DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Election restriction
The restriction requirement was held final in the last office action. The additional comments are not persuasive. The remarks take the position that examples of figure 1 and 4A do not preclude the use of a gas feed, the convex construction of claim 9, the beam guiding element in 17-18, shielding element and detecting unit in claims 19 shielding element in claim 20 and plurality of shielding elements in claim 21.
Specifically, the remarks argue that figures 1 and 4A does not show a gas feed does not mean that it cannot include a gas feed. This has not been found persuasive. The construction of implementing different types of a gas feeds such as disclosed in various embodiments would require a reconstruction of the “providing unit” and/or shield of figure 1, as evident by the fact that Dowsett applied herein below does not use one and it would be unclear as to how the structure would be modified to place a gas feed in the provider of Dowsett.
With respect to claim 9, the remarks not persuasive. Specifically, figure 15 is a diagram for explaining the term convex ([0203]). In order for a connecting straight line that connects two points on a surface of the convex section of the shielding element runs outside of the shielding element for any combination of two points on the surface of the convex section, the lens would be strictly convex. Paragraph [0203] teaches that strictly convex in accordance with the mathematical definition. Convex is defined as “curved like a circle or sphere when viewed from without”1. The definition discussed of figure 15 and claim 9 would be a strictly convex shape because it would only exist for a circular or spherical shape. This is different from the other various embodiments such as a paraboloid or cone (figures 14C, [0199] or figure 14D, [0200]). For instance, a cone has many points that would not be outside of the shielding element (i.e. two points along the cone wall) and a paraboloid may have points that would not be outside the shielding element, thus the strictly convex is mutually exclusive from the convex portion of figure 1 which does not appear to be strictly convex or disclosed to be strictly convex and thus mutually exclusive.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, figure 1 does not require a beam guiding element and would require reconstruction to include one, specifically, paragraph [0181] of the published application provides the mutually exclusive characteristics of the beam guiding element as an energy filter making it possible to discriminate between secondary electrons and backscattered electrons. Cleary, this provides for a specific application of the device that is not covered by the generic device of figure 1 which reads on ion beam devices such as Dorsett below which would do not require such energy filtering.
With respect to claim 19, the same rationale applies.
Claim 20 is directed towards an entirely different shielding element, i.e. one of a plurality of sections instead of an integral construction, this is unquestionably mutually exclusive because it is an entirely different shield.
With respect to claim 20, the same rationale applies.
Please note, if the applicant would like to provide an admission that each of these mutually exclusive characteristics would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and thus reduce the burden of search and examination, the restriction will be withdrawn. Specifically, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Objections to the specification
By amendment the objection has been overcome and is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b):
By amendment the rejection has been overcome and is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102: Dowsett
The remarks take the position that the aperture mask does not cover the opening of the primary ion source 4. This has not been found persuasive. As illustrated in the annotated figure below, the double sided arrow clearly shows the opening of 4 covered by the mask 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That is, the claim does not require which direction the opening is covered, therefore provided the opening is covered (i.e. in the vertical direction indicated by the double sided arrow above), the limitation is met. This is consistent with the instant specification because figure 1 of the instant drawings shows the opening 114 is only partially covered by the shield convex portion 117 which has an opening 118 to allow passage of the electron beam 112. In the same manner, the mask and shield 3/3a/3b of Dowsett covers the opening of 4 to allow for passage of the ion beam.
The remarks continue by arguing that the mask 3 of Dowsett contacts the specimen 1 and does not cover the opening of the primary ion source 4. This has not been found persuasive, there is no requirement that the shield be in contact with the primary ion source or the opening, only that it in some way covers the opening. As clearly seen above, the mask covers the opening.
Additionally, the remarks take the position that Dowsett is not at a distance from the sample at most of 500 microns. This has not been found persuasive. The claim requires “the shielding element is at a distance from the sample at most of 500 microns”. The claim has no lower limit, thus does not preclude the shield being in contact with the sample. Being in contact with the sample is a 0 distance from the sample thus less than 500 microns. Indeed, this interpretation is supported in the applicant’s specification which envisioned the shield as in contact with the sample (see paragraph [0047] of the published application “the sample is contacted with the shielding element” and paragraph [0190]), that is a distance less than 500 microns from the sample or (a zero distance).
It should be noted that the providing unit is interpreted to be both of 4 and 3 and there is no requirement that the opening be in contact with the shielding element.
Lastly, solely to advance prosecution, it is noted that the providing unit is only defined by the opening and the shielding element. Therefore, mask 3 may be interpreted as the providing unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dowsett (USPN 6,080,986) (first interpretation).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dowsett (USPN 6,080,986) (second interpretation, only applied to advance prosecution, the first interpretation is sufficient to anticipate the claims).
Regarding claim 1, Dowsett teaches an apparatus (fig. 1a and figure 2) for analyzing and/or processing a sample with a particle beam, the sample being a lithography mask (intended use), comprising:
a sample stage (2) for holding the sample (stage 2 suitable to hold sample 1);
a providing unit (4/3) for providing the particle beam (4a) comprising:
an opening (opening from 4) for guiding the particle beam to a processing position on the sample (as indicated by arrow to position on sample 1); and
a shielding element (3) for shielding an electric field generated by charges accumulated on the sample (col. 2, lines 25-35 teaches the mask shields any changes to the electric field of specimen from the secondary ion optics (thus suitable for shielding electric field generated by charges accumulated on the sample) and col. 3, lines 18-21 teaches via contact device 3b (see figure 2), a continuous balance in the electrical potential between the mask 3 and the wafer such that electrical charging of the wafer can be prevented (i.e. shielding an electric field generated by charges accumulated on the sample by balancing the electrical potential));
wherein the shielding element covers the opening, is embodied in sheetlike fashion and comprises an electrically conductive material (see annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
851
994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the shielding element comprises a convex section (fig. 2, 3B has a convex shape), this section being convex relative to the sample stage and being curved toward the sample stage (3B is shown curved in the direction of the stage supporting sample 1. Col. 3, lines 22-23 recites “of course the contact device 3B may have a form different from that as shown in figure 2”, suggesting that the shield may have form of figure 2 (i.e. including the shown curve).);
PNG
media_image3.png
771
1206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the convex section has a through opening for the particle beam to pass through to the sample (opening in 3B);
and wherein the apparatus is configured such that the convex section of the shielding element is at a distance from the sample of at most 500 pm during an analysis or processing of the sample with the particle beam (in contact with sample surface 1).
Alternatively, Regarding claim 1, Dowsett teaches an apparatus (fig. 1a and figure 2) for analyzing and/or processing a sample with a particle beam, the sample being a lithography mask (intended use), comprising:
a sample stage (2) for holding the sample (stage 2 suitable to hold sample 1);
a providing unit (3) for providing the particle beam (4a via opening 3a) comprising:
an opening for guiding the particle beam to a processing position on the sample (see annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image4.png
506
1268
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
a shielding element (3b) for shielding an electric field generated by charges accumulated on the sample (col. 2, lines 25-35 teaches the mask shields any changes to the electric field of specimen from the secondary ion optics (thus suitable for shielding electric field generated by charges accumulated on the sample) and col. 3, lines 18-21 teaches via contact device 3b (see figure 2), a continuous balance in the electrical potential between the mask 3 and the wafer such that electrical charging of the wafer can be prevented (i.e. shielding an electric field generated by charges accumulated on the sample by balancing the electrical potential));
wherein the shielding element covers the opening, is embodied in sheetlike fashion and comprises an electrically conductive material (see annotated figure below, note as in the instant specification not the entire opening is covered such that the charged particle beam may pass through);
PNG
media_image5.png
582
1291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the shielding element comprises a convex section (fig. 2, 3B has a convex shape), this section being convex relative to the sample stage and being curved toward the sample stage (3B is shown curved in the direction of the stage supporting sample 1. Col. 3, lines 22-23 recites “of course the contact device 3B may have a form different from that as shown in figure 2”, suggesting that the shield may have form of figure 2 (i.e. including the shown curve).);
PNG
media_image3.png
771
1206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the convex section has a through opening for the particle beam to pass through to the sample (opening in 3B);
and wherein the apparatus is configured such that the convex section of the shielding element is at a distance from the sample of at most 500 pm during an analysis or processing of the sample with the particle beam (in contact with sample surface 1).
Regarding claim 5, Dowsett teaches wherein the through opening comprises the point of a smallest distance between the shielding element and the sample stage (fig. 2, opening in 3b in contact with sample 1 thus smallest distance between 3B and stage).
Regarding claim 6, Dowsett teaches wherein the shielding element comprises a planar section (3a), from which the convex section extends in the direction of the sample stage (3b extends in the direction of the stage).
Regarding claim 7, Dowsett teaches wherein the convex section is embodied in funnel- shaped fashion, in particular with a circular cross section (figure 2 shows 3b having narrowing diameters towards the sample thus funnel shaped).
Regarding claim 11, Dowsett teaches wherein the shielding element has exactly one through opening (only one opening in 3b).
Regarding claim 22, Dowsett teaches a combination of an apparatus of claim 1 and a sample, the sample being a lithography mask (lithography masks existed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention therefore the device existed on earth in combination with a lithography mask, see as evidence Edigner et al. (US pgPub 2005/0230621) [0050]).
Regarding claim 23, Dowsett teaches a method (inherent to the apparatus of claim 1), for analyzing and/or processing a sample with a particle beam by use of an apparatus of Claim 1 the sample being a lithography mask (intended use), the method comprising the following steps: arranging the sample on the sample stage (1 on sample stage 2); providing the particle beam (4a); and radiating the particle beam through the through opening onto the processing position on the sample (as indicated by arrow in figure 1 from 4 to 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koike et al. (US pgPub 2007/0246651) teaches a shield 110 (charge protective member) between an objective lens and a specimen (see abstract).
Feuerbaum (US pgPub 2007/0262255) teaches a shielding element 115 for protecting the focusing field of a CPB column.
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Convex. (2017). In S. Butler (Ed.), The Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed.). Macquarie Dictionary Publishers. Infobase. https://access.infobase.com/article/2170078-convex?aid=279753.
Prosecution Insights