DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because applicants “do not conceded that it is appropriate to interpret any of the claim language under 35 USC 112(f)”, however the applicant has not presented a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
MPEP 2181 VI states that “ In response to the Office action that determined 35 U.S.C. 112(f) was invoked, if applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
Since the claims currently recite a placeholder for means modified by functional language without sufficient corresponding structure recited in the claim, the claims remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claims meet the 3-prong analysis required for interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). As such, these limitations will be interpreted as comprising the structure recited in the specification.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1-26 are withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 1 that corrected the indefiniteness of the claim limitation.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 3-9 are withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 3 that corrected the prior lack of antecedent basis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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 06/08/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“further comprising a beam-shaping system downstream of the multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams, wherein the beam-shaping system is configured to provide a final shape of the charged individual particle beams for subsequent optical imaging” in claim 2
A beam-shaping system will be interpreted as disclosed on pg. 16 or on pg. 17 of the specification, or pg. 28, lines 23-28 of the specification.
“further comprising a magnetic field generation mechanism configured so that the particle multi-source is in a magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation mechanism” in claim 22
A magnetic field generation mechanism will be interpreted as described on pg. 15, lines 12-14.
“wherein the magnetic field generation mechanism is configured so that a start angular distribution of the charged particles caused by the magnetic field following the emergence of the charged particles from the particle source depends on the radial distance between the respective particle source and the optical axis of the particle beam system” in claim 24
A magnetic field generation mechanism will be interpreted as described on pg. 15, lines 12-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate, there is an arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents; and for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate deviates by at most 5% from the arithmetic mean.” This limitation is not sufficiently described in the specification to suggest possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163.03 (V) teaches “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In this case, the claim defines the invention in functional language, specifying the desired result of having an arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents where for each charged individual particle beam, the beam current deviates by at most 5% from this arithmetic mean. The specification fails to describe how this result is achieved. On page 25 lines 20-23 the specification states “The following relationship can apply to deviations δ of the individual beam currents from an arithmetic mean of the beam currents immediately after the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate 524 has been pass through: δ≤5%, such as δ≤2%, for example δ≤1%.” This statement merely recites the claimed result without describing how the result is to be achieved. Page 25 lines 15-18 of the specification teaches “The voltages at the lenses in the first multi-lens array 523 can now be chosen in a targeted manner such that the beam current strength of the individual particle beams 3 is approximately the same following the passage through the beam-current restricting multi-aperture plate 524.” There is no description as to how the voltages are chosen, and there is no connection as to how choosing the voltage in said targeted manner results in the deviation percentages claimed. There is no other description explaining how this amount of deviation from the arithmetic mean is achieved. Consequently, the limitation is not sufficiently described to suggest possession of the claimed invention, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description.
Claims 27 and 28 recite similar limitations to that of claim 1 above, and are rejected mutatis mutandis for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 29-31 recite a similar limitation to claims 1, 27, and 28, as discussed above, but further limits the deviation from the arithmetic mean to be at most 1%. These claims are rejected for the same reason as claims 1, 27, and 28 above.
Claims depending from claims 1, 27 and 28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on these independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “further comprising a second multi-deflector array upstream of the multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams…”. The limitation “a second multi-deflector array” is indefinite because it is unclear if this multi-deflector array is the only multi-deflector array or if this another multi-deflector array that makes this array the second multi-deflector array. The claims from which claim 11 depends do not recite any first multi-deflector array. Consequently, it is unclear how there can be a second multi-deflector array if there is no first multi-deflector array, and it is unclear how many multi-deflector arrays are part of the claimed invention of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 17-21, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1) in view of Winkler, et. al. (US 20040135526 A1), hereinafter Winkler, in view of Zeidler, et. al. (US 20170133194 A1), hereinafter Zeidler.
Regarding claim 1, Ren teaches a particle beam system, comprising:
a multi-source system, comprising:
a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles (electron source 301 generates primary electron beam 302 and beam-limiting aperture array 305 creates several beamlets from the primary electron beam, [0045], [0049]);
a first multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of first openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams at least partly pass therethrough (multi-aperture plate consisting of the top layer of micro-lens array 322 in Fig. 3, [0056], [0058]);
a first multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of lenses, the first multi-lens array downstream of the first multi-aperture plate along a beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the first multi-aperture plate also pass through the first multi-lens array (lenses consisting of middle layer of micro-lens array 322 in Fig. 3, [0056], [0058]);
a second multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of second openings, the second multi-aperture plate downstream of the first multi-lens array along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the first multi-lens array also pass through the second multi-aperture plate (multi-aperture plate consisting of bottom layer of micro-lens array 322 in Fig. 3, [0056], [0058]);
a beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of beam current-restricting openings, the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate downstream of the second multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that, for each charged individual particle beam: i) a first portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is partly incident on the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate and absorbed by the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate; and ii) a second portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam partly passes through a corresponding opening in the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate (current limiting aperture array 324, Fig. 3, [0056], [0064]-[0065]); and
a number of the charged particles in the first portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is greater than zero ([0065]-[0066]); and
a number of the charged particles in the second portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is greater than zero to provide a charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate ([0065]-[0066], primary modified beamlets 302_1m, 302_2m and 302_3m formed from the primary beams after passing through current limiting aperture array 324),
wherein:
immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate, there is an arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents (since each of the modified beams has some current, [0065], there will inherently be some arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents downstream of the current-limiting aperture array 324); and
for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate deviates by at most 5% from the arithmetic mean (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Although Ren teaches a generating multiple beams in the charged particle apparatus using an aperture plate, Ren does not teach a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles.
Winkler teaches a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles ([0064], [0084], [0090], Figs. 3a and 3b).
a simple substitution of the electron source arrangement 301, collimating lens 303, and mutli-aperture plate 305 of Knippelmeyer used to create a multi-beam arrangement with a particle multi-source that generates a multiplicity of charged particle beams via field emission.
Winkler modifies Ren by suggesting a simple substitution of the multi-soruce of Ren (which utilizes a single electron source and aperture plate to create multiple beams) with the configuration of Winkler, which uses multiple field emitter beam sources to generate a multiplicity of beams.
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 Winkler because replacing the multi-source of Ren with the multi-source of Winkler represents a simple substitution, as both Ren and Winkler present configurations for generating multiple beams in a charged particle system. This is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result. See MPEP 2143. Additionally, field emitter beam sources have the advantage that they are capable of being integrated onto a semiconductor substrate, opening up the possibilities for miniaturized electron beam columns, (Winkler, [0011]).
Ren does not teach that the lenses of the first multi-lens array comprises a multiplicity of individually adjustable particle lenses. Furthermore, Ren does not teach a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam, wherein for each charged individual particle beam: the focussing of the particle beam by the associated particle lens controls the first and second portions of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam.
Zeidler teaches individually adjustable particle lenses and a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam ([0049]).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a controller that individually adjusts the voltage of the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to adjust the focusing.
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 Zeidler because controlling each particle lens allows for individual control of each beam as desired and makes it possible to compensate astigmatism exerted by the downstream optics (Zeidler, [0049], [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Ren does not teach wherein at least one of the following holds: the first multi-aperture plate is an extractor electrode; the second multi-aperture plate is a counter electrode; and the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate is an anode ([0058]).
Regarding claim 17, Ren teaches wherein:
the multi-source system comprises a second multi-lens array which comprises a multiplicity of individually adjustable and focussing particle lenses (middle layer of second micro-lens array 326, Fig. 3, [0063]);
the second multi-lens array is downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the particles of the charged individual particle beams which pass through the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate substantially also pass through the second multi-lens array ([0063], Fig. 3); and
Although Ren teaches voltages applied to the particle lenses of the second multi-lens array to set a focussing of the particle lenses for the particle beams, Ren does not explicitly teach the controller supplying individually adjustable voltages to set a focussing for each individual particle beam.
Zeidler teaches a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam ([0049]).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a controller that individually adjusts the voltage of the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to adjust the focusing.
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 Zeidler because controlling each particle lens allows for individual control of each beam as desired and makes it possible to compensate astigmatism exerted by the downstream optics (Zeidler, [0049], [0010]).
Regarding claim 18, Ren teaches wherein:
the multi-source system further comprises a first multi-deflector array configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough (deflector array 340, Fig. 3, [0068]);
the first multi-deflector array is downstream of the beam current-restricting multi- aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (deflector array 340 is downstream of current limiting aperture array 324, Fig. 3); and
the controller is configured to supply individually adjustable excitations to the first multi-deflector array to individually deflect the charged individual particle beams (deflector array 340 may be configured to direct each of primary modified beamlets into sector magnet unit 360, [0068]).
Regarding claim 19, Ren teaches wherein: the multi-source system further comprises a multi-stigmator array configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough (second micro-lens array, [0063], [0060]); and the controller is configured to supply an adjustable excitation to the multi-stigmator array (electrode lenses are configured to have an adjustable excitation/voltage applied[0063], [0086], [0013]).
Regarding claim 20, Ren teaches wherein the multi-source system is manufactured at least in part via MEMS technology ([0056]).
Regarding claim 21, Ren does not teach wherein the particle multi-source comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of metallic emitters, silicon-based emitters, and carbon nanotubes-based emitters.
Winkler teaches wherein the particle multi-source comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of metallic emitters, silicon-based emitters, and carbon nanotubes-based emitters ([0022] teaches the solid state body comprising the emitter is preferably a semiconductor material or a metal.).
Winkler modifies the combination by suggesting the particle multi-source is a metallic emitter.
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 Winkler because since Ren does not provide the details of the emitter, and Winkler provides the multi-source, Winkler also provides details of the emitter of the multi-source such that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Winkler to understand what a suitable and preferable material to use for the field emitters of a multi-source is (Winkler, [0022]).
Regarding claim 25, Ren teaches a multi-beam particle microscope ([0002], Fig. 3), comprising: a particle beam system according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above, where the combination of references teaches the particle beam system).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches wherein, for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate deviates by at most 1% from the arithmetic mean (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Claim 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Wieland, et. al. (US 20090212229 A1), hereinafter Wieland.
Regarding claim 2, the combination does not teach further comprising a beam-shaping system downstream of the multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams, wherein the beam-shaping system is configured to provide a final shape of the charged individual particle beams for subsequent optical imaging (See interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) above of the beam-shaping system.).
Wieland teaches a beam-shaping system downstream of the multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams, wherein the beam-shaping system is configured to provide a final shape of the charged individual particle beams for subsequent optical imaging (Wieland teaches end module 7 (interpreted beam-shaping system), [0023], [0029]-[0030], [0036]-[0037], which comprises a beam stop array 8, a beam deflector array 9, and a projection lens arrangement 10. See Fig. 1. The end stop array of Wieland is consistent with the interpretation of the beam-shaping system under 112(f), where the structure of the beam-shaping system is described in an embodiment on pgs. 16 of the instant application. The beam stop array 8 of Wieland is the interpreted final multi-aperture plate, the projection lens arrangement 10 is the interpreted multi-lens array).
Wieland modifies the combination by suggesting a beam-shaping system downstream of the multisource system along the beam path of the charged individual particle beams to provide a final shape of the beams before subsequent optical imaging.
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 Wieland because the end module (interpreted beam-shaping system) prepares the beamlets for impinging on the target, (Wieland, [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Although Wieland teaches a beam-shaping system downstream of the multisource system, Wieland or any combination does not teach wherein the beam-shaping system comprises: a multi-aperture plate with a multiplicity of openings, the multi-aperture plate configured so that the charged individual particle beams are partly incident on the multi-aperture plate and absorbed there and partly pass through the openings in the multi-aperture plate; a multi-lens plate comprising a multiplicity of openings, the multi-lens plate downstream of the multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the multi-aperture plate also pass through the multi-lens plate; and a first aperture plate comprising a single opening, the first aperture plate downstream of the multi-lens plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that charged individual particle beams which pass through the multi-lens plate also pass through the opening in the at least first aperture plate, wherein the controller is configured to supply an adjustable excitation to the first aperture plate.
Zeidler teaches a beam-shaping system (Fig. 1, multi-aperture arrangement 305, [0036], Fig. 2) comprising:
a multi-aperture plate with a multiplicity of openings (first multi-aperture plate 351 with openings 353, Fig. 2, [0044]), the multi-aperture plate configured so that the charged particle beams are partly incident on the multi- aperture plate and absorbed there and partly pass through the openings in the multi- aperture plate ([0044]-[0045]);
a multi-lens plate comprising a multiplicity of openings (third multi-aperture plate 355 with openings 357, [0047]-[0048], Fig. 2), the multi-lens plate downstream of the multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the multi- aperture plate also pass through the multi-lens plate (Fig. 2); and
a first aperture plate comprising a single opening (aperture plate 363 with large opening 365, Fig. 2, [0046]), the first aperture plate downstream of the multi-lens plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that charged individual particle beams which pass through the multi-lens plate also pass through the opening in the at least first aperture plate (Fig. 2),
wherein the controller is configured to supply an adjustable excitation to the first aperture plate ([0046]).
Zeidler suggests a beam-shaping system with a multi-aperture plate, multi-lens plate, and first aperture plate as claimed. Zeidler suggests substituting the components of the beam-shaping system of Wieland for the claimed components to shape the beam.
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 Zeidler because in the interpreted beam-shaping system of Ziedler the multi-aperture arrangement 305, focuses the electron beams 3 in such a way that beam foci 323 are formed in a plane 325, (Zeidler, [0039]). As such, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Zeidler to shape and focus the individual charged particle beams generated by the particle multi-source.
Regarding claim 11, Wieland teaches further comprising a second multi-deflector array upstream of the multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams, wherein the controller is configured to supply individually adjustable excitations to the second multi-deflector array to individually deflect the charged individual particle beams (beamlet blanker array 6 is upstream of beam stop array 8, [0025], Fig. 1).
Wieland modifies the combination by suggesting a beam blanker upstream of the multi-aperture plate of the beam shaping system suggested by Zeidler in the combination.
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 Wieland because the deflector and multi-aperture array can operate together to block or let pass the beamlets and control the opening angle of the beamlets, (Wieland, [0024]-[0025]).
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), and Wieland (US 20090212229 A1), in view of Van Veen, et. al. (US 20200194214 A1), hereinafter Van Veen and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ren, Winkler, and Wieland fails to teach further comprising: a condenser lens system downstream of the multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams and upstream the beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams; a field lens system downstream of the beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams; and an objective lens system downstream of the field lens system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams, wherein the particle beam system is configured to form an intermediate image plane between the beam-shaping system and the field lens system.
Van Veen teaches a condenser lens system downstream of the multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams and upstream the beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (condenser lens array 103, Fig. 1, [0079], is downstream from an interpreted multi-source system comprising charged particle source 101, collimator lens 102, and aperture array element 103, Fig. 1, and upstream of an interpreted beam-shaping system comprising modulation aperture array 105, beam stop array 108, and projection lens array 109).
Van Veen modifies the combination by suggesting the placement of a condenser lens system in the particle beam system of the combination, such that there is a condenser lens system downstream of the multi-source system and upstream of the beam-shaping system.
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 Van Veen in the combination because the condenser lens array can focus the charged particle beams on corresponding openings in an array, such as the beam-shaping array of the system, (Van Veen, [0079]).
Zeidler teaches a field lens system downstream of the beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (field lens 307 is downstream from 305, [0040], Fig. 1); and an objective lens system downstream of the field lens system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (objective lens system 100, [0030] with objective lens 102, [0040] is downstream of field lens 307, Fig. 1), wherein the particle beam system is configured to form an intermediate image plane between the beam-shaping system and the field lens system (image plane 325, [0039]-[0040], Fig. 1).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a field lens system downstream of the beam-shaping system and an objective lens system downstream of the field lens system, and the particle beam system forms an intermediate image plane between the beam-shaping system and the field lens system.
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 Zeidler because the field lens and the objective lens provide a first imaging particle optics for the purpose of imaging the plane, in which the foci are formed, onto the object plane, or order to image the object, (Zeidler, [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Ren fails to teach wherein the beam-shaping system comprises: a multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of openings, the multi-aperture plate configured so that the charged individual particle beams are partly incident on the multi-aperture plate and absorbed there and partly pass through the openings in the multi-aperture plate; and a second multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of adjustable particle lenses, the second multi-lens array arranged along the beam path of charged individual particle beams downstream of the multi-aperture plate so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the multi-aperture plate substantially also pass through the second multi-lens array.
Wieland teaches wherein the beam-shaping system (end module 7, Fig. 1, [0023]) comprises: a multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of openings, the multi-aperture plate configured so that the charged individual particle beams are partly incident on the multi-aperture plate and absorbed there and partly pass through the openings in the multi-aperture plate (beam stop array 8 is the interpreted multi-aperture plate because it determines the opening angle of the beamlets, [0024], Fig. 1); and a second multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of adjustable particle lenses, the second multi-lens array arranged along the beam path of charged individual particle beams downstream of the multi-aperture plate so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the multi-aperture plate substantially also pass through the second multi-lens array (projection lens arrangement 10, [0026], Fig. 1).
Wieland modifies the combination by suggesting the beam-shaping system comprises a multi-aperture plate that allows part of the beam to pass through, and a multi-lens array downstream of the multi-aperture plate.
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 Wieland because the end module (interpreted beam-shaping system) prepares the beamlets for impinging on the target, (Wieland, [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not teach wherein the condenser lens system comprises a condenser lens array which comprises a multiplicity of openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough.
Van Veen teaches wherein the condenser lens system comprises a condenser lens array which comprises a multiplicity of openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough (condenser lens array 103, [0079], Fig. 1).
Van Veen modifies the combination by suggesting a condenser lens array with a plurality of openings.
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 Van Veen because the condenser lens array provides focusing of the charged particle beams on a corresponding opening in an array located downstream in a multi-beam system, (Van Veen, [0079], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ren teaches wherein the objective lens system comprises a global magnetic objective lens (objective lens 380, [0071], Fig. 3, where “glocal is interpreted to mean one opening for all beams, as described in the specification of the instant application).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), Wieland (US 20090212229 A1), and Van Veen (US 20200194214 A1), in view of KR2012 (KR 20120128106 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination does not teach wherein the objective lens system comprises an objective lens array which comprises a multiplicity of openings, the objective lens along the beam path of charged individual particle beam to have the charged individual particle beams pass through the openings in the objective lens array.
KR2012 teaches wherein the objective lens system comprises an objective lens array which comprises a multiplicity of openings, the objective lens along the beam path of charged individual particle beam to have the charged individual particle beams pass through the openings in the objective lens array (132, Fig. 15).
KR2012 modifies the combination by suggesting that the objective lens system comprises an objective lens array with a multiplicity of openings along the beam paths of the charged particle beams.
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 KR2012 because an objective lens array focuses each of the beams on the sample, (KR2012, Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches wherein the particle beam system is configured so that no cross over of the charged individual particle beams is provided between the field lens system and the object plane (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Claims 14, 26, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Knippelmeyer, et. al. (US 20080054184 A1), hereinafter Knippelmeyer.
Regarding claim 14, Ren and the combination do not explicitly teach wherein the particle beam system is configured to have an identical first voltage applied to the first multi-aperture plate and the second multi-aperture plate, and wherein the individually adjustable voltages at the first multi-lens array differ from the first voltage.
Knippelmeyer teaches wherein the particle beam system is configured to have an identical first voltage applied to the first multi-aperture plate and the second multi-aperture plate, and wherein the individually adjustable voltages at the first multi-lens array differ from the first voltage ([0153]).
Knippelmeyer modifies the combination by suggesting applying identical voltages to the first and second multi-aperture plates and voltages different to this voltage to the first mutli-lens array.
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 such a configuration allows the function of an Einzel-lens to be performed on each primary electron beamlet, (Knippelmeyer, [0153]), and an Einzel-lens is known in the art to focus and manipulate an electron beam while conserving its energy.
Regarding claim 26, Ren and the combination do not explicitly teach wherein, for each charged individual particle beam, the first multi-aperture plate, the first multi-lens array and the second multi-aperture plate define an array of Einzel lenses.
Knippelmeyer teaches for each charged individual particle beam, the first multi-aperture plate, the first multi-lens array and the second multi-aperture plate define an array of Einzel lenses ([0153]).
Knippelmeyer modifies the combination by suggesting the first multi-aperture plate, the first multi-lens array, and the second multi-aperture plate define an array of Einzel lenses.
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 such a configuration allows the function of an Einzel-lens to be performed on each primary electron beamlet, (Knippelmeyer, [0153]), and an Einzel-lens is known in the art to focus and manipulate an electron beam while conserving its energy.
Regarding claim 28, Ren teaches a particle beam system, comprising:
a multi-source system, comprising:
a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles (electron source 301 generates primary electron beam 302 and beam-limiting aperture array 305 creates several beamlets from the primary electron beam, [0045], [0049]);
a first multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of first openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams at least partly pass therethrough (multi-aperture plate consisting of the top layer of micro-lens array 322 in Fig. 3, [0056], [0058]);
a first multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of lenses, the first multi-lens array downstream of the first multi-aperture plate along a beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the first multi-aperture plate also pass through the first multi-lens array (lenses consisting of middle layer of micro-lens array 322 in Fig. 3, [0056], [0058]);
a second multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of second openings, the second multi-aperture plate downstream of the first multi-lens array along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the first multi-lens array also pass through the second multi-aperture plate (multi-aperture plate consisting of bottom layer of micro-lens array 322 in Fig. 3, [0056], [0058]);
a beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of beam current-restricting openings, the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate downstream of the second multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that, for each charged individual particle beam: i) a first portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is partly incident on the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate and absorbed by the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate; and ii) a second portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam partly passes through a corresponding opening in the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate (current limiting aperture array 324, Fig. 3, [0056], [0064]-[0065]); and
a number of the charged particles in the first portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is greater than zero ([0065]-[0066]); and
a number of the charged particles in the second portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is greater than zero to provide a charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate ([0065]-[0066], primary modified beamlets 302_1m, 302_2m and 302_3m formed from the primary beams after passing through current limiting aperture array 324),
wherein:
immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate, there is an arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents (since each of the modified beams has some current, [0065], there will inherently be some arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents downstream of the current-limiting aperture array 324); and
for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate deviates by at most 5% from the arithmetic mean (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Although Ren teaches a generating multiple beams in the charged particle apparatus using an aperture plate, Ren does not teach a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles. Additionally, Ren does not explicitly teach wherein, for each charged individual particle beam, the first multi-aperture plate, the first multi-lens array and the second multi-aperture plate define an array of Einzel lenses.
Winkler teaches a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles ([0064], [0084], [0090], Figs. 3a and 3b).
a simple substitution of the electron source arrangement 301, collimating lens 303, and mutli-aperture plate 305 of Knippelmeyer used to create a multi-beam arrangement with a particle multi-source that generates a multiplicity of charged particle beams via field emission.
Winkler modifies Ren by suggesting a simple substitution of the multi-soruce of Ren (which utilizes a single electron source and aperture plate to create multiple beams) with the configuration of Winkler, which uses multiple field emitter beam sources to generate a multiplicity of beams.
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 Winkler because replacing the multi-source of Ren with the multi-source of Winkler represents a simple substitution, as both Ren and Winkler present configurations for generating multiple beams in a charged particle system. This is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result. See MPEP 2143. Additionally, field emitter beam sources have the advantage that they are capable of being integrated onto a semiconductor substrate, opening up the possibilities for miniaturized electron beam columns, (Winkler, [0011]).
Ren does not teach that the lenses of the first multi-lens array comprises a multiplicity of individually adjustable particle lenses. Furthermore, Ren does not teach a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam, wherein for each charged individual particle beam: the focussing of the particle beam by the associated particle lens controls the first and second portions of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam.
Zeidler teaches individually adjustable particle lenses and a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam ([0049]).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a controller that individually adjusts the voltage of the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to adjust the focusing.
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 Zeidler because controlling each particle lens allows for individual control of each beam as desired and makes it possible to compensate astigmatism exerted by the downstream optics (Zeidler, [0049], [0010]).
Knippelmeyer teaches for each charged individual particle beam, the first multi-aperture plate, the first multi-lens array and the second multi-aperture plate define an array of Einzel lenses ([0153]).
Knippelmeyer modifies the combination by suggesting the first multi-aperture plate, the first multi-lens array, and the second multi-aperture plate define an array of Einzel lenses.
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 such a configuration allows the function of an Einzel-lens to be performed on each primary electron beamlet, (Knippelmeyer, [0153]), and an Einzel-lens is known in the art to focus and manipulate an electron beam while conserving its energy.
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches wherein, for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate deviates by at most 1% from the arithmetic mean (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Nomura (US 20160336141 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the particle multi-source and the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm.
Although Nomura does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the particle multi-source and the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate (L0, distance from electron gun to surface of the first shaping aperture member 203, [0054], Figs. 3A and 3B, where 203 restricts the beam current and is therefore interpreted as the beam current-restricting aperture plate, [0047], and where [0146] discloses that the present invention can be applied to a multi-beam writing apparatus that forms a multi-beam.) is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm, Nomura teaches this distance as a results-effective variable such that one or ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range through routine experimentation. In particular, Nomura teaches that the emission current is affected by this distance, as described in [0053]-[0056] and depicted in equation (3). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment with L0 as suggested by Nomura to optimize the emission current and satisfy the equations. Since Nomura suggests L0 as a results-effective variable that can be chosen to optimize the emission current and satisfy the equations, it would be obvious that one could routinely experiment with the value of L0 in order to achieve the range of 0.1 mm to 30 mm. Therefore, the claim is obvious in view of Nomura.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Zeidler, et. al. (US 20110226949 A1), hereinafter Zeidler2011.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the multi-source system (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
The combination does not teach wherein the multi-source system further comprises a suppressor electrode.
Zeidler2011 teaches a suppressor electrode (suppressor electrode 11, [0041]).
Zeidler2011 suggests a suppressor electrode in the multi-source system of the combination.
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 Zeidler2011 because the suppressor electrode helps to extract a particle beam from the cathode to accelerate the particles of the beam to a desired kinetic energy (Zeidler2011, [0041]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 20220068587 A1), Winkler (US 20040135526 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Li (US 20160163500 A1)
Regarding claim 22, the combination does not teach further comprising a magnetic field generation mechanism configured so that the particle multi-source is in a magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation mechanism.
Li teaches a magnetic field generation mechanism configured so that the particle source is in a magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation mechanism ([0066], [0071]-[0083], Figs. 4a-d and 5).
Li modifies the combination by suggesting a magnetic field generation mechanism that immerses the particle source in a magnetic field.
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 Li because the magnetic field can lower aberration of the electron source at large beam current, (Li, [0060], [0082]).
Claim 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano, et. al. (US 20120241641 A1), hereinafter Sano, in view of Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Sano teaches a particle beam system (Fig. 11), comprising:
a multi-source system (irradiation optical system 140 and 117 in Fig. 11, [0068]), comprising:
a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission, each charged individual particle beam comprising a plurality of charged particles (electron source array 1110 with plurality of thermal field emission electron sources, [0069], Fig. 11);
an extractor electrode comprising a multiplicity of first openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams at least partly pass therethrough (first layer of 111 in Fig. 11, which includes first electrode layer of Einzel electrostatic lens array, [0031]);
a first multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of individually adjustable particle lenses, the first multi-lens array downstream of the extractor electrode along a beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the extractor electrode also pass through the first multi-lens array (second layer of 111 in Fig. 11 which includes 2nd electrode layer of Einzel electrostatic lens array, [0031]);
a counter electrode comprising a multiplicity of second openings, the counter electrode downstream of the first multi-lens array along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams which pass through the first multi-lens array also pass through the counter electrode (third layer of 11 in Fig. 11 which includes 3rd electrode layer of Einzel electrostatic lens array, [0031]);
an anode comprising a multiplicity of beam current-restricting openings, the anode downstream of the counter electrode along the beam path of charged individual particle beams so that the charged individual particle beams are partly incident on the anode and absorbed there and partly pass through the openings in anode, for each charged individual particle beam: i) a first portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is partly incident on the anode and absorbed by the anode; and ii) a second portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam partly passes through a corresponding opening in the anode (aperture array 117, [0070], Fig. 11); and
a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each individual particle beam,
wherein for each charged individual particle beam:
the focussing of the particle beam by the associated particle lens controls the first and second portions of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam;
a number of the charged particles in the first portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is greater than zero (Fig. 11, [0032], [0070]); and
a number of the charged particles in the second portion of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam is greater than zero to provide a charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the anode (Fig. 11, [0032], [0070]),
wherein:
immediately downstream of the anode, there is an arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents (since each of the modified beams has some current, there will inherently be some arithmetic mean of the plurality of charged individual particle beam currents downstream of aperture array 117); and
for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the anode deviates by at most 5% from the arithmetic mean (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Sano does not teach that the lenses of the first multi-lens array comprises a multiplicity of individually adjustable particle lenses. Furthermore, Sano does not teach a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam, wherein for each charged individual particle beam: the focussing of the particle beam by the associated particle lens controls the first and second portions of the charged particles in the charged individual particle beam.
Zeidler teaches individually adjustable particle lenses and a controller configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to individually adjust a focussing of the associated particle lens for each charged individual particle beam ([0049]).
Zeidler modifies Sano by suggesting a controller that individually adjusts the voltage of the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array to adjust the focusing.
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 Zeidler because controlling each particle lens allows for individual control of each beam as desired and makes it possible to compensate astigmatism exerted by the downstream optics (Zeidler, [0049], [0010]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches wherein, for each charged individual particle beam, the charged individual particle beam current immediately downstream of the anode deviates by at most 1% from the arithmetic mean (See MPEP 2114: “ "[A]pparatus 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.” Since the combination of reference renders obvious all of the structural limitations of the claim, the recited functional limitation does not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art.).
Conclusion
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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights