DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on May 26th, 2026. Claims 1-13, 15-21, and 24-27 are pending, with claims 1-5, 8, 11, 15-21, and 24-27 being directed to the elected invention, or generic.
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 .
Interpretation of the Term “Field Replaceable”
The following is examiner’s interpretation of the term “field replaceable”. Applicant defines the term “field replaceable” in the specification in the following manner:
Field replaceable is intended to mean that the component can be replaced in a factory where the charged particle apparatus is operated without having to dismantle the charged particle apparatus.
Examiner therefore interprets the term to encompass any module that can be removed and replaced without dismantling the charged particle apparatus. In other words, the module can be removed and replaced without removing or dismantling other parts of the beam column, such as the electron source and the sample stage.
Interpretation of the Term Module Flange
Applicant describes the term “module flange” in the specification in the following manner:
The module 405 also comprises a flange 701, referred to herein as a module flange 701. The module flange 701 may be the part of the module 405 that is securable to, and detachable from, the charged particle apparatus 401. The module flange 701 remains outside of the charged particle apparatus 401 and is not inserted into the charged particle apparatus 401.
Furthermore, the dictionary definition of “flange” given by Merriam-Webster is “a rib or rim for strength, for guiding, or for attachment to another object”.
Examiner therefore interprets the term “module flange” to encompass a projection connected to or integral with the module main body that is securable to, and detachable from, the charged particle beam apparatus. Though not considered a requirement of the term, it is noted that applicant states a preference for a module flange that remains outside of the apparatus when the module is inserted, and that the best art will also include this function.
Interpretation of the Functional Limitations
“a device configured to manipulate a plurality of charged particle beam paths” in claims 1-13, 17-19, 21, 24-25, and 27 corresponds to aperture arrays, deflectors, lenses, stigmators, and aberration correctors, or functional equivalents. These devices may be MEMS devices.
“a support arrangement configured to support the charged particle-optical device” in claims 1-13, 17-19, 21, 24-25, and 27 corresponds to the disc in species A (see “Preferably, the disc comprises the support arrangement.”)
“a support positioning system configured to move the support arrangement within the module and configured to at least rotate the support arrangement around the plurality of charged particle beam paths” in claims 1-13, 17-19, 24-25, and 27 corresponds to a disc with actuator arms (species A), a flexure arrangement (species B), piezo-electric stacks (species C), or piezo-actuators that push the edge of a support (species D).
“a position detecting system,” in claim 3 corresponds to encoders and functional equivalents.
“receiving parts configured to receive the respective ends of actuator arms” in claim 4 corresponds to an indentation, groove, or other structural element in the sidewall of the disc.
“a support positioning system (which enables a rotation of the support arrangement)” in claims 15-16 corresponds to actuator arms (species A), a flexure arrangement (species B), piezo-electric stacks (species C), or piezo-actuators (species D).
“charged particle beam manipulators configured to adjust the plurality of charged particle beam paths” in claim 18 corresponds to aperture arrays, deflectors, lenses, stigmators, and aberration correctors, or functional equivalents. These devices may be MEMS devices.
“structural element configured to enable movement of the support positioning system by the actuators” in claim 25 corresponds to a disc.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11, 15-21, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0251301 (Zeidler et al.) in view of US 2011/0174985 (Peijster).
Regarding claim 1, Zeidler et al. discloses a module for use in a charged particle apparatus for directing a plurality of charged particle beams towards a sample, the module comprising:
a charged particle-optical device configured to manipulate a plurality of charged particle beam paths of the respective plurality of charged particle beams in the charged particle apparatus (fig. 1, element 11); and
a module flange configured to attach to, and detach from, a housing flange of a housing of the charged particle apparatus such that the module is arranged to be field replaceable in the charged particle apparatus (fig. 1, element 99).
Zeidler et al. does not disclose a support arrangement configured to support the charged particle-optical device; and a support positioning system configured to move the support arrangement within the module and configured at least to rotate the support arrangement around the plurality of charged particle beam paths so as to substantially align the charged particle-optical device with the plurality of charged particle beam paths.
Pejister discloses a support arrangement configured to support a charged particle-optical device (fig. 4-7, element 5); and a support positioning system configured to move the support arrangement and configured at least to rotate the support arrangement around the plurality of beam charged particle beam paths so as to substantially align the device with the plurality of charged particle beam paths (fig. 4-6, elements 34, 38, 39). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the module of Zeidler et al. to include the support arrangement and support positioning system of Peijster et al. to correct positional errors of the device configured to manipulate charged particle paths, as disclosed by Pejister et al. (see P 7, 20).
Regarding claim 2, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 1, wherein the support positioning system is configured to move the support arrangement in at least three degrees of freedom of movement (Peijister, ‘In this configuration projector 5 has 3 degrees of freedom.’ P 76).
Regarding claim 3, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 1, further comprising a position detecting system configured to determine one or more of: a movement of the support arrangement, a position of the support arrangement, a movement of the device supported by the support arrangement, or a position of the device supported by the support arrangement (Peijister, ‘In an embodiment said system comprises a sensor element for measuring movement of said projector in a direction of movement of said projector actuator.’ P 40).
Regarding claim 4, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 3, wherein the support positioning system comprises receiving parts configured to receive respective ends of actuator arms of a charged particle apparatus (Peijster, fig. 4, element 5A, shown but unlabeled in figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 1, wherein the support positioning system comprises: a disc (Peijster, element 5, carrier frame); and a plurality of load bearing rotatable objects configured to support the disc within the module (Peijister, fig. 4-5, elements 26, 28, 30). It is noted that the “disc” of Peijister is triangular in shape rather than rounded. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute a circular shape for the triangular shape if desired, since only the receiving parts and ball bearing slots need be in a triangular arrangement for the benefits of the triangular arrangement. The edges of the support body can be filled in to form a circle with no change in function.
Regarding claim 8, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 1, wherein the support positioning system further comprises one or more linear actuators (Peijister, fig. 4-6, elements 34, 38, 39).
Regarding claim 11, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 1, wherein the support positioning system comprises three linear actuators (Peijister, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Zeidler et al. discloses a module for use in a charged particle apparatus for directing a plurality of charged particle beams toward a sample, the module comprising:
a main body (fig. 1-2, element 85);
a module flange (fig. 1, element 99) attached to the main body, the module flange configured to attach to, and detach from, a housing flange of a housing of the charged particle apparatus (fig. 1, element 97) such that the module is field replaceable in the charged particle apparatus (“Thereafter, the front door 95 of the transfer box 91 can be opened, and a vacuum door 99 of the vacuum enclosure 3 can be released from the vacuum enclosure 3 and pulled into the interior of the transfer box 91. Since the base 85 of the multi-aperture plate module 11 is fixed to the inner wall of the door 99 of the vacuum enclosure 3, the multi-aperture plate module 11 is pulled into the interior of the transfer box 91 together with the vacuum door 99. Thereafter, the front door 95 can be closed, and the multi-aperture plate module 11 is securely stored within the transfer box 91. … The above process can be reversed, and the transfer box 91 already containing a multi-aperture plate module can be attached to the flange 97 of the vacuum enclosure 3, the front door 95 of the transfer box 91 can be opened, and the multi-aperture plate module 11 can be moved into the interior of the vacuum enclosure 3 until the door 99 abuts against the flange 97. Thereafter, the transfer box is removed from the vacuum enclosure 3, the door 99 is fixed to the vacuum enclosure 3, and the multi-aperture plate module 11 is securely held in the interior of the vacuum space 33 which can then be evacuated.” P 39-40).
Zeidler does not disclose a support arrangement configured to support a charged particle-optical device; wherein when the module is in use in the charged particle apparatus, a rotation of the support arrangement enabled by a support positioning system causes the charged particle-optical device to substantially align with a plurality of charged particle beam paths of the respective plurality of charged particle beams.
Peijister et al. discloses a support arrangement configured to support a charged particle-optical device (element 5); and a support positioning system configured to move the support arrangement and configured at least to rotate the support arrangement around the plurality of beam charged particle beam paths so as to substantially align the device with the plurality of charged particle beam paths (fig. 4-6, elements 34, 38, 39). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the module of Zeidler et al. to include the support arrangement and support positioning system of Peijster et al. to correct positional errors of the device configured to manipulate charged particle paths, as disclosed by Pejister et al. (see P 7, 20).
Regarding claim 16, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 15, wherein the support positioning system is configured to adjust a position of the support arrangement in at least one degree of freedom of movement (Pejister, ‘In an embodiment, the projector is provided with an additional degree of freedom by use of a piezo actuator to adjust the position in the charged particle column by rotating the projector around the optical axis of the projector.’ P 29).
Regarding claim 17, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses a charged particle apparatus comprising a field replaceable module according to claim 1 (Zeidler, fig. 1, and as above).
Regarding claim 18, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the charged particle apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising one or more charged particle beam manipulators configured to adjust the charged particle path, and/or the module is configured to adjust the position of the charged particle-optical device to align with the charged particle path (‘The present invention also offers the ability to perform adjustments for alignment errors in the charged particle system.’ P 25).
Regarding claim 19, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the charged particle apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising: an up-beam vacuum lock disposed on an up-beam side of the module; and a down-beam vacuum lock disposed on a down-beam side of the module (Zeidler et al., fig. 1, element 47, also ‘Additional shutters can be provided between other pairs of vacuum spaces. For example, when a shutter between the first and second vacuum space is included in addition to the shutter 47 between the second and third vacuum space, it is possible to transfer the multi-aperture plate module out of and into the second vacuum space without breaking the vacuum in the first and third vacuum spaces.’ P 32).
Regarding claim 20, Zeidler discloses a method comprising: securing a field replaceable module comprising a charged particle-optical device to a charged particle apparatus to thereby install the charged particle device in the charged particle apparatus (“The above process can be reversed, and the transfer box 91 already containing a multi-aperture plate module can be attached to the flange 97 of the vacuum enclosure 3, the front door 95 of the transfer box 91 can be opened, and the multi-aperture plate module 11 can be moved into the interior of the vacuum enclosure 3 until the door 99 abuts against the flange 97. Thereafter, the transfer box is removed from the vacuum enclosure 3, the door 99 is fixed to the vacuum enclosure 3, and the multi-aperture plate module 11 is securely held in the interior of the vacuum space 33 which can then be evacuated.” P 39-40); and applying an adjustment to the plurality of charged particle beam paths, within the charged particle apparatus (“multi-aperture plate module mounted within the vacuum enclosure and used for manipulating particle beams” P 8).
Zeidler does not disclose applying fine adjustment(s) to a x-position, a y-position and/or a Rz state of the charged particle-optical device relative to a main body of the module, wherein applying fine adjustment to the Rz state of the charged particle-optical device comprises rotating the charged particle-optical device around a plurality of charged particle beam paths of the respective plurality of charged particle beams by operating a support positioning system configured to rotate a support arrangement for the charged particle-optical device.
Peijister et al. discloses a method comprising applying fine adjustment(s) to a x-position, a y-position and/or a Rz state of the charged particle-optical device, wherein applying fine adjustment to the Rz state of the charged particle-optical device comprises rotating the charged particle-optical device around a plurality of charged particle beam paths of the respective plurality of charged particle beams by operating a support positioning system configured to rotate a support arrangement for the charged particle-optical device (‘With the addition of these sets, the projector is provided with 3 degrees of freedom: a rotation around the Z-axis, a translation in the X-direction and a translation in the Y-direction. Now, the 3DOF system according to further elaboration of the present invention is also used to compensate for alignment errors in the entire system.’ P 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Zeidler et al. to include the application of the fine adjustments of Peijister to correct positional errors of the device configured to manipulate charged particle paths, as disclosed by Pejister et al. (see P 7, 20).
Regarding claim 21, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the charged particle apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising a source (fig. 1, element 7) and an objective lens (fig. 1, element 17), wherein the charged particle path in the charged particle apparatus is between the source and the objective lens (fig. 1, element 13).
Regarding claim 22, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a grid mark for use in determining the movement and/or the position of the support arrangement and/or the device held by the support arrangement. Grid marks are common in the art and often used with optical encoders to provide a reference point. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute an optical encoder with grid mark for the capacitive movement sensor so that an absolute position could be measured, which would ensure proper alignment.
Regarding claim 24, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 4, wherein the actuator arms are comprised by actuators that are external to the module (non-limiting, the actuator arms are not claimed as part of the system, only the receiving parts, also fig. 4-6, elements 34, 38, 39).
Regarding claim 25, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 24, wherein the support positioning system comprises a structural element configured to enable movement of the support positioning system by the actuators (Peijister, element 5, carrier frame).
Regarding claim 26, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 15, wherein the charged particle-optical device comprises a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (non-limiting, the charged particle-optical device is not part of the module, rather it is what is supported by the module, so this amounts to intended use, also the multi-aperture plate module 11 is a MEMS device, as seen in the document incorporated by reference to teach the details of the multi-aperture plate).
Regarding claim 27, Zeidler in view of Pejister et al. discloses the module according to claim 1, wherein the charged particle-optical device comprises a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (Zeidler, multi-aperture plates, which are disclosed in the US 2017/0133194, incorporated by reference by Zeidler, as being a MEMS device, also Peijister, ‘The projector 5 comprises a system of either electrostatic or electromagnetic projection lenses. In the preferred embodiment as depicted the lens system comprises an array of electrostatic charged particle lenses.’ P 69).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed May 26th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 over Peijister have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 20 as anticipated by or in the alternative obvious over Peijster applicant argues that the projector of Peijster discloses rotating relative to the metrology frame, rather than rotating relative to the main body of a module. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zeidler in view of Peijster.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed May 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zeidler’s replacement process necessarily requires removing the entire vacuum door from the vacuum enclosure, and that the base is fixed to this, such that both are removed. Applicant implies this somehow speaks against the replacement process being field replaceable.
Examiner agrees that the entire vacuum door and base (which together form the module) are removed during the replacement process. This is exactly why they are equivalent to applicant’s module, which is also entirely removed from the vacuum enclosure during the replacement process (see applicant’s specification “The module can be easily removed from, and re-inserted into, the charged particle apparatus.”, see also figure 7, which shows the module being slid out). According to applicant’s own disclosure, such full removal during replacement is not only compatible with field replaceability, it is what gives the module field replaceability. See applicant’s specification;
The module can be easily removed from, and re-inserted into, the charged particle apparatus. The module is therefore a field replaceable component of the charged particle apparatus. Field replaceable is intended to mean that the component can be replaced in a factory where the charged particle apparatus is operated without having to dismantle the charged particle apparatus. A component may be easily removed and replaced efficiently so that there is little downtime of the tool, and the mechanical process is as simple as possible.
Applicant then goes on to contradict themselves by saying the “removal and replacement process involves substantial disassembly of the charged particle apparatus, and therefore, cannot be "field-replaceable."”
Either the module is removed in its entirety, without need of disassemble, or it must be disassembled. It cannot be both. The reality is that the module is removed in its entirety and without disassembly, and is therefore field replaceable.
Applicant argues that Peijister does not disclose or suggest a modular, field-replaceable architecture as required by the claims. Later applicant returns to this theme by noting that Peijister contains no disclosure of vacuum locks, modular flanges, detachable interface structures, quick exchange mechanisms, or any other features associated with efficient servicing or replacement of a module within a charged particle apparatus.
Examiner relies on Zeidler to teach a field-replaceable module, not Peijister.
Applicant argues that even if Peijister discloses rotational adjustment functionality the disclosed adjustment occurs within a permanently mounted projector assembly, not within a detachable field-replaceable module.
The rejection is based on placement of the support positioning system of Pejister into the module of Zeidler. Once placed into the module of Zeidler, the adjustment would occur within a detachable field-replaceable module.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction rather than any teaching or suggestion in the cited references themselves.
Examiner has specifically cited teachings in Peijister that support the motivation, and applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the motivation discussed in the rejection (correction of positional errors) is hindsight reasoning.
Applicant argues that the alleged module of Zeidler is integrated with the vacuum door structure itself, not disclosed as a stand-alone flange-mounted service module as claimed.
The vacuum door IS the module flange, as discussed at length above and in every Office action since applicant first presented this argument in the remarks filed on September 17th, 2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights