DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on January 8th, 2025. 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 .
Status of 112(f) Interpretations
Applicant has repeated denied 112(f) interpretation, but in the remarks filed on September 12th, 2025, applicant argues that examiner should refer to the specification to find the relevant structures, which is what 112(f) interpretation allows. Applicant has again denied 112(f) interpretation, arguing that the standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in to have definite meaning, which examiner has said on multiple occasions is not true for any of the relevant limitations, and applicant has never provided any evidence, argument, or line of reasoning for why any of the relevant terms would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in to have definite meaning, nor have applicant’s ever stated what definite meaning they believe the terms have, only pointing to the specification to show the structures.
Applicant has never disagreed with the specific structures examiner correlates with the terms, and never states that the structures examiner points to the prior art do not correlate with the relevant terms. Therefore, it seems the disagreement is not on interpretation but whether that interpretation is based on the legal principle of 112(f). Examiner continues to hold that the interpretation is 112(f) interpretation because she is referring to the specification to find the structures that perform the claimed function, but does not see that arguing the point helps move the prosecution forward, therefore she now lists the exact same interpretations below without reference to 112(f) specifically. If applicant has arguments with the interpretations themselves, rather than the legal principle behind them, it is hoped this will bring the issue into relief.
Interpretation of the Term “Field Replaceable” – Examiner’s Interpretation
The following is examiner’s previously recited 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 “Field Replaceable” – Applicant’s Interpretation
In their arguments, applicant states they disagree with examiner’s interpretation. They state that “field-replaceable” means the component may be easily removed and replaced efficiently so there is little downtime of the tool, and the mechanical process is as simple as possible. Examiner agrees with this interpretation, but disagrees that it is substantially different from examiner’s own interpretation. Not needing to dismantle the apparatus means there will be little downtime, since the only downtime needed is for removing and replacing the single component. It also requires the fewest steps, since no steps involving other components are required.
The only difference between applicant’s interpretation and examiner’s is that applicant focuses on aspects that are harder to quantify. How much downtime is “little” downtime? How many steps in the process are few enough to be “simple” and “easy”? Examiner focuses on the mechanical ease of removal and replacement without dismantling because this is much easier to quantify. Either other portions of the apparatus must be dismantled, or they don’t. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are clear. Unless applicant can point to specific disclosures in the specification of what constitutes “little” downtime and “easy” removal, examiner sees no alternative but to assume that “little” downtime and “easy” removal is meant to refer to a removal and replacement process without need to remove, dismantle, or replace any other elements of the apparatus, since this is the only quantifiable measure of easiness, simplicity, and efficiency that applicant’s disclosure mentions. Hence, the two interpretations are functionally identical.
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 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 1-14, 17-19, 24-25, and 27 corresponds to a disc and 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 a disc and 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the support positioning system is configured to be moved by the actuators.” It is unclear how the support positioning system must be configured to allow for movement by the actuators. To the extent anything would need to be configured for this it would be the actuators that would need to be configured, not the support positioning system. Applicant appears to be claiming a desired result and not an actual configuration of a support positioning system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2011/0174985 (Peijster).
As per MPEP, When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980) a rejection under U.S.C. 102/103 is appropriate.
Regarding claim 20, Peijster discloses a method of aligning a charged particle-optical device with a plurality of charged particle beams within a charged particle apparatus, the method comprising:
securing a module comprising a charged particle-optical device to a charged particle apparatus to thereby install the charged particle-optical device in the charged particle apparatus (‘Projector 5 has supports 26, 28 and 30 that are stiff in the Z-direction and positioned in a statically determined arrangement, for example a triangular arrangement as illustrated in the first embodiment, thus fixating the lens in the Z, Rx and Ry directions relative to the metro frame 6. Three other supports 27, 29 and 31, so called "flexible mounts", in fact elastically deformable designed, fixate projector 5 in the XY plane whilst allowing the lens to rotate around the centre of the lens,’ P 74);
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 (‘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); and
applying an adjustment to the plurality of charged particle beam paths, within the charged particle apparatus (‘Projector 5 focuses the non-deflected beamlets 22 and deflects the non-deflected beamlets in a writing direction on the target 9 thus realizing a final projection.’ P 72).
Peijster does not specifically state that the module is field replaceable, i.e. that it can be removed and replaced without dismantling the charged particle apparatus. However, the module is secured to a metrology frame outside the main electron beam column (it is fixed to frame 6, not inside column 4, see figure 1). As such it can be removed and remounted on the metrology frame without opening the main charged particle beam column (element 4). Therefore, there exists a basis in fact to reasonably support the determination that the characteristic of “field replaceability” is inherent in the module of Peijster. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the module field replaceable so that the module could be more easily replaced in the case of damage.
As per MPEP 2112, once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. [T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted).
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, 15-19, 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);
a support arrangement configured to support the charged particle-optical device (fig. 1, element 85); 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 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 module for supporting a charged particle-optical device configured to manipulate charged particle paths in a charged particle apparatus including 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 beam charged particle beam paths so as to substantially align the device with the plurality of charged particle beam paths (fig. 4-7). 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 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 (‘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 (‘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 (fig. 4, element 5A, shown but unlabeled in other embodiments).
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 (element 5, carrier frame); and a plurality of load bearing rotatable objects configured to support the disc within the module (fig. 4-5, elements 26, 28, 30).
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 (fig. 4-6, elements 31, 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 (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); and
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.
Peijster et al. discloses module for supporting a charged particle-optical device configured to manipulate charged particle paths in a charged particle apparatus, wherein a rotation of the support arrangement 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 (‘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).
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 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 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 is configured to be moved by the actuators (‘The present embodiment allows the three piezo actuators to move the lens in the XY-plane, as well as rotating the lens around the Z-axis. In this configuration projector 5 has 3 degrees of freedom.’ P 76).
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 filed January 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 20 as anticipated, or, in the alternative, as obvious over Pejister, applicant argues that Pejister is not field replaceable because the projector 5 “is permanently fixated to the metro frame 6 through multiple supports and flexible mounts, making it an integrated component”.
Something that is mounted is, by definition, not integral. The projector is clearly fixed through mounts, both flexible mounts and actuated mounts, that are separate components and can detached.
Regarding the rejections of 1-5, 8, 11, 17-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27 over Zeidler in view of Pejister, applicant argues that Zeidler is not field replaceable because the multi-plate aperture is permanently fixed to the vacuum enclosure door. Applicant makes several observations about the attachment, none of which appear relevant to the field replaceability.
The vacuum door (element 99) is the equivalent to applicant’s module flange. That examiner is equated this door with the module flange is exceedingly clear in the rejection. See
“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).”
The module flange is defined as a projection permanently attached to the main body of the module (see examiner’s interpretation above). Examiner is unsure why applicant keeps returning to this theme, despite examiner clearly stating the interpretation in the last several office actions and applicant never challenging it. That the vacuum door (module flange) is pulled into the vacuum box with the module does not speak against it meeting any of the claim limitations, it is in fact a clear indication that the vacuum door 99 does in fact meet the limitation to a module flange. Why applicant believes the module flange should not be removed with the rest of the module is a real mystery to examiner. Certainly, applicant never suggests that their module flange isn’t removed with the module. Here is a figure of applicant’s own module partially removed, the module flange is very clearly attached to the module and being removed with it;
PNG
media_image1.png
608
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s invention also removes the module flange with the module. Both Ziedler and applicant remove and replace the module by pulling it out with the module flange and then replacing the module (with its attached flange) by sliding a replacement module (with flange) through the opening in the housing. There is no discernable difference in the process. The module flange stays attached to the rest of the module during removal and replacement, and the removal and replacement is easier, simpler, quicker, and more efficient because the vacuum door stays attached, since it means there is no need to disassembly the module into components (main body and flange) and reassemble. Hence, this is evidence for field replaceability being present in Zeidler, not against.
Regarding the rejections of 1-5, 8, 11, 17-19, 21, 24-25, and 27 over Zeidler in view of Pejister, applicant argues that Zeidler is not field replaceable because the removal process “involves substantial disassembly of the charged particle apparatus”.
Applicant never points out any elements that would need to be disassembled. By their own admission, the module main body, flange (vacuum door 99), and charged particle-optical device are all pulled into the transfer box together. Applicant even makes a point of saying they stay attached together, they are not disassembled. The module is slid, whole, into a transfer box, and the replacement process is just sliding the module, whole, out of the transfer box. Nothing else occurs. Not a single piece is disassembled.
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