DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 3 is maintained because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “…upstream of final beam-shaping system…”. The amendment to claim 3 has corrected one instance of the antecedent basis problem, but another instance still remains.
The amendment to claim 18 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Claim 24 was rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for reciting “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.” The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 24 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered. Consequently, the rejections of claims 1-26 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Knippelmeyer, et. al. (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A) (Paragraph numbers correspond to translated document), Muto, et. al. (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler, et. al. (US 20170133194 A1).
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 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.
Claims 1-26 are 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 1 recites the limitation “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 individual particle beam; the first portion is greater than zero; and the second portion is greater than zero” is indefinite because the quantity/metric relating to the first/second portions that is greater than zero is not defined in the claim. Consequently it is unclear what, regarding the first and second portion, is greater than zero (i.e. the beam current, etc.). Without defining the quantity/metric that is ‘greater than zero’, it is unclear how a first or second portion of a charged individual particle beam can be ‘greater than zero’.
Claims 2-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitations " a condenser lens system downstream of the multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams and upstream of final beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is unclear if ‘final beam-shaping system’ is the same or different to ‘the beam-shaping system’ of claim 2.
Claims 4-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer, et. al. (US 20080054184 A1), hereinafter Knippelmeyer in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A) (Paragraph numbers correspond to translated document), Muto, et. al. (US 20020008208 A1), hereinafter Muto, and Zeidler, et. al. (US 20170133194 A1), hereinafter Zeidler.
Regarding claim 1, Knippelmeyer teaches a particle beam system (electron microscopy system 1, [0131], Fig. 1), comprising:
a first multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of first openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams at least partly pass therethrough (3132, Fig. 2, [151]);
a first multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of particle lenses (3133, Fig. 2, [0151]-[0154]), 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 (Fig. 2);
a second multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of second openings (3134, Fig. 2, [0151]), 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 (Fig. 2).
Knippelmeyer does not teach a multi-source system, comprising: a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission;
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 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 individual particle beam partly passes through a corresponding opening in the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate;
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,
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 individual particle beam;
the first portion is greater than zero; and
the second portion is greater than zero.
KR2012 teaches a multi-source system, comprising: a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission (electron source array 1510 with thermal field emission type emitters 1501, Fig. 15, Para. 73);
Muto teaches a beam current-restricting aperture plate comprising a beam current-restricting opening (restriction diaphragm 3, [0058], Fig. 1), the beam current-restricting aperture plate downstream of the second aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beam (Fig. 1, where 3 is downstream of 2, [0058]) so that, for each charged individual particle beam: i) a first portion of 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 individual particle beam partly passes through a corresponding opening in the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate (Fig. 1, [0066]);
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 individual particle beam (focusing means 2 is controlled by control means 7 to affect how the beam interacts with the restriction diaphragm 3, Fig. 1, [0058], [0073]-[0074]);
the first portion is greater than zero (Fig. 1, [0074]); and
the second portion is greater than zero (Fig. 1, [0074]).
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]).
KR2012 modifies the combination by suggesting a particle multi-source that generates a multiplicity of charged particle beams via field emission. Muto modifies the combination by suggesting a beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate downstream of the second multi-aperture plate where the focussing of the particle beam by the particle lens controls the first and second portion of the particle beam. 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 KR2012 because an electron source array that generates beams via field emission can be used to form a multi-electron beam array (KR2012, Paragraph 73). 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 Muto because a restriction diaphragm downstream of a focusing means allows for controlling the current of the beam passing through its opening (Muto, [0013]-[0017]). Furthermore, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Muto (single beam system) to the multi-beam system (see MPEP 2144 VI. B. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). 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 (Zeidler, [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the multi-source system (see 103 rejection of claim 1).
Zeidler teaches a beam-shaping system (Fig. 1, multi-aperture arrangement 305, [0036], Fig. 2) downstream of the source (electron source 301, [0036]) along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (Fig 1), wherein the beam-shaping system is configured to provide a final shape of the charged individual particle beams for subsequent optical imaging (305 provides beam shape, [0037], [0045], before imaging by field lens 307 and objective lens 102, [0040], Fig. 1).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a beam-shaping system to provide a shape of the charged particle beam prior to 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 Zeidler because the interpreted beam-shaping system, multi-aperture arrangement 305, focuses the electron beams 3 in such a way that beam foci 323 are formed in a plane 325, (Zeidler2017, [0039]).
Zeidler does not teach downstream of the multi-source system (since Zeidler2017 does not teach the multi-source system, but KR2012 does), however, in the combination, it would be obvious for the beam-shaping system of Zeidler to be downstream of the multi-source system because selection of any order of known optical elements is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)). Since the structure and corresponding functions of the elements comprising the multi-source system and the beam-shaping system are known in the art, one of ordinary skill would understand how the elements affect a particle beam and would be able to arrange the elements to achieve a preferred effect. As a consequence, a beam-shaping system downstream of the multi-source system is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 10, Zeidler teaches wherein the beam-shaping system (Fig. 1, multi-aperture arrangement 305, [0036], Fig. 2) comprises:
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 modifies the combination by suggesting a beam-shaping system with a multi-aperture plate, multi-lens plate, and first 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 Zeidler because the interpreted beam-shaping system, 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, KR2012 teaches further comprising a multi-deflector array upstream of a multi-aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (deflector 127, Fig. 15, Para. 25), wherein the controller is configured to supply individually adjustable excitations to the second multi-deflector array to individually deflect the charged individual particle beams (driven by signal from deflection signal generating circuit 104, also see Fig. 15 showing one of the beams is deflected while the others are not, indicating individual control, see also para. 82).
KR2012 provides a multi-deflector array upstream of the multi-aperture plate. It would be obvious to combine the deflector of KR2012 into the beam-shaping system of claim 10, upstream of the multi-aperture plate of the beam-shaping system because the deflector of KR2012 is upstream of a multi-aperture array (127 is upstream of 128, see Fig. 15) and because selection of any order of known optical elements is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)). Since the structure and corresponding functions of the elements comprising the beam-shaping system and the deflector array are known in the art, one of ordinary skill would understand how the elements affect a particle beam and would be able to arrange the elements to achieve a preferred effect. As a consequence, a multi-deflector array upstream of the multi-aperture plate of the beam-shaping system of claim 10, which would serve to deflect the beam as desired before being shaped by the apertures, is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 14, 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]).
Regarding claim 20, Knippelmeyer teaches wherein the multi-source system is manufactured at least in part via MEMS technology ([0203]).
Regarding claim 21, Knippelmeyer does not explicitly 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.
KR2012 teaches wherein the particle multi-source comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of metallic emitters (ZrO/W (zirconiated tungsten) emitter material, Para. 73), silicon-based emitters, and carbon nanotubes-based emitters.
KR2012 modifies the combination by suggesting the particle multi-souce comprises 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 KR2012 because ZrO/W is a cathode material suitable for field emission (KR2012, Para. 73).
Regarding claim 25, Knippelmeyer teaches a multi-beam particle microscope ([0131]), comprising:
a particle beam system according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 26, Knippelmeyer teaches 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 ([0153]).
Regarding claim 27, Knippelmeyer teaches a particle beam system (electron microscopy system 1, [0131], Fig. 1), comprising:
an extractor electrode comprising a multiplicity of first openings configured to have the charged individual particle beams at least partly pass therethrough (3132, Fig. 2, [151], [0152]);
a first multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of particle lenses (3133, Fig. 2, [0151]-[0154]), 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 first multi-aperture plate also pass through the first multi-lens array (Fig. 2);
a counter electrode comprising a multiplicity of second openings (3134, Fig. 2, [0151]), 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 (Fig. 2).
Knippelmeyer does not teach a multi-source system, comprising: a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission; or an anode comprising a multiplicity of beam current-restricting openings, the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate 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;
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,
KR2012 teaches a multi-source system, comprising: a particle multi-source configured to generate a multiplicity of charged individual particle beams via field emission (electron source array 1510 with thermal field emission type emitters 1501, Fig. 15, Para. 73);
Muto teaches an anode comprising a beam current-restricting opening (restriction diaphragm 3, [0058], Fig. 1), the anode downstream of the counter electrode along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (Fig. 1, where 3 is downstream of 2, [0058]) so that, the charged individual particle beams are partly incident on the anode and absorbed there and partly pass through the openings in anode (Fig. 1, [0066]);
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]).
KR2012 modifies the combination by suggesting a particle multi-source that generates a multiplicity of charged particle beams via field emission. Muto modifies the combination by suggesting an anode downstream of the counter electrode which the particle beams pass through. 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 KR2012 because an electron source array that generates beams via field emission can be used to form a multi-electron beam array (KR2012, Paragraph 73). 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 Muto because a restriction diaphragm downstream of a focusing means allows for controlling the current of the beam passing through its opening (Muto, [0013]-[0017]). Furthermore, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Muto (single beam system) to the multi-beam system (see MPEP 2144 VI. B. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). 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 (Zeidler, [0049]).
Regarding claim 28, see the rejections of claims 1 and 26 above, where claim 28 contains limitations of claim 26, which depends from claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Del Tin, et. al. (US 20220406563 A1), hereinafter Deltin.
Regarding claim 17, the combination does not teach wherein: the multi-source system comprises a second multi-lens array which comprises a multiplicity of individually adjustable and focussing particle lenses; 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; and the controller is configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the second multi-lens array to individually set a focussing of the associated particle lens for each individual particle beam.
Deltin teaches wherein:
the multi-source system comprises a second multi-lens array which comprises a multiplicity of and focussing particle lenses ([0070]-[0072] teaches a lens array for use in an illumination apparatus and projection apparatus. As such, the lens array in the projection apparatus is the second lens array in the system after the one in the illumination apparatus. The lens array is used for focusing the beams, [0071]);
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 (The interpreted second multi-lens array in the projection apparatus is downstream from the illumination apparatus, which contains a beam-limit aperture array. Therefore, the second multi-lens array is downstream of a beam-limit aperture array. [0052], [0071], [0071], [0037], [0045]); and
Zeidler teaches individually adjustable and that the controller is configured to supply an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the second multi-lens array to individually set a focussing of the associated particle lens for each individual particle beam ([0049]).
Deltin modifies the combination by suggesting a second multi-lens array that is downstream of the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate. Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting that the lenses of the second multi-lens array of Deltin are individually adjustable via a controller supplying voltage to each lens to set the focusing for each individual 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 Deltin because Deltin provides the advantage of manipulation of the beams via focusing, (Deltin, [0071]). 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 Zeidler provides the advantage of individual control of the manipulation of the multiple beams, (Zeidler, [0049]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Van Der Toorn, et. al. (US 20200211814 A), hereinafter Vandertoorn.
Regarding claim 18, the combination does not teach wherein: the multi-source system further comprises a first multi-deflector array configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough; the first multi-deflector array is downstream of the beam current-restricting multi- aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams; and the controller is configured to supply individually adjustable excitations to the first multi-deflector array to individually deflect the charged individual particle beams.
Vandertoorn teaches wherein: the multi-source system further comprises a first multi-deflector array configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough (imag forming element array 122 including microdeflectors 122_1, 122_2, 122_3, Fig. 2B, [0058]); the first multi-deflector array is downstream of the beam current-restricting multi- aperture plate along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (122 is downstream of beamlet-limit aperture array 121, [0057]-[0058], Fig. 2B); and the controller is configured to supply individually adjustable excitations to the first multi-deflector array to individually deflect the charged individual particle beams (Abstract, [0058]).
Vandertoorn modifies the combination by suggesting a multi-deflector array, the excitations being supplied by the controller to individually deflect the charged particle beams, downstream of a beam limiting aperture 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 Vandertoorn because Vandertoorn provides the advantage of individual steering of the beams, (Vandertoorn, [0011]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Corey, et. al. (US 4751393 A), hereinafter Corey.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
The combination does not teach wherein a deviation δ of the individual beam currents from an arithmetic mean of the beam currents immediately after the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate has been passed through is less than or equal to 5%.
Corey does not explicitly teach wherein a deviation δ of the individual beam currents from an arithmetic mean of the beam currents immediately after the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate has been passed through is less than or equal to 5%; however Corey does teach measuring a deviation of the individual beam currents from an arithmetic mean of the beam currents immediately after a beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate has been passed through in order to determine uniformity (see Col. 6, lines 16-63). As a result, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a deviation δ less than or equal to 5% because Corey suggests measuring the deviation of individual beam currents after they pass through apertures in order to check does uniformity, with smaller deviations indicating uniformity which is desired, (Col. 6, lines 16-63). MPEP 2144.05 II. A. teaches “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since smaller deviations indicate more uniformity, it would be obvious to optimize the deviation to be as small as possible, and Corey suggests this optimization (Corey, Col. 1, lines 45-50, “semiconductor fabrication processes typically require dose accuracy within one percent and dose uniformity of less than one percent”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Mangnus, et. al. (US 20200312619 A1), hereinafter Mangnus, .
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the particle multi-source and beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate (see claim 1 103 rejection, above).
The combination does not 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.
Mangnus does not 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, however Mangnus teaches that the aperture plate may be placed at a predetermined distance from the electron source and the position may be fixed or adjustable based on the beam current requirements, ([0053]). MPEP 2144.05 II. A. teaches “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the position depends on the beam current requirements, it would be obvious to optimize the position of the aperture plate relative to the source based on the beam current requirements as suggested by Mangnus ([0053]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Hu, et. al. (US 20190341222 A1), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the multi-source system (see 103 rejection of claim 1).
The combination does not teach wherein: the multi-source system further comprises a multi-stigmator array configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough; and the controller is configured to supply an adjustable excitation to the multi- stigmator array.
Hu teaches a multi-stigmator array configured to have the charged individual particle beams pass therethrough; and the controller is configured to supply an adjustable excitation to the multi- stigmator array (astigmatism compensator array/micro-stigmator array [0040], [0047], [0065], [0097]).
Hu modifies the combination by suggesting a multi-stigmator for the individual charged particle beams to pass through, which receives excitation from the controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the multi-stigmator of Hu into the system because the array of stigmators, controlled by the controller, compensate astigmatism aberrations of the beamlets as needed (Hu, [0040])
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 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]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination does not teach wherein the magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation mechanism has a component perpendicular and/or a component parallel to an emission direction of the charged particles from the multi- source.
Li teaches wherein the magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation mechanism has a component perpendicular and/or a component parallel to an emission direction of the charged particles from the source (Figs. 4a-d and 5).
Li modifies the combination by suggesting the magnetic field has a component perpendicular and/or parallel to an emission direction of the charged particles from the source.
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]). Furthermore, any magnetic field would have a component that is parallel and/or perpendicular to an emission direction of the charged particles from the source, i.e. any magnetic field can be broken into vector components that are parallel or perpendicular relative to some coordinate system.
Regarding claim 24, the combination does not teach 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.
Li teaches 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 ([0084], Fig. 6).
Li modifies the combination by suggesting 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.
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 a large solid angle can be obtained to reduce area of virtual source and then be converged to the optical axis to form a large beam current, (Li, [0084]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Adamec (US 20100108904 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination fails to teach wherein at least one of the following holds: the first multi-aperture plate comprises an extractor electrode; the second multi-aperture plate comprises a counter electrode; and the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate comprises an anode.
Adamec teaches the beam current-restricting aperture plate comprises an anode ([0040], [0051]).
Adamec modifies the combination by suggesting that the beam current-restricting multi-aperture plate comprises an anode.
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 Adamec because an anode aperture that is a beam limiting aperture can be used for beam blanking, (Adamec, [0040]). Furthermore, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Adamec (single beam system) to the multi-beam system, such that the beam current-restricting aperture plate of Adamec can be multi-aperture for each beam of the multi-beam system (see MPEP 2144 VI. B. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer (US 20080054184 A1), in view of KR 2012 (KR 20120128106 A), Muto (US 20020008208 A1), and Zeidler (US 20170133194 A1), further in view of Van Veen, et. al. (US 20200194214 A1), hereinafter Vanveen.
Regarding claim 3, Knippelmeyer 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 of the final beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams; a field lens system downstream of the final 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.
Zeidler teaches a field lens system downstream of the final 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).
Vanveen teaches a condenser lens system (condenser lens array 103, Fig. 1, [0079]) downstream of a multi-source system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (103 is downstream from charged particle source 101, collimator lens 102, and aperture array element 104, Fig. 1) and upstream of a beam-shaping system along the beam path of charged individual particle beams (condenser lenses array 103 is upstream of 105, 108, 109, Fig. 1).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a field lens system and objective lens system downstream of the beam-shaping system and an image plane formed between the beam-shaping system and the field lens. Vanveen suggests a condenser lens system downstream of a multi-source system and upstream of a 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 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, in order to image the object (Zeidler2017, [0040]). It would be obvious to incorporate the condenser lens array of Vanveen 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, (Vanveen, [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Knippelmeyer 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.
Zeidler teaches wherein the beam-shaping system (Fig. 1, multi-aperture arrangement 305, [0036], Fig. 2) comprises:
a multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of openings (first multi-aperture plate 351 with openings 353, Fig. 2, [0044]) 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 ([0044]-[0045]); and
a second multi-lens array comprising a multiplicity of adjustable particle lenses (third multi-aperture plate 355 with openings 357 and electrodes 373, [0047]-[0048], Fig. 2, Fig. 5), 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 (Fig. 2).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting a beam-shaping system with a multi-aperture plate and multi-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 Zeidler because the interpreted beam-shaping system, 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]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination does not teach wherein the condenser lens system comprises condenser lenses.
Vanveen teaches wherein the condenser lens system comprises condenser lenses (condenser lens arrays 103, [0079], Fig. 1).
Vanveen modifies the combination by suggesting a condenser lens array comprising condenser 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 Vanveen because because the condenser lens array can focus the charged particle beams, (Vanveen, [0079]).
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 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 for focusing of the charged particle beams on a corresponding opening in an array located downstream, (Van Veen, [0079], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Knippelmeyer teaches wherein the objective lens system comprises a global magnetic objective lens (objective lens 102, Fig. 1, [0131], where “global” is interpreted to mean one opening for all beams, as described in the specification of the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Knippelmeyer 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 an objective lens array which comprises a multiplicity of openings (132, Fig. 15), 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 (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, Knippelmeyer does not teach 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.
Zeidler 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 (Fig. 1 shows no cross -over between field lens system 307 and object plane 101).
Zeidler modifies the combination by suggesting no crossover of the charged particle beams between the field lens system and the object plane.
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 by having no crossover between the field lens and the object plane, the field lens and objective lens provide optics for the purpose of imaging the image plane formed before the field lens onto the object plane 101 so as to form there a field of beam spots on the surface of the object, and image the object, (Zeidler, [0040], Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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
Prosecution Insights