DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the combination of Ono and Casares is improper because the modification proposed by Casares would change the principle of operation of Ono; particularly, introducing asymmetry/non-rectangular shapes into Ono’s system would be detrimental to the improved optical characteristics provided by Ono. The arguments are found to be unpersuasive because [0029] and [0031] of Ono teach the difference in shape required by the claim, and in these paragraphs Ono details that the difference in shape “must be chosen such that changes of imaging properties remain within a predetermined limit.” Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the teachings of Casares to modify the rectangular shapes of Ono such that the shape is not substantially changed to incur undesired effects on imaging performance. Consequently, the principle of operation is not violated by the combination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 04/06/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20020000766 A1) in view of Casares, et. al. (US 20090114818 A1), hereinafter Casares.
Regarding claim 1, Ono teaches an aperture assembly of an aberration corrector for a beam manipulator unit of a charged particle projection apparatus (Figs. 1, 6-9, 11, 15, [0001]-[0004], [0008]-[0010], and [0051]-[0059]), comprising:
a first aperture body (electron optical system array 10, Fig. 6);
a second aperture body (electron optical system array 11, Fig. 6), the first aperture body being configured to be up beam of the second aperture body along a path of the charged particles (Fig. 6), a plurality of apertures in the first aperture body being aligned with a corresponding plurality of apertures in the second aperture body, the alignment being such as to allow a path of each of a respective plurality of charged particle beams to pass through the aperture assembly by passing through respective apertures of the first aperture body and second aperture body (rectangular apertures 601 and 602, Fig. 6); each aperture of at least a subset of the apertures of the first aperture body is shaped as an elongate slit (Fig. 6); and each corresponding aperture of the second aperture body is an opening that is smaller than the elongate slit in at least a direction parallel to a longest axis of the elongate slit (Fig. 6, [0052]); and
a voltage supply connection configured to apply an electrical potential difference to an aperture perimeter surface of the apertures of at least one of the first and second aperture bodies (-950V and -1000V, [0054], Fig. 6).
Ono does not teach that each corresponding aperture of the second aperture body is an opening that has a different shape from the elongate slit.
Casares teaches that each corresponding aperture of the second aperture body is an opening that has a different shape from the elongate slit ([0031] teaches that apertures of the first and second multi-aperture plates that are aligned with one another may have different shapes. [0029] teaches shapes of circular and elliptical).
Casares modifies Ono by suggesting that each corresponding aperture of the second aperture body is an opening that has a different shape from the opening of the aperture of the first aperture body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Casares because two multi-aperture plates with a particular shape and/or orientation towards one another and having aligned apertures allows to generate an electrical or magnetic field of a particular shape in the gap between the multi-aperture plates upon application of a suitable potential to the mutli-aperture plates or induction of a suitable magnetic flux in the multi-aperture plates, which electrical or magnetic field can be suitably configured to compensate for at least one imaging error (Casares, [0034]) and the correcting/compensating properties can be controlled by the layout, shapes, symmetry, and arrangement of the plates relative to one another (Casares, [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Ono teaches wherein:
the first aperture body comprises a first electrode system associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection for applying an electrical potential to an aperture perimeter surface of each aperture of the first aperture body, the first electrode system comprising a plurality of electrodes (first electron optical system array 10 has upper, middle, and lower electrodes, [0051]-[0052], [0054], Fig. 6), each electrode being electrically isolated from each other electrode of the first electrode system and electrically connected to the aperture perimeter surface of a different respective one of the apertures of the first aperture body ([0038], Fig. 6); and/or
the second aperture body comprises a second electrode system associated with and electronically connected to the voltage supply connection for applying an electrical potential to an aperture perimeter surface of each aperture of the second aperture body, the second electrode system comprising a plurality of electrodes (second electron optical array 11 has upper, middle, and lower electrodes connected to a voltage supply, [0051], [0054], Fig. 6), each electrode being electrically isolated from each other electrode of the second electrode system and electrically connected to the aperture perimeter surface of a different respective one of the apertures of the second aperture body ([0038] teaches isolation via insulator films, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Ono teaches wherein each of at least a subset of the elongate slits is a substantially linear slit (rectangular, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Ono teaches wherein at least a majority of the elongate slits are aligned radially relative to a common axis passing perpendicularly through a plane of the first aperture body (Fig. 6 shows the rectangular (elongated) slits of the first electron optical array 10 aligned radially relative to the z axis).
Regarding claim 9, Ono teaches wherein at least a majority of the elongate slits are parallel to each other (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Ono does not explicitly teach wherein a largest in-plane dimension of each opening in the second aperture body is substantially equal to a smallest in-plane dimension of the corresponding elongate slit in the first aperture body.
However, optimizing the dimensions of aperture openings is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. The claim concerns the largest in-plane dimension of each opening in the second aperture body being substantially equal to a smallest in-plane dimension of the corresponding elongate slit in the first aperture body. MPEP 2144.05 II (A), teaches that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable range [dimension] by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges [dimension] of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Casares teaches the relative dimensions of the openings of the apertures of a first and second aperture body as a variable which achieves a recognized result. See [0031]-[0035] of Casares which teaches that the apertures of the first and second multi-aperture plates may have different shapes and/or sizes and that correcting or compensating properties of the electrical or magnetic field can be controlled by controlling the layout of the multi-aperture plates including their shapes, symmetries, and arrangement relative to one another. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the relative dimensions of the openings of the apertures of a first and second aperture body and identifies said this as a result-effective variables which effects the electric/magnetic field and the corresponding corrective properties of the aperture plates. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the relative shapes and proportions of the apertures of the first and second aperture body to meet the claimed language since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges/dimensions by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Ono teaches wherein: the aperture assembly further comprises a third aperture body (electron optical system array 12, Fig. 9) and a fourth aperture body (electron optical system array 13, Fig. 9); a plurality of apertures in the third aperture body are aligned with a corresponding plurality of apertures in the first aperture body, second aperture body and fourth aperture body, the alignment being such as to allow a path of each of a respective plurality of charged particle beams to pass through the aperture assembly by passing through respective apertures in the first aperture body, second aperture body, third aperture body and fourth aperture body (10, 11, 12, 13 are aligned vertically as seen in Fig. 9); each of at least a subset of the apertures in the third aperture body consists of an elongate slit (rectangular slits, Fig. 9); each corresponding aperture in the fourth aperture body consists of an opening that is smaller than the elongate slit in at least a direction parallel to a longest axis of the elongate slit (Fig. 9); and the elongate slits in the first aperture body and third aperture body are aligned such that each charged particle beam passes through elongate slits in the first aperture body and the third aperture body that are aligned obliquely relative to each other when viewed along the path of the charged particle beam (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Ono teaches a beam manipulator unit for a charged particle projection apparatus (Figs. 1, 6-9, 11, 15, [0001]-[0004], [0008]-[0010], [0051]-[0059]), comprising: the aperture assembly of claim 1 (see 102 rejections above, and Fig. 6); and the voltage supply connection to apply electrical potentials to the aperture perimeter surfaces of apertures in the first aperture body and/or second aperture body (see voltage supply connection in Fig. 6) while a plurality of charged particle beams are directed through the aperture assembly towards a sample (electron beams in Fig. 6 and Fig. 11 through irradiation electron optical system 502 toward sample 505, [0057]).
Ono does not explicitly teach an electrical driving unit.
Casares teaches an electrical driving unit (first control portion 841 configured to control the voltage supply system 830, [0257], Fig. 14).
Casares modifies Ono by suggesting an electrical driving unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Casares because a control portion allows the voltage supply system to be controlled to apply desired voltages, (Casares, [0257]).
Regarding claim 13, Ono teaches a charged particle projection apparatus (Figs. 1, 6-9, 11, 15, [0001]-[0004], [0008]-[0010], [0051]-[0059]), comprising: the beam manipulator unit of claim 12 (see 102 rejection of claim 12); and a plurality of lenses, each lens configured to project a respective sub-beam of charged particles (Fig. 11, Fig. 6, [0038], [0057]).
Regarding claim 14, Ono teaches wherein the aperture assembly is integrated with, or directly adjacent to, the plurality of lenses ([0038], [0057], Fig. 6, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 15, Ono teaches wherein: each lens comprises a multi-electrode lens (irradiation electron optical system 502, Fig. 11, [0057]); the first aperture body comprises a first electrode of the multi-electrode lens ([0051]); and the first aperture body comprises a first electrode system comprising a plurality of electrodes that are electrically isolated from the first electrode of the multi-electrode lens (first electron optical system array 10 having upper, middle, and lower electrodes, isolation via insulator, [0051],[0038], Fig. 6 ).
Regarding claim 16, Ono teaches wherein: the second aperture body comprises a second electrode of the multi-electrode lens (irradiation electron optical system 502, Fig. 11, [0057]); and the second aperture body comprises a second electrode system comprising a plurality of electrodes that are electrically isolated from the second electrode of the multi-electrode lens (second electron optical system array 11 having upper, middle, and lower electrodes, isolation via insulator, [0051], [0038], Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Ono does not teach wherein the electrical driving unit is configured to control potentials of the electrodes of the first electrode system such that a potential difference between the highest potential electrode and the lowest potential electrode of the first electrode system is smaller than a difference between an average potential of the electrodes of the first electrode system and an average potential of the electrodes of the second electrode system.
Casares teaches wherein the electrical driving unit (first control portion 841 configured to control the voltage supply system 830, [0257], Fig. 14) is configured to control potentials of the electrodes of the first electrode system such that a potential difference between the highest potential electrode and the lowest potential electrode of the first electrode system is smaller than a difference between an average potential of the electrodes of the first electrode system and an average potential of the electrodes of the second electrode system. ([0111]-[0112], [0241]-[0242], [0257], Fig. 8a).
Casares modifies Ono by suggesting an electrical driving unit to control potentials applied to the electrodes of the electrode systems. Casares also modifies Ono by suggesting that the potential applied to the electrodes of the first electrode system is essentially equivalent such that a difference between the highest potential electrode and lowest potential electrode of the first electrode system (approximately zero since all of the electrodes in this electrode system receive the same voltage/potential) would be smaller than a difference between an average potential of the electrodes of the first electrode system and an average potential of the electrodes of the second electrode system (a difference of 0.5 kV in Fig. 8a, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Casares because this voltage configuration provides an electric field that provides a weak focusing effect (Casares, [0241]-[0242]).
Regarding claim 18, Ono teaches wherein the plurality of lenses comprises a plurality of objective lenses configured to project respective sub-beams onto a sample, and/or wherein the plurality of lenses comprises a plurality of condenser lenses configured to focus respective sub-beams to intermediate foci up-beam from a plurality of objective lenses configured to project the sub-beams onto a sample (irradiation electron optical system 502, Fig.6, Fig. 11, [0057], [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Ono teaches wherein: the apparatus comprises a plurality of condenser lenses configured to focus respective sub-beams to intermediate foci in an intermediate image plane (irradiation electron optical system 502 focuses sub-beams to an intermediate image plane, Fig. 11, [0057]); and the aperture assembly is provided in, or directly adjacent to, the intermediate image plane (Fig. 11).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20020000766 A1) in view of Casares (US 20090114818 A1), further in view of Platzgummer, et. al. (JP 2015211040 A), hereinafter Platzgummer.
Regarding claim 3, Ono teaches a first aperture body (electron optical system array 10, Fig. 6) and a second aperture body (electron optical system array 11, Fig. 6).
Ono does not explicitly teach wherein: the first aperture body comprises local integrated electronics for each aperture of the first aperture body, the local integrated electronics being associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection and being configured to apply an electrical potential to the aperture perimeter surface of the aperture; and/or the second aperture body comprises local integrated electronics for each aperture of the second aperture body, the local integrated electronics being associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection configured to apply an electrical potential to the aperture perimeter surface of the aperture.
Platzgummer teaches local integrated electronics for each aperture of the aperture body, the local integrated electronics being associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection and being configured to apply an electrical potential to the aperture perimeter surface of the aperture ([0012]-[0013]).
Platzgummer modifies Ono by suggesting CMOS electronics at each aperture connected to the voltage supply and configured to apply an electrical potential to the aperture perimeter surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Platzgummer because the electronics allow potentials to be applied to each aperture such that an electric field is generated that induces polarization on the corresponding sub-beam, allowing the sub-beam to be deflected (Platzgummer, [0013]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20020000766 A1) in view of Casares (US 20090114818 A1), further in view of Knippelmeyer, et. al. (US 20170287674 A1), hereinafter Knippelmeyer.
Regarding claim 4, Ono teaches a first aperture body (electron optical system array 10, Fig. 6) and a second aperture body (electron optical system array 11, Fig. 6),
Ono does not teach wherein: the first aperture body comprises an integrated passive circuit comprising a resistor network, the resistor network being associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection and being configured to allow different electrical potentials to be applied to the aperture perimeter surfaces of at least a subset of the apertures of the first aperture body by potential division; and/or the second aperture body comprises an integrated passive circuit comprising a resistor network, the resistor network being associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection and being configured to allow different electrical potentials to be applied to the aperture perimeter surfaces of at least a subset of the apertures of the second aperture body by potential division.
Knippelmeyer teaches an integrated passive circuit comprising a resistor network, the resistor network being associated with and electrically connected to the voltage supply connection and being configured to allow different electrical potentials to be applied to the aperture perimeter surfaces of at least a subset of the apertures of the aperture body by potential division (Fig. 19, [0200]).
Knippelmeyer modifies Ono by suggesting a circuit comprising a plurality of resistors connected to the voltage supply configured to allow different electrical potentials to be applied to the aperture perimeter surfaces of the apertures of the aperture body by potential division.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Knippelmeyer because providing predefined voltages to different parts of the aperture plate using resistors allows the focal length of the lens function to be set, (Knippelmeyer, [0200]).
Regarding claim 6, Ono does not teach wherein each of at least a subset of the openings has substantially one of the following shapes: circle, oval, ellipse.
Knippelmeyer teaches wherein each of at least a subset of the openings has substantially one of the following shapes: circle, oval, ellipse (Fig. 15, [0193]).
Knippelmeyer modifies Ono by suggesting openings with an elliptic shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Knippelmeyer because apertures of an elliptical shape allow for the reduction of astigmatism, (Knippelmeyer, [0197]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20020000766 A1) in view of Casares (US 20090114818 A1), further in view of Hamashima, et. al. (US 20040135515 A1), hereinafter Hamashima.
Regarding claim 8, Ono teaches a plane of the first aperture body (plane of 10, Fig. 6).
Ono does not teach wherein at least a majority of the elongate slits are aligned perpendicularly to a radial direction relative to a common axis passing perpendicularly through a plane of the first aperture body.
Hamashima teaches wherein at least a majority of the elongate slits are aligned perpendicularly to a radial direction relative to a common axis passing perpendicularly through a plane of the aperture body (Fig. 4, [0062]).
Hamashima modifies Ono by suggesting the elongated slits are aligned perpendicularly to a radial direction relative to an axis passing perpendicularly through a plane of the aperture body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hamashima because in this way, adjacent secondary electron beams not associated with an aperture can be prevented from passing through the aperture, as taught by Hamashima in paragraph [0062].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200273668 A1, Nuflare Technology, Inc., Matsumoto, Hiroshi
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881