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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/9/25 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue that Muraki and Noda use incompatible scanning architectures because Muraki teaches interleaving electron beam scanlines, based on a mathematical formula to ensure full coverage and reducing wasted deflection, while Noda uses spatially segregated scanning regions where each region 44 (Noda calls these sub-scanning regions) needs to by a corresponding electron beam. This is not found persuasive because there is no teaching away, and the systems are compatible to form a working scanning process. It is noted that the combination of references does not disclose the scanning system as the invention (e.g. fig 11, etc), but the claims are sufficiently broad to read on the references.
First, Noda generally teaches systems to provide alterative tiling of scans to enable use of non-rectangular aperture patterns, to compensate for problems with apertures farther from the center of an aperture plate introducing distortion, without needing to use a smaller number of apertures at the center of the plate (see Noda, [0006]). That is, a skilled artisan would have recognized the custom aperture plate system of Noda teaches both use of more apertures that would otherwise be feasible outside a rectangular pattern, and/or use of fewer but less distortion-prone apertures closer to the center of the plate. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for some way to enable the use of the system of Muraki with the improved aperture pattern and/or tiling procedure of Noda. Muraki teaches that the interleaved scanning system of fig 5 is one example of a single SA that is repeated over multiple scanning areas, so a skilled artisan would have understood that by removing the beams in the corners of the aperture array, the system would operate according to the principles of Muraki, but with e.g. the left and right SAs in fig 6 having fewer beams than the center SAs.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alternately, it is noted that the combined prior art would have suggested trying a modified aperture plate having some apertures aligned in the same direction as the scanning direction, similar to the scanning arrangement in Noda. Noda teaches that the division of the scanning region (43) into sub-scanning regions (44) is not limited to the continuous sub-scanning regions but can be implemented as interleaved stripe-shaped sub-scanning regions (see fig 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try combining the use of interleaving of stripes using multiple apertures into the individual exposures to form an entire SA pattern (per Muraki, fig 5). It is noted the claims are also broad enough to read on having some scan lines that are scanned over by different apertures during subsequent passes, and scan lines having more than one aperture performing overlapped scanning along them.
The remarks also argue that combining Muraki and Noda would lead to numerous overlapping scanlines that would disrupt the basic functionality of Muraki, as evidenced by said equation, and would cause uneven coverage, gaps, and overlapping scans to cover the gaps. However, a skilled artisan would have understood that engineers must fundamentally balance throughput and accuracy in industrial applications, and would have been motivated to provide increased precision even as the expense of some throughput, depending on needs for an application. It is noted it has held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter, but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1971). It is further noted that it has held that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
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 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
PNG
media_image3.png
148
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
PNG
media_image4.png
151
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) *** is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the claims introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for
(Amended claim 2) … “the distance between at least one pair of adjacent apertures in an aperture row of the side sets in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction is unequal to another pair of adjacent apertures in the aperture row”
and
(Amended claim 12) … “wherein the separation between a pair of adjacent apertures a first aperture row of one of the side sets differs from the separation between a pair of adjacent apertures in a second aperture row of the same side set.”
Para [0096] of the published application recites
[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
This paragraph appears to suggest the spacing is unequal between adjacent apertures in the apertures rows, comparing different aperture rows in different side sets. It is unclear whether there is support for different spacing in the same aperture row, per claim 2, or different spacing in different rows of the same side set, per claim 12.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or claims may be amended by deleting the descriptive statement.
Claims 5-6 are rejected due to a dependency on claim(s) 2, respectively.
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_image5.png
158
934
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraki et al. (US 20130264497 A1) [hereinafter Muraki] in view of Noda (US 20200411280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muraki teaches an aperture array (see e.g. fig 1: 5) configured to define sub-beams that are scanned in a scanning direction in a charged particle apparatus (see fig 1), the aperture array comprising a plurality of apertures arranged in an aperture pattern that comprises:
a plurality of parallel aperture rows (see 5a), wherein apertures are arranged along the aperture rows and the aperture rows are inclined relative to the scanning direction (see e.g. fig 4);
an edge aperture row defining an edge of the aperture pattern (see e.g. edge row in fig 4); and
an adjacent aperture row adjacent the edge row (see fig 4);
Muraki may fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of middle and side sets of rows; wherein the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row each comprise fewer apertures than another aperture row of the aperture pattern.
However, Noda teaches problems with aperture patterns having distorted corner regions (see Noda, [0006]) and teaches known effective aperture patterns including comprising a plurality of middle and side sets of rows (see e.g. fig 6); wherein the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row each comprise fewer apertures than another aperture row of the aperture pattern (see fig 6). 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 Noda in the aperture plate of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve exposure, including avoiding problems with distorted corner regions, in the manner taught by Noda. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses a plurality of middle and side sets of rows (note modification to Muraki, fig 6, having fewer apertures at left and right; alternately note modification to Muraki, fig 5, noting that Noda teaches interleaving exposures (see Noda, fig 9)); wherein the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row each comprise fewer apertures than another aperture row of the aperture pattern (see Noda, figs 6, 8, etc).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches the distance between at least one pair of adjacent apertures in an aperture row of the side sets in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction is unequal to another pair of adjacent apertures in the aperture row (when aperture rows defined as diagonally cutting across e.g. cross shaped (see e.g. Noda, fig 8c) or similar configurations of apertures with concave regions).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches an aperture row in one of the side sets comprise fewer apertures than an aperture row in the middle set (see Noda, e.g. fig 6, side rows have fewer apertures than middle rows).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches 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 6, e.g. claim 1; note also that the rows cumulate together when scanned over an entire pattern).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches wherein each of the aperture rows in one of the side sets has a corresponding aperture row in the other of the side sets (see e.g. Noda, figs 6, 8) 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 (see e.g. figs 6, 8).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches wherein the distance between adjacent apertures along an aperture row of the middle set in a direction orthogonal to the scanning direction is periodic (see Muraki, fig 1: 5a; Noda, figs 6, 8).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches the aperture rows of the middle set comprise the same number of apertures (see e.g. Noda, fig 6: rows 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches the aperture row of one or both of the side sets (e.g. Noda, fig 6, row 2, fig 8k row 4), and that is adjacent to the middle set (see same, defining next row as in middle set), is an aperture row of the corresponding side set with the largest number of apertures (see same).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Muraki and 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 e.g. Noda, fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches along the aperture rows of the middle set there are between 5 and 5000 apertures (see e.g. Noda, fig 6).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda 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, Noda teaches the number of apertures in each row may be increased or adjusted according to a relationship between the number of beams in each row (see Noda, e.g. [0070], claim 1; see figs 6, 8a-k). 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 size and shape of the array, including an 14x14 array size having side set rows with 10, 7, 7, and 4 apertures, as a routine skill in the art to select between a finite set of known effective row configurations, to provide an effective beam shape. It is additionally noted has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches wherein the separation between a pair of adjacent apertures a first aperture row of one of the side sets differs from the separation between a pair of adjacent apertures in a second aperture row of the same side set (when aperture rows defined as diagonally cutting across e.g. cross shaped (see e.g. Noda, fig 8c) or similar configurations of apertures with concave regions).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches the aperture pattern is within a beam area (see Muraki, fig 1); and the beam area is substantially circular or elliptical (see Muraki, fig 1: 5, 5a).
Regarding claim 14, Muraki teaches an aperture array (see e.g. fig 1: 5) for defining sub-beams that are scanned in a scanning direction in a charged particle apparatus (see fig 1), the aperture array comprising:
a plurality of apertures (see 5a) arranged in an aperture pattern that comprises a plurality of parallel aperture rows (see 5a), apertures being arranged along each aperture row (see fig 1), 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 fig 4, e.g. row 3, row 4, rows 1-2);
Muraki may fail to explicitly disclose 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.
However, Noda teaches problems with aperture patterns having distorted corner regions (see Noda, [0006]) and teaches known effective aperture patterns including comprising 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 e.g. fig 6). 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 Noda in the aperture plate of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve exposure, including avoiding problems with distorted corner regions, in the manner taught by Noda. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses a plurality of middle and side sets of rows (note modification to Muraki, fig 6, having fewer apertures at left and right; alternately note modification to Muraki, fig 5, noting that Noda teaches interleaving exposures (see Noda, fig 9)); wherein the edge aperture row and the adjacent aperture row each comprise fewer apertures than another aperture row of the aperture pattern (see Noda, figs 6, 8, etc).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches a charged particle apparatus comprising: a source of charged particles (see Muraki, fig 1: 1); and an aperture array according to claim 1 (see above), 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 (see 10) with the multi- beam in a linear scanning direction (see e.g. fig 4).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches the charged particle apparatus is arranged to operate in a continuous scan mode (see e.g. Muraki, [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Muraki and Noda teaches the aperture array is within a beam area of the charged particle beam from the source (see Muraki, fig 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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