^%$
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see page 3, that FIG. 2C of Adamec does not show electrodes 204, the reference to FIG. 2C was a typographical error. The rejection has been corrected to refer to FIG. 2A (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below).
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, that Adamec fails to disclose electrodes which are bent toward each other, Dictionary.com defines “bent” as “curved; crooked” (emphasis added). The claims do not require the electrodes to be bent toward each other on a particular side of the electrodes; the only structure required by the claims is that the electrodes are bent toward each other and toward a center line of the detector. FIG. 2A of Adamec shows electrodes 204 curving toward each other from the right to the left; this shape also curves the electrodes 204 toward the center line 2 of the detector 220.
In response to applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, that the electrodes 204 disclosed in Adamec are arranged radially outward from the central electrode 202, the claims do not preclude such an arrangement. Independent claim 1 only requires the position of the compensation electrode to be outside of the objective lens, between the sample and the detector. The limitations of the dependent claims also do not preclude a radial arrangement of electrodes.
In response to applicant's argument, see page 4, that the electrodes of Adamec are configured to deflect the beam away from the optical axis, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Adamec teaches the structural limitations of the compensation electrode as discussed below (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
In response to applicant's argument, see page 5, that Adamec is directed to solving a different problem than the claimed invention, it has been held that a prior art reference is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), emphasis added). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the case at hand, Adamec is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., specimen imaging using electron beams. Claim 1 of the instant application recites “[a]n electron microscope for generating an observation image of a sample using an electron beam”; Adamec discloses “[s]econdary electrons from wafer 912 pass…to detector 220. The signals from detector 220 is supplied to imaging electronics 920” (paragraph 0080).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0270439 A1), hereinafter Adamec, in view of Todokoro et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,412,210 A), hereinafter Todokoro, and Li et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,777,382 B2), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Adamec discloses an electron microscope for generating an observation image of a sample using an electron beam (paragraph 0026), the electron microscope comprising:
an electron source (FIG. 8, element 132) configured to irradiate the sample (FIG. 8, element 13) with the electron beam (FIG. 8, electron beams 12);
an objective lens (FIG. 8, element 134) configured to focus the electron beam by a leakage magnetic field which is a magnetic field leaked toward the sample (paragraphs 0090-0091),
a detector (FIG. 5C, element 220); and
a compensation electrode or a compensation magnetic pole (FIG. 5C, secondary particle optics 200) provided outside of the objective lens (FIG. 5C, objective lens 10) and between the sample (FIG. 5C, element 13) and the detector (FIG. 5C, element 220) and configured to control a trajectory of an electron (paragraph 0036);
wherein the compensation electrode includes at least one pair of bent compensation electrodes (FIG. 2A, electrodes 204), each of the bent compensation electrodes having a shape bent toward each other and toward a center line of the detector (FIG. 2A: electrodes 204 are bent toward each other and toward the center line of the detector at optical axis 2).
Adamec fails to disclose that the detector is configured to detect a third electron which is an electron emitted when a low angle backscattered electron is caused to collide with the sample by the leakage magnetic field, the low angle backscattered electron being a backscattered electron emitted at a low angle with respect to a surface of the sample.
However, Todokoro discloses a detector configured to detect a third electron (column 15, lines 3-15) which is an electron emitted (FIG. 4, element 105b) when a backscattered electron (FIG. 4, element 103b) is caused to collide with the sample (FIG. 4, element 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec to include a detector configured to detect a third electron which is an electron emitted when a backscattered electron is caused to collide with the sample, based on the teachings of Todokoro that this provides particularly useful observation data (Todokoro, column 6, lines 50-58).
Adamec in view of Todokoro fails to disclose that the backscattered electron is a low angle backscattered election which is caused to collide with the sample by the leakage magnetic field, the low angle backscattered electron being a backscattered electron emitted at a low angle with respect to a surface of the sample.
However, Li discloses a low angle electron which is caused to collide with the sample (FIG. 3B and column 13, lines 30-35), the low angle electron being an electron emitted at a low angle with respect to a surface of the sample (column 6, lines 22-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro to include that the backscattered electron is a low angle backscattered election which is caused to collide with the sample by the leakage magnetic field, the low angle backscattered electron being a backscattered electron emitted at a low angle with respect to a surface of the sample, based on the teachings of Li that this allows for increased flexibility in selective detection of electrons while reducing the complexity of the device (Li, column 13, lines 24-55).
Regarding claim 4, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
The limitation “the compensation electrode is configured to be applied with a voltage to form an electric field that prevents rotation of the low angle backscattered electron due to the leakage magnetic field” is a functional limitation. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Adamec teaches the structural limitations of the compensation electrode (see claim 1 supra), and Adamec also teaches that a voltage can be applied to the compensation electrode (see, e.g., Adamec, paragraph 0041). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 5, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
In addition, Todokoro discloses that the observation image is generated (column 15, lines 3-15) based on a detection signal of a third electron (FIG. 4, element 105b) emitted when a backscattered electron (FIG. 4, element 103b) collides with the sample (FIG. 4, element 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the observation image is generated based on a detection signal of a third electron emitted when a backscattered electron collides with a target, based on the additional teachings of Todokoro that the third electrons provide an observation image with a more accurate portrayal of irregularities in the sample (Todokoro, column 8, lines 14-29).
In addition, Li discloses a detection signal of a low angle electron emitted in a specific direction among all directions (column 12, lines 52-56) and a low angle electron which collides with the sample (FIG. 3B and column 13, lines 30-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the backscattered electron is a low angle backscattered electron emitted in a specific direction among all directions which collides with the sample, based on the additional teachings of Li that this reduces the complexity of the apparatus (Li, column 13, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 7, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
In addition, Adamec discloses a shield electrode disposed between the electron beam and the compensation electrode (FIG. 5C: shield electrode 440 is disposed between the electron beam emitted from source 105 and the compensation electrode in element 200) to shield an electric field formed by the compensation electrode (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 9, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
In addition, Adamec discloses that the compensation electrode includes two flat plates that are parallel to each other, disposed at the same distance from a center line of the detector (FIG. 5C, upper and lower plates 903).
The limitation “configured to be applied with voltages having opposite polarities, where a negative voltage has an absolute value larger than an absolute value of a positive voltage” is a functional limitation. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Adamec teaches the structural limitations of the compensation electrode, i.e., the two flat parallel plates disposed at the same distance from a center line of the detector, and Adamec also teaches that a voltage can be applied to the compensation electrode (see, e.g., Adamec, paragraph 0074). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
In addition, Todokoro discloses that the two plates are perpendicular to the surface of the sample (FIG. 16: the two plates of compensation electrode are vertically parallel to each other and are perpendicular to the sample 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the two plates are perpendicular to the surface of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Todokoro that this arrangement ensures the detection of both backscattered and third electrons (Todokoro, column 12, lines 35-60).
Regarding claim 13, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
In addition, Todokoro discloses that the compensation electrode is fixed to the objective lens (FIG. 16: compensation electrode 16 is fixed to objective lens 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the compensation electrode is fixed to the objective lens, based on the additional teachings of Todokoro that this arrangement ensures the detection of third electrons (Todokoro, column 12, lines 35-35, where the reflection electrons of Todokoro correlate to the backscattered electrons of the present invention, and the secondary electrons 5 of Todokoro correlate to the third electrons of the present invention).
Regarding claim 15, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
In addition, Adamec discloses that the compensation electrode includes two flat plates that are parallel to each other, disposed at the same distance from a center line of the detector (FIG. 5C, upper and lower plates 903), and an electrode disposed closer to the electron source than are the two flat plates (FIG. 5C: electrodes 901 are closer to electron source 105 than are the plates 903).
The limitation “configured to be applied with voltages having opposite polarities” is a functional limitation. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Adamec teaches the structural limitations of the compensation electrode, i.e., the two flat parallel plates disposed at the same distance from a center line of the detector, and Adamec also teaches that a voltage can be applied to the compensation electrode (see, e.g., Adamec, paragraph 0074). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
In addition, Todokoro discloses that the two plates are perpendicular to the surface of the sample (FIG. 16: the two plates of compensation electrode are vertically parallel to each other and are perpendicular to the sample 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the two plates are perpendicular to the surface of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Todokoro that this arrangement ensures the detection of both backscattered and third electrons (Todokoro, column 12, lines 35-60).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bunton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0130636 A1), hereinafter Bunton.
Regarding claim 3, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li fails to disclose a grid electrode provided between the compensation electrode and the sample.
However, Bunton discloses a grid electrode (FIG. 1, element 130) provided between the compensation electrode (FIG. 1, element 1008) and the sample (FIG. 1, element 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include a grid electrode provided between the compensation electrode and the sample, based on the teachings of Bunton that the grid electrode provides the benefit of accelerating ions from the sample to the detector (Bunton, paragraph 0007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0154756 A1), hereinafter Ren.
Regarding claim 6, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li fails to disclose that the compensation magnetic pole is configured to form a magnetic field in a direction opposite to the leakage magnetic field.
However, Ren discloses that the compensation magnetic pole (paragraph 0104, lines 19-21) is configured to form a magnetic field in a direction opposite to the leakage magnetic field (paragraph 0103, lines 17-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the compensation magnetic pole is configured to form a magnetic field in a direction opposite to the leakage magnetic field, based on the teachings of Ren that forming this magnetic field reduces cross-talk and improves collection efficiency of the system (Ren, paragraph 0103).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sawahata et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,501,077 B1), hereinafter Sawahata.
Regarding claim 8, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 7 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 7.
Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li fails to disclose that at least a part of the shield electrode is a grid electrode.
However, Sawahata discloses that at least a part of the shield electrode is a grid electrode (column 8, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that at least a part of the shield electrode is a grid electrode, based on the teachings of Sawahata that this arrangement prevents the generation of a deflecting electric field on the optical axis (Sawahata, column 8, lines 45-50).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0001165 A1), hereinafter Parker.
Regarding claim 10, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
In addition, Adamec discloses that the compensation electrode includes two flat plates that are parallel to each other (FIG. 5C, upper and lower plates 903).
The limitation “configured to be applied with voltages having opposite polarities and having equal absolute values” is a functional limitation. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Adamec teaches the structural limitations of the compensation electrode, i.e., the two flat parallel plates disposed at the same distance from a center line of the detector, and Adamec also teaches that a voltage can be applied to the compensation electrode (see, e.g., Adamec, paragraph 0074). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li fails to disclose that the two plates are disposed asymmetrically.
However, Parker discloses that the two plates (FIG. 12A, elements 120, 131) are disposed asymmetrically (FIG. 12A: element 120 is disposed on both sides of axis 190, while element 131 is disposed only on the right side of axis 190).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include that the two plates are disposed asymmetrically, based on the teachings of Parker that this arrangement minimizes the effect of an asymmetric electric field produced by the detector (Parker, paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 11, Adamec in view of Todokoro, Li, and Parker as applied to claim 10 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 10.
In addition, Parker discloses that one of the two flat plates has a distance from a center line of the detector shorter than that of the other (FIG. 12A: electrode 131 is approximately aligned with the central horizontal axis of detector 130, while electrode 120 is located below detector 130 in the Z direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro, Li, and Parker to include that one of the two flat plates has a distance from a center line of the detector shorter than that of the other, based on the additional teachings of Parker that this arrangement minimizes the effect of an asymmetric electric field produced by the detector (Parker, paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 12, Adamec in view of Todokoro, Li, and Parker as applied to claim 10 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 10.
In addition, Parker discloses that one of the two flat plates has a distance from the electron beam shorter than that of the other (paragraph 0054, lines 23-25: the aperture 126 of electrode 120 is concentric with the inner diameter of tube 140, while FIG. 12A shows that electrode 131 is located outside the tube 140, and the electron beam axis 190 passes through the center of tube 140; therefore, electrode 120 is closer to the electrode beam than electrode 131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro, Li, and Parker to include that one of the two flat plates has a distance from the electron beam shorter than that of the other, based on the additional teachings of Parker that this arrangement minimizes the effect of an asymmetric electric field produced by the detector (Parker, paragraph 0054).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (U.S. Patent No. 4,733,075 A), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 14, Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron microscope according to claim 1.
The limitation “a mechanism configured to measure an electron beam movement amount when a voltage is applied to the compensation electrode” is a functional limitation, and is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 15 May 2025, i.e., the electron beam movement amount is measured by a control device through the comparison of observation images. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Adamec teaches a control processor which receives imaging data for processing and image analysis (paragraph 0082). Adamec also teaches that deflection assemblies are controlled to compensate for beam movement (paragraphs 0073-0074). Therefore, Adamec teaches a control processor which is capable of comparing imaging data to determine beam movement amount and subsequently controlling the deflection assemblies to provide appropriate compensation for the beam movement; the limitations of the claim are met.
Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li fails to disclose a mechanism configured to adjust a position of the compensation electrode.
However, Sato discloses a mechanism configured to adjust a position of the compensation electrode (column 3, lines 33-36; the “predetermined position” is capable of being changed, i.e., moved; therefore, the position of the compensation electrode is adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Adamec in view of Todokoro and Li to include a mechanism configured to adjust a position of the compensation electrode, based on the teachings of Sato that this ensures the maximum number of secondary electrons reaches the detector (Sato, column 3, lines 37-60).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights