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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/26 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-14, 18-20 is/are rejected.
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) 2, 5-6 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 2 recites “the distance between at least two adjacent apertures in the aperture rows of one of the side sets is unequal in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction”. However, since it refers to distances being unequal, it is unclear if the (unequal) distance(s) cited here is comparing distances in aperture pairs, wherein each aperture in the pair being in different aperture rows or each aperture in the pair being in the same aperture row. The specification appears to refers to the former interpretation (similar to claim 12). For example, in [0096] of the published application, the specification discusses the spacing between scan lines being different, thus causing the aperture spacing to be different (between apertures in different scan lines).
[0096] The first scan by the multi-beam may generate a plurality of non-overlapping and parallel scan lines. The spacing between scan lines generated by apertures in the middle set 504 may be equal. However, the spacing between some of scan lines generated by apertures in the first side set 502 and second side set 503 may be unequal. Thus the spacing between at least two adjacent apertures in the aperture rows of the first and second side may be unequal in a direction normal to the scanning direction
Claims 5-6 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 2.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image3.png
281
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noda (US 20200411280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches an aperture array configured to define sub-beams that are scanned in a scanning direction in a charged particle apparatus, the aperture array comprising a plurality of apertures arranged in an aperture pattern that comprises:
a plurality of parallel aperture rows (see annotated fig 2), wherein apertures (251) are arranged along the aperture rows
an edge aperture row (e.g. top row) defining an edge of the aperture pattern; and
an adjacent aperture row (e.g. 2nd row) adjacent the edge aperture row;
wherein the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row each comprise fewer apertures than another aperture row of the aperture pattern (see fig 2), the aperture pattern comprises a middle set of aperture rows in between two side sets of aperture rows (e.g. center rows), one of the side sets of aperture rows comprising the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row (see fig 2), and the distance between adjacent apertures along an aperture row of the middle set in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction is periodic and equidistant (see fig 2).
Noda may fail to disclose the aperture rows are inclined relative to the scanning direction.
However, it is noted that the limitation that the aperture rows are inclined relative to the scanning direction is an intended use and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
PNG
media_image4.png
769
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Noda fig 2 (cropped and annotated))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Edge aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Adjacent aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Another aperture row)]
Regarding claim 3, Noda teaches an aperture row in one of the side sets comprise fewer apertures than an aperture row in the middle set (see Noda, fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Noda teaches wherein, when the aperture array is scanned relative to a target surface, an aperture row from each of the side sets cumulate together to the same as the number of apertures of an aperture row of the middle set (see Noda, fig 2; e.g. 2+4 = 6 apertures). It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 7, Noda teaches the aperture rows of the middle set comprise the same number of apertures (see Noda, fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, Noda teaches the aperture row of one or both of the side sets, and that is adjacent to the middle set, is an aperture row of the corresponding side set with the largest number of apertures (see Noda, fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Noda teaches the remaining rows of the corresponding side set has the same, or fewer, number of apertures than an adjacent aperture row in the direction of the middle set (see Noda, fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Noda teaches along the aperture rows of the middle set there are between 5 and 5000 apertures (see Noda, fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, Noda teaches an aperture array for defining sub-beams that are scanned in a scanning direction in a charged particle apparatus, the aperture array comprising:
a plurality of apertures (see fig 2) arranged in an aperture pattern that comprises a plurality of parallel aperture rows (see fig 2), apertures being arranged along each aperture row (see fig 2), the aperture rows being arranged in a middle set of aperture rows and two side sets of aperture rows being on opposite sides of the middle set of aperture rows (see annotated fig 2, rows around the another row);
wherein the aperture array is configured such that, when the aperture array is scanned over a target surface, the side sets comprise an aperture row that cumulates together so that the cumulative number of apertures in the two rows is equivalent to the number of apertures of an aperture row of the middle set (see fig 2, e.g. 2+4 = 6 apertures). It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (here, operation during scanning) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 18, Noda teaches a charged particle apparatus comprising: a source of charged particles (see Noda, fig 1: 23); and an aperture array according to claim 1, wherein: the source is configured to direct a beam of charged particles towards the aperture array so that a multi-beam is emitted from the aperture array (see fig 1); and the charged particle apparatus is arranged to scan a sample with the multi-beam in a linear scanning direction (see e.g. fig 5, alternately see fig 9)(note the scanning method is an intended use of the apparatus). It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 19, Noda teaches the charged particle apparatus is arranged to operate in a continuous scan mode (see e.g. Noda, [0049]). It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 20, Noda teaches the aperture array is within a beam area of the charged particle beam from the source (required for intended operation of system, see Noda, fig 1).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 12-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuiper et al. (US 20160071696 A1) [hereinafter Kuiper].
Regarding claim 1, Kuiper teaches an aperture array configured to define sub-beams that are scanned in a scanning direction in a charged particle apparatus, the aperture array comprising a plurality of apertures arranged in an aperture pattern that comprises:
a plurality of parallel aperture rows (see annotated fig 10a), wherein apertures (see 1-49) are arranged along the aperture rows and the aperture rows are inclined relative to the scanning direction (see scanning in x direction, figs 5, 7, 9a, 10a [0080]; rows are inclined relative to this direction);
an edge aperture row (see annotated fig 10a) defining an edge of the aperture pattern; and
an adjacent aperture row (see annotated fig 10a) adjacent the edge aperture row;
wherein the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row each comprise fewer apertures than another aperture row of the aperture pattern (see annotated fig 10a), the aperture pattern comprises a middle set of aperture rows in between two side sets of aperture rows (e.g. rows around the another aperture row are between the edge/adjacent aperture row groups), one of the side sets of aperture rows comprising the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row (see annotated fig 10a), and the distance between adjacent apertures along an aperture row of the middle set in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction is periodic and equidistant (see fig 10a).
It is also noted that the limitation that the aperture rows are inclined relative to the scanning direction is an intended use and therefore is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
PNG
media_image6.png
1178
815
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Edge aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Adjacent aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Another aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Kuiper Fig 10a (cropped and annotated))]
Regarding claim 2, Kuiper teaches the distance between at least two adjacent apertures in the aperture rows of one of the side sets is unequal in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction (e.g. Kuiper, fig 10a: between rows, 30 is adjacent to both 29 and 37, but the distance between the adjacent apertures is unequal in the y direction).
Regarding claim 3, Kuiper teaches an aperture row in one of the side sets comprise fewer apertures than an aperture row in the middle set (see Kuiper, fig 10a).
Regarding claim 4, Kuiper teaches wherein, when the aperture array is scanned relative to a target surface, an aperture row from each of the side sets cumulate together to the same as the number of apertures of an aperture row of the middle set (see Kuiper, fig 10a; e.g. 3+3 = 6 apertures; see also fig 11a,b). It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 5, Kuiper teaches each of the aperture rows in one of the side sets has a corresponding aperture row in the other of the side sets (see Kuiper, fig 10a) and the sum of the number of apertures in an aperture row from one the side sets and the corresponding aperture from the other of the side sets is the same as number of apertures in one of the aperture row of the middle set (rows in annotated fig 10a have 1-2-3-3-4-5-6-6-5-4-4-3-2-1 apertures in each row from top right to bottom left; constructively defining the “one of the side sets” rows as the e.g. top 1-2-3 rows, and the “other of the side sets” being the e.g. 5-4-4-3-2-1 set. Thus the 1-2-3 rows each match with a 5, 4, and 3 aperture set in the other of the side sets, which sums to 6 apertures for each pair of rows).
Regarding claim 6, Kuiper teaches the distance between adjacent apertures along an aperture row of the middle set in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction is periodic (see Kuiper, annotated fig 10a, e.g. two middle rows having 6 apertures including the another aperture row).
Regarding claim 7, Kuiper teaches the aperture rows of the middle set comprise the same number of apertures (see Kuiper, fig 10a).
Regarding claim 8, Kuiper teaches the aperture row of one or both of the side sets, and that is adjacent to the middle set, is an aperture row of the corresponding side set with the largest number of apertures (see Kuiper, fig 10a).
Regarding claim 9, Kuiper teaches the remaining rows of the corresponding side set has the same, or fewer, number of apertures than an adjacent aperture row in the direction of the middle set (see Kuiper, fig 10a).
Regarding claim 10, Kuiper teaches along the aperture rows of the middle set there are between 5 and 5000 apertures (see Kuiper, fig 10a).
Regarding claim 12, Kuiper teaches wherein a separation between adjacent apertures that are each in different aperture rows differs (e.g. separation between 29 and 22 differs from separation between 29 and 30, which are separations between the most adjacent apertures for different rows). Alternately, Kuiper teaches wherein a separation between adjacent apertures that are each in different aperture rows differs (e.g. separation between 29 and 15 differs from 22 and 15 (or 3 and 4), which are separation between the adjacent apertures for these rows).
PNG
media_image6.png
1178
815
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Edge aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Adjacent aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Another aperture row)][AltContent: textbox (Kuiper Fig 10a (cropped and annotated))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Alternate interpretation for claim 12)]
Regarding claim 13, Kuiper teaches the aperture pattern is within a beam area (required for operation of system); and the beam area is substantially circular or elliptical (see e.g. Kuiper, [0099]).
Regarding claim 14, Kuiper teaches an aperture array for defining sub-beams that are scanned in a scanning direction in a charged particle apparatus, the aperture array comprising:
a plurality of apertures (see annotated fig 10a) arranged in an aperture pattern that comprises a plurality of parallel aperture rows (see annotated fig 10a), apertures being arranged along each aperture row (see annotated fig 10a), the aperture rows being arranged in a middle set of aperture rows and two side sets of aperture rows being on opposite sides of the middle set of aperture rows (see annotated fig 10a, rows around the another row);
wherein the aperture array is configured such that, when the aperture array is scanned over a target surface, the side sets comprise an aperture row that cumulates together so that the cumulative number of apertures in the two rows is equivalent to the number of apertures of an aperture row of the middle set (see Kuiper, fig 10a; e.g. 3+3 = 6 apertures; see also fig 11a,b). It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (here, operation during scanning) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 18, Kuiper teaches a charged particle apparatus comprising: a source of charged particles (see Kuiper, fig 1: 1); and an aperture array according to claim 1, wherein: the source is configured to direct a beam of charged particles towards the aperture array so that a multi-beam is emitted from the aperture array (see fig 1); and the charged particle apparatus is arranged to scan a sample with the multi-beam in a linear scanning direction (see e.g. fig 11a). It is noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 19, Kuiper teaches the charged particle apparatus is arranged to operate in a continuous scan mode (see e.g. Kuiper, [0004], fig 11a). It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 20, Kuiper teaches the aperture array is within a beam area of the charged particle beam from the source (required for intended operation of system, see Kuiper, fig 1).
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_image8.png
158
934
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. (US 20160071696 A1) [hereinafter Kuiper].
Regarding claim 11, Kuiper may fail to explicitly disclose along the aperture rows of the middle set there are 14 apertures; and one or both of the side sets comprise aperture rows with 10, 7 and 4 apertures respectively. However, Kuiper teaches a skilled artisan can adjust the number and configuration of apertures for exposure (see Kuiper, [0103]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the number of apertures in each set, including a configuration having a 14 aperture wide array, as a routine skill in the art (thereby naturally providing rows having 10, 7, and 4 apertures, see annotated fig 10a). It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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