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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/19/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
The remarks argue that the rejection improperly reads “multiple, structurally and functionally distinct lens arrays as collectively meeting the claimed” control lens array and objective lens array. However, the term “lens array” is broad enough on configurations comprising multiple lenses in series, not just lenses in parallel. Fig 14 of the applicant’s specification shows lens arrays comprising multiple electrode stacks. It is suggested the clarifying the structure of the lenses may help distinguish from the prior art configurations.
Additionally, it is noted that “a focal length associated with the control lenses” may be sufficiently broad to read on any of the focal lengths for any of the individual control lenses in the control lens array (e.g. in Sano, 111, 113, 119, etc). It is unclear what the focal lengths of these upstream lenses are, relative to the focal length of 119.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-16, 18-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-16, 18-20 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) 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20120295202 A1) in view of Platzgummer (US 20080099693 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
1666
1142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Control lens array)][AltContent: textbox (Objective lens array)][AltContent: textbox (Sano (cropped and annotated))]
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches an objective lens array assembly for an electron-optical system of a charged- particle assessment tool, the objective lens array assembly being configured to focus a multi- beam on a sample and comprising:
an objective lens array (see fig 1: between e.g. 118 and 124) comprising a plurality of plates (e.g. 126, 133) in each of which are defined a plurality of apertures (see around 129, 134), each objective lens being configured to project a respective sub-beam of the multi-beam onto the sample (see 137);
a control lens array (see e.g. between 109 and 117) associated with the objective lens array (see fig 1) and positioned up-beam of the objective lens array (see fig 1), the control lenses being configured to pre-focus the sub-beams (see fig 1), wherein a focal length associated with the control lenses is larger than a separation between the control lens array and the objective lens array (see fig 1, natural result of focal length being between the centers of the lenses e.g. 113, 119, and the distance between them being less than that due to thickness of the lenses, and/or by constructively defining 117 as part of a lens stack); and
wherein
Sano may fail to explicitly disclose a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample; the objective lens array being electrostatic.
However, Platzgummer teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens array being electrostatic. However, the selection of electrostatic or magnetic lenses would have been a routine skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches that particle optical systems may be constructed with either electrostatic or electromagnetic lenses (see Platzgummer, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of electrostatic lenses as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches a beam shaping limiter (e.g. Sano, fig 1: 126 or 133) down- beam of at least one electrode of the control lens array (see fig 1), the beam shaping limiter defining an array of beam-limiting apertures (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches an upper beam limiter (see e.g. Sano, fig 1: 109 or 117) up-beam from the beam shaping limiter (see 126 or 133), wherein the upper beam limiter defines beam-limiting apertures that are larger than beam-limiting apertures of the beam shaping limiter (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches at least portion of the detector being adjacent to and/or integrated with the objective lens array (see Platzgummer, fig 1: 15).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches each control lens comprises at least two electrodes (see e.g. Sano, fig 1: 111, 113).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches each objective lens comprises at least two electrodes (see e.g. Sano, fig 1: 124, 136).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches a scan-deflector array (see Sano, fig 1: 132), each scan- deflector configured to scan a respective sub-beam over the sample (see fig 1, [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches a collimator element array (see e.g. Sano, fig 1: 117), wherein each collimator element is configured to collimate a respective sub-beam (see fig 1), the collimator element array being between the objective lens array (see fig 1) and upper beam limiter (see e.g. 109).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches the control lens array is configured to act as an additional electrode of the objective lens array for enabling additional functionality of the respective objective lenses of the objective lens array (naturally controls beams entering objective lens, can be defined as part of the object lens, and enables additional functionality such as improved beam control).
Regarding claim 11, Sano teaches an objective lens array assembly for an electron-optical system of a charged- particle assessment tool, the objective lens array assembly being configured to focus a multi- beam on a sample and comprising
a series of electron-optical elements (see fig 1) arranged as aperture arrays along the path of the multi-beam (see fig 1), the electron optical elements comprising:
an objective lens array (see fig 1: between e.g. 118 and 124), each objective lens being configured to project a respective sub-beam of the multi-beam onto the sample (see 137); and
a control lens array (see e.g. between 109 and 117) associated with the objective lens array (see fig 1) and positioned up-beam of the objective lens array (see fig 1), the control lenses being configured to pre-focus the sub-beams (see fig 1), wherein a focal length associated with the control lenses is larger than a separation between the control lens array and the objective lens array (see fig 1, natural result of focal length being between the centers of the lenses e.g. 113, 119, and the distance between them being less than that due to thickness of the lenses, and/or by constructively defining 117 as part of a lens stack); and
wherein
Sano may fail to explicitly disclose a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample; the objective lens array being electrostatic.
However, Platzgummer teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens array being electrostatic. However, the selection of electrostatic or magnetic lenses would have been a routine skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches that particle optical systems may be constructed with either electrostatic or electromagnetic lenses (see Platzgummer, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of electrostatic lenses as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches aperture arrays comprise a plurality of electrodes in which of which are defined a plurality of apertures (see e.g. Sano, fig 1: 136, 111, etc).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches a source (see Sano, fig 1: 107) for providing a beam of charged particles (see fig 1); and the objective lens array assembly of claim 1 (see claim 1), wherein the multi-beam is derived from the beam provided by the source (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches a collimator (see e.g. Sano, fig 1: 117 or 109) up-beam of the objective lens array assembly (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose a macro scan deflector configured to apply a macroscopic deflection to a beam to cause sub-beams to be scanned over the sample. However, Platzgummer teaches using macro scan deflectors to better control small lateral shifts to an entire image (see Platzgummer, [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of additional macro deflection in the manner taught by Platzgummer, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve control over the system, including enabling the ability to provide tiny lateral shifts to an entire image.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches the control lens array is the first deflecting and/or focusing electron-optical array element in the beam path down-beam of the source (see Sano, fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose plurality of the electron-optical systems of claim 13, wherein: the electron-optical systems are configured to focus respective multi-beams simultaneously onto different regions of the same sample. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to duplicate the columns as a routine skill in the art to expose a large sample. Further, the use of parallel exposure was well known in the art (see e.g. Platzgummer, fig 9). It is noted that it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Sano teaches a method of focusing a multi-beam of charged particles onto a sample, comprising:
providing an objective lens array assembly (see fig 1) comprising an objective lens array (see fig 1: between e.g. 118 and 124) a control lens array (see e.g. between 109 and 117)
using the control lens array to pre-focus sub-beams of the multi-beam (see fig 1);
using the objective lens array to project the pre-focused sub-beams onto the sample (see 137); and
Sano may fail to explicitly disclose a detector; using the detector to detect charged particles emitted from the sample; the objective lens array being electrostatic.
However, Platzgummer teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens array being electrostatic. However, the selection of electrostatic or magnetic lenses would have been a routine skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches that particle optical systems may be constructed with either electrostatic or electromagnetic lenses (see Platzgummer, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of electrostatic lenses as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Sano and Platzgummer teaches the detector is within the objective lens array assembly (see Sano, fig 1, Platzgummer, fig 1).
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20150037731 A1) [hereinafter Sano II] in view of Platzgummer (US 20080099693 A1).
PNG
media_image4.png
1027
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Control lens array)][AltContent: textbox (Objective lens array)][AltContent: textbox (Sano II (fig 3) (cropped and annotated))]
Regarding claim 1, Sano II teaches an objective lens array assembly for an electron-optical system of a charged- particle assessment tool, the objective lens array assembly being configured to focus a multi- beam on a sample and comprising:
an objective lens array (see fig 3: e.g. 124) comprising a plurality of plates (see fig 3) in each of which are defined a plurality of apertures (see fig 3), each objective lens being configured to project a respective sub-beam of the multi-beam onto the sample (see 126);
a control lens array (see e.g. 109) associated with the objective lens array (see fig 1) and positioned up-beam of the objective lens array (see fig 1), the control lenses being configured to pre-focus the sub-beams (see fig 1), wherein a focal length associated with the control lenses (infinite) is larger than a separation between the control lens array and the objective lens array (see fig 3); and
wherein
Sano II may fail to explicitly disclose a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample; the objective lens array being electrostatic.
However, Platzgummer teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens array being electrostatic. However, the selection of electrostatic or magnetic lenses would have been a routine skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches that particle optical systems may be constructed with either electrostatic or electromagnetic lenses (see Platzgummer, [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of electrostatic lenses as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Sano II and Platzgummer teaches a scan-deflector array (see Sano II, fig 3: e.g. 121), each scan- deflector configured to scan a respective sub-beam over the sample (see fig 3, [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Sano II and Platzgummer teaches the scan-deflector array (see Sano II, fig 3: 121) is between the objective lens array and the control lens array (see fig 3).
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