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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 11-13, in the reply filed on 9/16/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “such that the beam is deflected for scanning in the scanning direction multiple times in order from the closest to the retraction position of the beam” but it is unclear what the order is referring to be to, from the closest to the retraction position of the beam.
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_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biberger et al. (US 20160181058 A1) [hereinafter Biberger].
Regarding claim 1, Biberger teaches a charged particle beam device comprising:
a first deflector (required for operation of system, see e.g. first deflection element, [0010]) configured to scan a region of interest (e.g. center portion of e.g. fig 5: RZ11) with a beam emitted from a beam source (see fig 2: 3);
a second deflector (see e.g. second deflection element, [0010]) configured to retract the beam to outside of the region of interest after scanning the region of interest with the beam (outside of the region of interest, see fig 5: on RZ11; alternately referring to other RZ numbers); and
one or more computer systems including one or more processors (required for operation of system, see [0047]) configured to execute a program stored in a storage medium,
wherein the one or more computer systems
(i) determine a retraction direction or a retraction position of the beam (note selection of subsequent positions, see [0008,79], requiring determination of the new scanning and retraction positions and directions of the beam e.g. between RZ lines, between RB scans, alternately implicit in determining scanning directions, or simply re-centering (retracting with or without blanking) the beam between scans as well known in the art) or (ii) output characteristic information regarding the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam based on a scanning direction of the beam in the region of interest.
Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose the first and second deflectors being utilized in the preferred embodiment (e.g. fig 5). However, some form of deflectors or beam control would have been required for the intended operation of the system, and 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 the known effective deflector pair system to enable the desired 2D control of the beam, in the manner taught by Biberger.
Regarding claim 2, Biberger teaches wherein the one or more computer systems determine the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam (required for operation of system, as discussed in claim 1) to prevent the beam from crossing a non- scanning region in the region of interest during the retraction of the beam (active beam spot not being scanned e.g. between rows in Biberger, fig 5; alternately defining the non-scanning region as one of the outer sides of fig 5: RB1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Biberger teaches wherein the one or more computer systems determine the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam (required for operation of system, as discussed in claim 1) such that a region other than a non-scanning region (e.g. defining as another region not a non-scanning region) in the region of interest is irradiated with the beam during the retraction of the beam (e.g. during another row or RB where the beam is relatively retracted compared to a previous RB). Alternately it is noted that
Regarding claim 4, Biberger teaches wherein the one or more computer systems control the second deflector such that the beam passes outside of the region of interest from the retraction position (e.g. to a subsequent region of interest, see Biberger, fig 5), is moved to a release position (in a different region), and is moved from the release position to a start position of next scanning (in a different region for subsequent scanning).
Regarding claim 5, Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computer systems control the first deflector such that the beam is deflected for scanning in the scanning direction multiple times in order from the closest to the retraction position of the beam. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select a scanning order from whatever retraction position is determined/defined/selected, and/or constructively define the retracted position as that position furthest or closest from the scan line progression.
Regarding claim 11, Biberger teaches a charged particle beam device comprising:
a first deflector (required for operation of system, see e.g. first deflection element, [0010]) configured to scan a region of interest (e.g. center portion of e.g. fig 5: RZ11) with a beam emitted from a beam source (see fig 2: 3);
a second deflector (see e.g. second deflection element, [0010]) configured to retract the beam to outside of the region of interest after scanning the region of interest with the beam (outside of the region of interest, see fig 5: on RZ11; alternately referring to other RZ numbers); and
one or more computer systems including one or more processors (required for operation of system, see [0047]) configured to execute a program stored in a storage medium,
wherein the one or more computer systems
(i) determine a retraction direction or a retraction position of the beam (note selection of subsequent positions, see [0008,79], requiring determination of the new scanning and retraction positions and directions of the beam e.g. between RZ lines, between RB scans, alternately implicit in determining scanning directions, or simply re-centering (retracting with or without blanking) the beam between scans as well known in the art) in the process of scanning a previous irradiation region that is scanned before the region of interest (during e.g. change of direction time, see [0018]; alternately note obviousness of performing subsequent exposures on different regions, and note obviousness of performing parallel unrelated calculations to save time) or (ii) output characteristic information regarding the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam in the process of scanning the previous irradiation region based on first information regarding a position of the region of interest or an irradiation position of the region of interest with the beam and second information regarding a position of the previous irradiation region.
Biberger may fail to explicitly disclose the first and second deflectors being utilized in the preferred embodiment (e.g. fig 5). However, some form of deflectors or beam control would have been required for the intended operation of the system, and 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 the known effective deflector pair system to enable the desired 2D control of the beam, in the manner taught by Biberger.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bibinger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lam et al. (US 9466463 B1) [hereinafter Lam].
Regarding claim 3, Biberger teaches wherein the one or more computer systems determine the retraction direction or the retraction position of the beam (required for operation of system, as discussed in claim 1) such that a region other than a non-scanning region (e.g. defining as another region not a non-scanning region) in the region of interest is irradiated with the beam during the retraction of the beam (e.g. during another row or RB where the beam is relatively retracted compared to a previous RB). Alternately it is noted that it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to scan a sample in a zigzag or serpentine patten. For example, Lam teaches scanning in both the same and alternating directions was equivalently effective to perform imaging (see Lam, col 15 line 65- col 16, line 4). 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 a scan pattern as a routine skill in the art to obtain known effective imaging.
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 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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 on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881