise be too small).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, or Chen and Frosien, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frosien (US 9245709 B1) [hereinafter Frosien II] (the rejection will refer to Chen and Bertsche below but the same rationale applies to Chen and Frosien).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches the flood column further comprises a pair of scanning electrodes (see Chen, fig 4c: 1661) arranged down-beam of the aperture body (see 1621). It is unclear if the electrodes are a pair of electrodes or not, but the use of paired scanning electrodes was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, for example to provide XY deflection and/or enable improved control over the deflection. For example, Frosien II teaches a flood gun deflection system comprising a pair of scanning electrodes (see fig 4a: 412, 414) arranged down-beam of an aperture body (see generally 407). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of the known effective scanning electrodes known in the art to enable the ability to control XY deflection of the flood beam.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Frosien II teaches the pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as to scan the charged particle beam across the sample (see e.g. Chen, [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Frosien II teaches the pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as not to manipulate the charged particle beam (e.g. when not deflecting the beam at the middle of the scan). It is also noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bertsche, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2019025188 A1) [hereinafter Zhang] (US 20190043691 A1 will be used as a US equivalent)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche teaches a controller (some kind of computer or controller required for intended operation of system, see e.g. Chen, claim 24) configured to selectively operate the flood column. The combined teaching of Chen and Bertsche may fail to explicitly disclose operating using a high-density mode for charged particle flooding of a first areal size of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size. However, Zhang teaches adjusting beam currents and spot diameters for during pre-charging to provide more precise charging control and enhanced efficiency (see Zhang, [0039-42]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhang in the system of the prior art, in order to enable the improved flexibility and control to irradiate a wider range of targets with different flooding parameters, including but not limited to, a first areal size of the sample and a low-density mode for charged particle flooding of a second areal size of the sample that is larger than the first areal size (see [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang teaches an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see 1621), and wherein in the high-density mode, the objective lens is configured to be controlled so as to adjust a focus of the charged particle beam such that the lateral extent of a beam spot is smaller than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample (see e.g. Zhang, 100-200 μm vs. 0.1-500 μm, [0059,74]).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Zhang, for similar reasons as claim 12 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as in view of the rejection of claim 18 in view of Chen, Frosien, and Zhang, below.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang, as applied to claim 12 or 18 above, further in view of Frosien II.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang may fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Frosien II, for similar reasons as claim 9 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Frosien II teaches in the high-density mode: the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens, and/or the condenser lens is configured to be controlled so as to collimate the charged particle beam, and the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to variably set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens, thereby adjusting a lateral extent of the collimated charged particle beam down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body; and/or a pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as to scan the charged particle beam across the sample (see Frosien II, fig 4a: 412, 414).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Zhang may fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Frosien II, for similar reasons as claim 9 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Chen, Bertsche, and Frosien II teaches an objective lens (see Chen, fig 4c: 1641) arranged down-stream of the aperture body (see 1621), and wherein in the low-density mode: the source lens is configured to be controlled so as to set the beam angle of the charged particle beam down-beam of the source lens; and/or the condenser lens is configured to be controlled so as to focus the charged particle beam to a cross-over point down-beam of the condenser lens and up-beam of the aperture body, such that the charged particle beam diverges down-beam of the aperture body; and/or the objective lens is configured to be controlled to manipulate the charged particle beam such that a lateral extent of the beam spot is larger than the lateral extent of the charged particle beam at the objective lens, the beam spot being formed by an incidence of the charged particle beam on the sample; and/or a pair of scanning electrodes is configured to be controlled so as not to manipulate the charged particle beam (see Frosien II, fig 4a: 412, 414; when scanning at the center); and/or the source lens is configured to be controlled such that the charged particle beam diverges up- beam of the condenser lens.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected for similar reasons as in view of the rejection of claim 18 in view of Chen, Frosien, Zhang, and Frosein II above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights