DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose that each collimator is directly adjacent to one of the objective lenses. Examiner disagrees as the cited Fig. 12 of Frosien (provided on page 10 of the remarks filed 2/27/2026) explicitly shows the collimator arrangement 121 being the only element up-beam from the objective lens array 132. In contrast, Fig. 3 of the instant application (provided on page 11 of the remarks filed 2/27/2026) used to argue against the prior art of record depicts an arrangement of the invention where the collimator array 150 is directly adjacent the objective array 118 when, in fact, another element (e.g. aberration correctors 126) are placed between the directly adjacent elements.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record, specifically Kruit, does not teach or disclose the collimator is directly adjacent to the objective lens. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the distance between the collimator and lens array) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Fig. 1 of Kruit (provided on page 13 of the remarks filed 2/27/2026) depicts the collimator 6 directly precedes the lens array 8 without having another element between them. This arrangement is viewed to have the recite elements to be directly adjacent to one another.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose a down beam aperture array down-beam of the objective lens, each of the apertures of the down-beam aperture array having a corresponding objective lens in the objective lens array. Examiner disagrees as Fig. 2 of Yamada discloses a down-beam aperture 71c, located down-beam from an eighth electron lens 38 (paragraph [0034] of Yamada explicitly discloses the electron lens 38 functions as an objective lens), such that the size of the aperture 71c is smaller in cross-sectional area than the electron lens 38 (see Fig. 2). When this teaching is taken together with the multi-beam, collimated sub-beams of Kruit, each sub-beam would have an associated objective lens with a down-beam aperture which contains a smaller cross-sectional area than the objective lens, as claimed, for the reasons provided in the stated rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frosien et al (US Pat. 9,922,796, hereinafter Frosien).
Regarding claim 1, Frosien discloses a charged particle multi-beam column for a charged particle tool for projecting a charged particle multi-beam towards a sample (charged particle beam device 100 forms a plurality of beamlets 15 directed toward a specimen 140, see Fig. 1), the charged particle multi-beam column comprising:
a sub-beam defining aperture array configured to form sub-beams from a beam of charged particles emitted by a source (charged particle beam source 110 forms an array of primary charged particle beamlets 15 by exposing a multi-aperture lens plate 113, see col. 5, lines 2-7);
a collimator array down-beam from the sub-beam defining aperture array, each collimator being configured to collimate a sub-beam (collimator arrangement 121 is suitable for guiding a primary charged particle beamlets to a respective optical axis, see col. 19, lines 7-17),
an objective lens array, each objective lens being configured to project a collimated sub-beam onto a sample (objective lens array 132 for individual beamlet focusing onto a specimen 140, see col. 19, lines 6-10); and
a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample (an off-axis detector assembly, see col. 22, lines 36-44; detector assembly detects secondary electrons from the sample, see col. 1, lines 33-40); wherein
each collimator is directly adjacent to one of the objective lenses (collimator 121 is adjacent to objective lens array 132, see Fig. 12); and
the detector is provided in a plane down-beam from the sub-beam defining aperture array (off axis detector not shown. However the detector is down-beam from aperture array as the beamlets 15 are exposed to the specimen to form the secondary electrons for detection, see col. 1, lines 33-40).
Regarding claim 9, Frosien discloses each objective lens in the objective lens array comprises a first electrode and a second electrode that is between the first electrode and the sample (a common objective lens 131 including an electrostatic lens component and a magnetic lens component above the specimen 140, see Fig. 13 and col. 19-20, lines 60-14); and
the multi-beam column is configured to apply first and second potentials to the first and second electrodes respectively, the first and second potentials being such that a sub-beam passing through the objective lens is decelerated to be incident on the sample with a desired landing energy (objective lens applies a potential to decelerate the electrons (e.g. beamlet) for providing the landing energy, see col. 19-20, lines 60-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit (US PGPub 2005/0269528, hereinafter Kruit) in view of Chen et al. (“In situ beam drift detection using a two-dimensional electron-beam position monitoring system for multiple-electron-beam-direct-write lithography”, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, hereinafter Chen, provided in IDS filed 1/5/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Kruit discloses a charged particle multi-beam column for a charged particle tool for projecting a charged particle multi-beam towards a sample (in the optical system, each beam is provided with a group of beam splitters 4 for providing a group of beamlets 5 to be focused on a substrate 10, see paragraphs [0044-0045]), the charged particle multi-beam column comprising:
a sub-beam defining aperture array configured to form sub-beams from a beam of charged particles emitted by a source (electrons emitted by the source 1 is provided with a group of beam splitters 4 (beam splitter 4 containing an aperture plate, see paragraph [0039]) to form beamlets 5, see paragraph [0044]);
a collimator array down-beam from the sub-beam defining aperture array, each collimator being configured to collimate a sub-beam (collimator 6 is downstream of aperture array 4, see paragraph [0041]);
an objective lens array, each objective lens being configured to project a collimated sub-beam onto a sample (apparatus is provided with groups of lens array 8 for each group of beamlets, for focusing each beamlet on the substrate 10, see paragraph [0045]); and
wherein each collimator is directly adjacent to one of the objective lens (collimator 6 is directly adjacent to lens array 8, see Fig. 1).
Kruit fails to teach a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample, the detector is provided in a plane down-stream from the sub-beam defining aperture array.
Fig. 1 of Chen discloses an array of electron detectors placed above the wafer to detect the distribution of backscattered electrons (see page 2, col. 2, “II. Detector array architecture design…”, paragraph 2). Chen teaches the array of detectors is used to detect beam drift over time for recalibration.
Chen modifies Kruit by suggesting providing a detector above the wafer surface downstream from a sub-beam defining aperture array.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam lithography devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Kruit by providing a detecting area close to the sample surface downstream of the sub-beam defining aperture array for the purpose of detecting beam drift over time to maintain an ideal beam axis as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 2, Kruit fails to disclose the detector is located in a down-beam most surface of the multi-beam column.
Fig. 1 of Chen discloses an array of electron detectors placed above the wafer to detect the distribution of backscattered electrons (see page 2, col. 2, “II. Detector array architecture design…”, paragraph 2). Chen teaches the array of detectors is used to detect beam drift over time for recalibration.
Chen modifies Kruit by suggesting providing a detector above the wafer surface downstream from a sub-beam defining aperture array.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam lithography devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Kruit by providing a detecting area close to the sample surface downstream of the sub-beam defining aperture array for the purpose of detecting beam drift over time to maintain an ideal beam axis as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Kruit discloses no lens array or deflector array is present up-beam of the collimator array (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kruit discloses the collimator array is integrated into the sub-beam defining aperture array (each beam can have its own set of devices 4, 6, 8 (e.g. beam splitter aperture array, collimator, and lens array), see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Kruit discloses the collimator array is the first electron-optical array element in the beam path down-beam of the source (see Fig. 1). According to Fig. 3 and paragraph [0069] of the instant application, the sub-beam defining aperture array 152 would correspond to the aperture plate 4 of Kruit, and therefore the first electron-optical array element downstream from the source is the collimator 6.
Regarding claim 18, Kruit discloses a charged particle multi-beam column array (in the optical system, each beam is provided with a group of beam splitter 4 for providing a group of beamlets 5 to be focused on a substrate 10, see paragraph [0044-0045]), comprising:
a plurality of the multi-beam columns of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein:
each multi-beam column is configured to form the sub-beams from a beam of charged particles emitted by a different respective source of a plurality of sources (electrons are emitted from several electron sources 1, see paragraph [0038]; each beam can have its own set of devices of illumination system 4, 6, 8, (e.g. aperture plate 4, collimator 6, focusing lens array 8), see paragraph [0042]); and
the multi-beam columns are arranged to project the sub-beams simultaneously onto different regions of the same sample (group of lens array 8 one group for each group of beamlets, for focusing each beamlet to a cross section on the substrate 10, see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Kruit discloses the plurality of sources, wherein at least a subset of the plurality of sources are provided as a source array, the source array comprising a plurality of sources provided on a common substrate (electron source has various sources 13 on a single substrate 12, see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Kruit fails to disclose the detector comprises electrodes configured to receive back-scattered or secondary electrons and to generate a detection signal.
Fig. 1 of Chen discloses an array of electron detectors placed above the wafer to detect the distribution of backscattered electrons (see page 2, col. 2, “II. Detector array architecture design…”, paragraph 2). Chen teaches the array of detectors is used to detect beam drift over time for recalibration.
Chen modifies Kruit by suggesting providing a detector above the wafer surface downstream from a sub-beam defining aperture array.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam lithography devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Kruit by providing a detecting area close to the sample surface downstream of the sub-beam defining aperture array for the purpose of detecting beam drift over time to maintain an ideal beam axis as taught by Chen.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frosien in view of Nijkerk et al. (EP 1,619,495, hereinafter Nijkerk, provided in IDS filed 1/5/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Frosien fails to explicitly disclose the detector is located in a plane up-beam from at least one electrode of the objective lens array.
Fig. 1 of Nijkerk discloses a sample 4 being exposed by a primary electron beam 5, which in response a secondary electron beam 10 is emitted from the sample 4 to be detected by a photodetector 13 (see paragraphs [0024]). Nijkerk teaches the photodetector is up-beam from the lens 6 (which focus the primary beam on the surface, i.e. objective lens, see paragraph [0023]) to save space and relax positioning requirement for the photodetectors 13 (see paragraph [0027]).
Nijkerk modifies Frosien by suggesting providing a photodetector up-beam from at least one electrode of the objective lens array.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Frosien by providing a detector up-beam from at least one electrode of the objective lens array for the purpose of saving space and relaxing positioning requirements for the photodetectors 13 as taught by Nijkerk (see paragraph [0027]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Chen and in further view of Yamada et al. (US PGPub 2016/0062249, hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kruit and Chen fails to disclose a down-beam aperture array in which is defined a plurality of apertures down-beam of the objective lens array, each of the apertures being aligned with a corresponding objective lens in the objective lens array and configured to allow only a selected portion of the collimated sub-beam incident onto the down-beam aperture array from the objective lens to pass through the aperture.
Yamada teaches an eighth lens 38 with a down-beam fog preventing mechanism 70 being aligned with the eighth lens 38 (eighth lens functions as an objective lens, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0034]; fog preventing mechanism 70 defines a plurality of aperture holes 71a and a passing hole 71c, see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0055]; sub-deflector 42 and eighth lens 38 deflect an electron beam, see paragraphs [0034] and [0043] only allowing a portion passing through plurality of aperture holes 71a and 71c to pass through; Fig. 5 depicts a plurality of sub-beams and respective fog preventing mechanisms 70). Yamada teaches the fog preventing mechanism 70 is advantageous to suppress scattering of electrons at its lower surface, see paragraph [0053]).
Yamada modifies the combination of Kruit and Chen by suggesting providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Chen by providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens for the purpose of suppressing the scattering of electrons as taught by Yamada.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kruit and Chen fails to disclose a down-beam aperture array in which is define a plurality of apertures, each aperture being provided along a sub-beam path, wherein the down-beam aperture array is down-beam of the objective lens array; and has aperture of smaller cross sectional area than the apertures of the sub-beam defining aperture array.
Yamada teaches an eighth lens 38 with a down-beam fog preventing mechanism 70 being aligned with the eighth lens 38 (eighth lens functions as an objective lens, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0034]; fog preventing mechanism 70 defines a plurality of aperture holes 71a and a passing hole 71c, see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0055]; passing hole 71c and aperture holes 71a are smaller than an aperture up-beam objective lens, depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; sub-deflector 42 and eighth lens 38 deflect an electron beam, see paragraphs [0034] and [0043] only allowing a portion passing through plurality of aperture holes 71a and 71c to pass through; Fig. 5 depicts a plurality of sub-beams and respective fog preventing mechanisms 70;). Yamada teaches the fog preventing mechanism 70 is advantageous to suppress scattering of electrons at its lower surface, see paragraph [0053]).
Yamada modifies the combination of Kruit and Chen by suggesting providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Chen by providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens for the purpose of suppressing the scattering of electrons as taught by Yamada.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Chen and in further view of Ren et al. (US PGPub 2020/0051779, hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kruit and Chen fails to disclose one or more aberration correctors configured to reduce one or more aberrations in the sub-beams.
Ren discloses an aberration compensator array configured to compensate aberrations of probe spots (source conversion unit 120 comprises an aberration compensator array, see paragraph [0048]).
Ren modifies the combination of Kruit and Chen by suggesting the beam column contains an aberration compensator array.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Chen by providing an aberration compensator array for the purpose of obtaining a higher resolution for the beam.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kruit and Chen fails to disclose each of at least a subset of the aberration correctors is integrated with one or more of the objective lenses in the objective lens array or one or more of the collimators in the collimator array.
Ren discloses an aberration compensator array configured to compensate aberrations of probe spots (source conversion unit 120 comprises an aberration compensator array, see paragraph [0048]; directly adjacent to a collimator 110M, see paragraph [0071]).
Ren modifies the combination of Kruit and Chen by suggesting the beam column contains an aberration compensator array is directly adjacent to the collimator.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Chen by providing an aberration compensator array adjacent the collimator array for the purpose of obtaining a higher resolution for the beam.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kruit and Chen fails to disclose the aberration correctors are configured to apply one or more of the following to the sub-beams: focus correction, field curvature correction, astigmatism correction.
Ren discloses an aberration compensator array configured to compensate aberrations of probe spots (source conversion unit 120 comprises an aberration compensator array, see paragraph [0048]). Ren teaches the aberration compensator array is configured to apply either a field curvature correction or astigmatism correction (see paragraph [0048]).
Ren modifies the combination of Kruit and Chen by suggesting the beam column contains an aberration compensator array.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Chen by providing an aberration compensator array for the purpose of obtaining a higher resolution for the beam.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Yamada.
Regarding claim 13, Kruit discloses a charged particle multi-beam column for a charged particle tool for projecting a charged particle multi-beam towards a sample (in the optical system, each beam is provided with a group of beam splitters 4 for providing a group of beamlets 5 to be focused on a substrate 10, see paragraphs [0044-0045]), the charged particle multi-beam column comprising:
a sub-beam defining aperture array configured to form sub-beams from a beam of charged particles emitted by a source (electrons emitted by the source 1 is provided with a group of beam splitters 4 (beam splitter 4 containing an aperture plate, see paragraph [0039]) to form beamlets 5, see paragraph [0044]); and
an objective lens array, each objective lens being configured to project a sub-beam onto a sample, the sub-beam defining aperture array being adjacent the objective lens array along paths of the sub-beams (apparatus is provided with groups of lens array 8 for each group of beamlets, for focusing each beamlet on the substrate 10, see paragraph [0045]).
Kruit fails to disclose a down-beam aperture array in which is defined a plurality of apertures down-beam of the objective lens array, each of the apertures being aligned with a corresponding objective lens in the objective lens array and configured to allow only a selected portion of the collimated sub-beam incident onto the down-beam aperture array from the objective lens to pass through the aperture.
Yamada teaches an eighth lens 38 with a down-beam fog preventing mechanism 70 being aligned with the eighth lens 38 (eighth lens functions as an objective lens, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0034]; fog preventing mechanism 70 defines a plurality of aperture holes 71a and a passing hole 71c, see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0055]; sub-deflector 42 and eighth lens 38 deflect an electron beam, see paragraphs [0034] and [0043] only allowing a portion passing through plurality of aperture holes 71a and 71c to pass through; Fig. 5 depicts a plurality of sub-beams and respective fog preventing mechanisms 70). Yamada teaches the fog preventing mechanism 70 is advantageous to suppress scattering of electrons at its lower surface, see paragraph [0053]).
Yamada modifies Kruit by suggesting providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Kruit by providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens for the purpose of suppressing the scattering of electrons as taught by Yamada.
Regarding claim 14, Kruit discloses a charged particle multi-beam column for a charged particle tool for projecting a charged particle multi-beam towards a sample (in the optical system, each beam is provided with a group of beam splitters 4 for providing a group of beamlets 5 to be focused on a substrate 10, see paragraphs [0044-0045]), the charged particle multi-beam column comprising:
a sub-beam defining aperture array configured to form sub-beams from a beam of charged particles emitted by a source (electrons emitted by the source 1 is provided with a group of beam splitters 4 (beam splitter 4 containing an aperture plate, see paragraph [0039]) to form beamlets 5, see paragraph [0044]); and
an objective lens array, each objective lens being configured to project a sub-beam onto a sample, the sub-beam defining aperture array being adjacent the objective lens array along paths of the sub-beams (apparatus is provided with groups of lens array 8 for each group of beamlets, for focusing each beamlet on the substrate 10, see paragraph [0045]).
Kruit fails to disclose disclose a down-beam aperture array in which is define a plurality of apertures, each aperture being provided along a sub-beam path, wherein the down-beam aperture array is down-beam of the objective lens array; and has aperture of smaller cross sectional area than the apertures of the sub-beam defining aperture array.
Yamada teaches an eighth lens 38 with a down-beam fog preventing mechanism 70 being aligned with the eighth lens 38 (eighth lens functions as an objective lens, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0034]; fog preventing mechanism 70 defines a plurality of aperture holes 71a and a passing hole 71c, see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0055]; passing hole 71c and aperture holes 71a are smaller than an aperture up-beam objective lens, depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; sub-deflector 42 and eighth lens 38 deflect an electron beam, see paragraphs [0034] and [0043] only allowing a portion passing through plurality of aperture holes 71a and 71c to pass through; Fig. 5 depicts a plurality of sub-beams and respective fog preventing mechanisms 70;). Yamada teaches the fog preventing mechanism 70 is advantageous to suppress scattering of electrons at its lower surface, see paragraph [0053]).
Yamada modifies Kruit by suggesting providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam exposure systems, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Kruit by providing a fog preventing mechanism comprising a plurality of aperture holes near the sample surface down-beam from the objective lens for the purpose of suppressing the scattering of electrons as taught by Yamada.
Regarding claim 15, Kruit discloses a collimator array down-beam from the sub-beam defining aperture array, the collimators being configured to collimate each sub-beam between the sub-beam defining aperture array and the objective lens array (collimator 6 is downstream of aperture array 4 to collimate each sub-beam, see paragraph [0041]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Yamada and in further view of Chen.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kruit and Yamada fails to disclose a detector configured to detect charged particles emitted from the sample.
Fig. 1 of Chen discloses an array of electron detectors placed above the wafer to detect the distribution of backscattered electrons (see page 2, col. 2, “II. Detector array architecture design…”, paragraph 2). Chen teaches the array of detectors is used to detect beam drift over time for recalibration.
Chen modifies the combination of Kruit and Yamada by suggesting providing a detector above the wafer surface downstream from a sub-beam defining aperture array.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam lithography devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Yamada by providing a detecting area close to the sample surface downstream of the sub-beam defining aperture array for the purpose of detecting beam drift over time to maintain an ideal beam axis as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kruit and Yamada fails to disclose the detector is located in a plane down-beam from the sub-beam defining aperture array.
Fig. 1 of Chen discloses an array of electron detectors placed above the wafer to detect the distribution of backscattered electrons (see page 2, col. 2, “II. Detector array architecture design…”, paragraph 2). Chen teaches the array of detectors is used to detect beam drift over time for recalibration.
Chen modifies the combination of Kruit and Yamada by suggesting providing a detector above the wafer surface downstream from a sub-beam defining aperture array.
Since all inventions are drawn to charged particle beam lithography devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kruit and Yamada by providing a detecting area close to the sample surface downstream of the sub-beam defining aperture array for the purpose of detecting beam drift over time to maintain an ideal beam axis as taught by Chen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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 at (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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights