DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/26 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 15 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer et al. (US 20090159810 A1) [hereinafter Knippelmeyer].
Regarding claim 1, Knippelmeyer teaches a lens for a charged particle beam apparatus, the lens having lens components comprising:
a first magnetic lens (see fig 2: around e.g. 127) having an upper pole piece and a middle pole piece (see annotated drawing);
a second magnetic lens (see around e.g. 171) having the middle pole piece and a lower pole piece (see annotated drawing);
a first coil (see e.g. 127) arranged in the first magnetic lens and to provide a first magnetic field between the upper pole piece and the middle pole piece (see fig 2);
a second coil (see e.g. 171) arranged in the second magnetic lens and to provide a second magnetic field between the middle pole piece and the lower pole piece (see fig 2); and
an electrostatic lens (see e.g. [0162]) having an upper electrode (e.g. 152, [0127]) and a lower electrode (see e.g. figs 2,4: 144; alternately see fig 2: 7,121),
wherein at least one of a first inner diameter defined by the upper pole piece and a second inner diameter defined by the middle pole piece is larger than a third inner diameter of the lower pole piece (see figs 2,4; e.g. [0091,139,148]);
wherein the lower pole piece has a first portion (see e.g. portion around reference arrow 164) and a second portion (portion around reference arrow 126) spaced apart from the first portion (see fig 2), and wherein the lower electrode of the electrostatic lens is provided by the second portion (see 144, fig 4);
wherein a gap is provided between the first portion and the second portion (see fig 2);
wherein a magnetic flux can be provided from the first portion to the second portion (see fig 2);
the second coil arranged in the second magnetic lens (see fig 2) to provide the second magnetic field between the middle pole piece and the second portion (natural result of operating coil).
Knippelmeyer may fail to explicitly disclose the lower pole piece has a first portion and a second portion spaced [completely] apart from the first portion. However, complete separation of the lower pole piece into entirely disconnected/separate units is not claimed, and it is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the portions (read as the separated tip portions of the lowermost pole piece section (125, 163) (note Knippelmeyer describes these are separate pole pieces, but the drawings show them connected), would have taught the claim limitation of portions spaced apart from each other. Furthermore, it is noted that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
PNG
media_image2.png
1030
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Upper pole piece)][AltContent: textbox (Lower pole piece)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Middle pole piece)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (1st magnetic lens)][AltContent: textbox (2nd magnetic lens)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (2nd portion)][AltContent: textbox (1st portion)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (1st coil)][AltContent: textbox (2nd coil)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (upper electrode)][AltContent: textbox (lower electrode (144))][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Knippelmeyer, Fig. 2 (annotated))]
Regarding claim 2, Knippelmeyer may fail to explicitly disclose at least one of the first inner diameter and the second inner diameter is at least 3 times larger than the third inner diameter. However, Knippelmeyer teaches various examples of dimensions, including wherein a first inner diameter and the second inner diameter (see portion with 41 mm diameter, Knippelmeyer, [0139]) is at least 3 times larger than the third inner diameter (see approximately 20-4-4mm=12mm, [0150]), as well as teaching that the distances and diameters are adjustable based on a desired field applied to the sample (see [0132]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to determine workable diameters, including those matching the claimed inequality. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Knippelmeyer teaches a first power supply (required for intended operation of system, see generally Knippelmeyer, [0129]) connected to the first coil (see fig 2) and configured to provide a first current to the first coil; and a second power supply (see 169) connected to the second coil (see fig 2) configured to provide a second current to the second coil, the second current being independent from the first current (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Knippelmeyer teaches one or more voltage supplies (required for intended operation of electrostatic lens, see e.g. Knippelmeyer, 153, [0151], etc) connected to at least one of the upper electrode and the lower electrode of the electrostatic lens (see fig 2) and configured to provide a retarding field for a primary charged particle beam between the upper electrode and the lower electrode of the electrostatic lens and an accelerating field for the signal charged particle beam (see [0167]).
Regarding claim 6, Knippelmeyer teaches a fourth inner diameter of the upper electrode (see e.g. defining as innermost diameter of 130) is smaller than the first inner diameter (see e.g. defining as regions around 127, 124’, 124).
Regarding claim 7, Knippelmeyer teaches a stage (some kind of stage or support required for intended operation of holding sample 7 in place in object plane, see Knippelmeyer, fig 2, [0101]) configured to support a sample (see 7); a charged particle beam source (see fig 1: 301) adapted to generate a charged particle beam (see fig 1); a lens according to claim 1 (see fig 1); and a detector (see 203) configured to detect signal particles generated upon impingement of the charged particle beam on the sample (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Knippelmeyer teaches the stage is configured to support a sample (see Knippelmeyer, fig 2: 7) at a position such that said lens is situated between the charged particle beam source and the sample (see fig 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Knippelmeyer teaches a method of focusing a charged particle beam with a lens having lens components on a sample (see fig 2: 7), comprising:
providing a first current to a first magnetic lens (see fig 2: around e.g. 127);
providing a second current to a second magnetic lens (see around e.g. 171), wherein the first magnetic lens and the second magnet lens have one common pole piece (see annotated fig 2, some common portion); and
providing a voltage to a lower electrode of an electrostatic lens (see e.g. figs 2,4: 144; alternately see fig 2: 7,121) to decelerate the charged particle beam (natural result of applied voltages, see [0128,130]), wherein the lower electrode is a portion of a lower pole piece of the lens (see fig 2);
wherein the lower pole piece has a first portion (see e.g. portion around reference arrow 164) and a second portion (portion around reference arrow 126) spaced apart from the first portion (see fig 2), and wherein the lower electrode of the electrostatic lens is provided by the second portion (see 144, fig 4);
wherein a gap is provided between the first portion and the second portion (see fig 2);
wherein a magnetic flux can be provided from the first portion to the second portion (see fig 2);
the second coil arranged in the second magnetic lens (see fig 2) to provide the second magnetic field between the middle pole piece and the second portion (natural result of operating coil).
Knippelmeyer may fail to explicitly disclose the lower pole piece has a first portion and a second portion spaced [completely] apart from the first portion. However, complete separation of the lower pole piece into entirely disconnected/separate units is not claimed, and it is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the portions (read as the separated tip portions of the lowermost pole piece section (125, 163) (note Knippelmeyer describes these are separate pole pieces, but the drawings show them connected), would have taught the claim limitation of portions spaced apart from each other. Furthermore, it is noted that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US20140070098A1, US20200090903A1 show lenses with multiple magnetic coils, yokes, and electrostatic immersion lenses similar to the invention as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights