DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, sub-species (i) in the reply filed on 11 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each group and subspecies is a modification. This is not found persuasive because each “modified” group or sub-species requires mutually exclusive characteristics, as readily admitted in the applicant’s response (see pages 1-5). As discussed in the restriction requirement of 17 February 2026 these characteristics would raise undue search burden by requiring different fields of search such as keywords to cover the various number of aperture arrangements, shapes of the shield, the presence of gas suppl(ies), the various applications of voltages sources, etc…. As evident to the applied art below, additional references and search would have been required to cover the mutually exclusive characteristics.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Lastly, the remarks indicate that all claims 1-23 read on the elected species Group I (fig. 1), sub-species (i) (fig. 4a). This is not accurate. Figure 1 does not use a gas source (claims 2-4 are therefore treated as non-elected), figures 1/4a does not teach the shape or layered surface required by claims 8-10, figures 1/4a does not require the openings/webs of claims 12-16, figures 1/4a do not teach the beam guiding element of claims 17-18, figures 1/4a do not teach the electrically insulated shielding element and detection unit of claim 19, nor the sectional shielding element of claim 20-21 (see further discussion in the restriction requirement).
Since group I, sub-species (i) has been elected only claims 1, 5-7, 11 and 22-23 are considered for examination. Claims 2-4, 8-10 and 12-21 are considered non-elected.
The applicant should note that, when the application is in condition for allowance the non-elected inventions will be eligible for rejoinder as discussed in MPEP 821.04.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11 and 22-23 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 1 is vague and indefinite for reciting “a convex section…being curved in the direction of the sample stage”. Initially, “the direction of the sample stage” lacks antecedent basis. Moreover, it is not clear whether the direction is the direction of the charged particle beam towards the stage or if the claim is referring to some dimensional direction of the stage. No unambiguous determination can be made.
Claim 22 is vague and indefinite for requiring “a sample” because claim 1 already defines “a sample”. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed sample of claim 22 is the same or different from the defined sample of claim 1.
Claims 5-7, 11 and 22-23 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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).
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_image1.png
851
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the shielding element comprises a convex section (fig. 2, 3B has a convex shape), this section being convex in relation to the sample stage and being curved in the direction of 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_image2.png
771
1206
media_image2.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.
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
Prosecution Insights