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 Species I in the reply filed on 8/18/25 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 4, 7 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14 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) 9-13 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 9 recites “the upper wall has a first flange extending to an inner peripheral side than the inner peripheral wall” which appears to mean that the flange is extending further towards an inner peripheral side than the inner peripheral wall is extending towards the inner peripheral side. However, the claim also states “the inner peripheral wall has a second flange, at an upper end, extending to the inner peripheral side than other portions of the inner peripheral wall” so it is unclear how the first flange can extend further towards the inner peripheral wall than the second flange, when both extend to the same inner peripheral side.
Claims 10-13 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 9.
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, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji (US 6608317 B1) in view of Florendo et al. (US 20230133576 A1) [hereinafter Florendo].
Regarding claim 1, Nakasuji teaches an electromagnetic lens comprising:
a coil (see e.g. fig 2: 13), and
a pole piece (see 6) configured to include an upper wall, a lower wall, an outer peripheral wall, and an inner peripheral wall (see fig 2) which are formed using a conductive magnetic material (see col 10, lines 37-38), to surround the coil by the upper wall, the lower wall, the outer peripheral wall and the inner peripheral wall (see fig 2),
Nakasuji may fail to explicitly disclose one of opposite facing surfaces of an upper part and a lower part of the inner peripheral wall and opposite facing surfaces of the upper wall and the inner peripheral wall being insulated electrically; and covering at least the laminated structure of the outer peripheral wall with an insulator.
However, some kind of support would have been required for the intended operation of holding the components in place, and the use of insulating coatings and fillings was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Florendo teaches using insulating potting resin to hold coil parts together, while also improving thermal control specifically to cooling elements (see Florendo, [0050]). 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 Florendo in the system of the prior art to enable the intended configuration of components, while also improving thermal control over the coils, in the manner taught by Florendo.
Regarding claim 14, Nakasuji teaches an electron source mechanism comprising:
an electromagnetic lens (see fig 2) including
a coil (see e.g. fig 2: 13), and
a pole piece (see 6) configured to include an upper wall, a lower wall, an outer peripheral wall, and an inner peripheral wall (see fig 2) which are formed using a conductive magnetic material (see col 10, lines 37-38), to surround the coil by the upper wall, the lower wall, the outer peripheral wall and the inner peripheral wall (see fig 2),
an electron source (see fig 3: 1) configured to be disposed, where an electron beam acceleration space to which a lens action is applied is arranged so as to be surrounded by the electromagnetic lens (see fig 3), emit an electron beam (see along 27), and accelerate the electron beam in a space surrounded by the electromagnetic lens (see fig 3, during magnification in projection lens). 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.
Nakasuji may fail to explicitly disclose one of opposite facing surfaces of an upper part and a lower part of the inner peripheral wall and opposite facing surfaces of the upper wall and the inner peripheral wall being insulated electrically; and covering at least the laminated structure of the outer peripheral wall with an insulator.
However, some kind of support would have been required for the intended operation of holding the components in place, and the use of insulating coatings and fillings was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Florendo teaches using insulating potting resin to hold coil parts together, while also improving thermal control specifically to cooling elements (see Florendo, [0050]). 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 Florendo in the system of the prior art to enable the intended configuration of components, while also improving thermal control over the coils, in the manner taught by Florendo.
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji and Florendo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakasuji et al. (JP2007184283A) [hereinafter Nakasuji II].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Nakasuji and Florendo may fail to explicitly disclose in the pole piece, a portion where the coil is disposed is grounded. However, the use of grounded electromagnetic poles was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Nakasuji II teaches a known effective condenser lens system operated as a unipotential lens that enables control over center beam energy and beam rotation (see Nakasuji II, translation p27, last para), using grounded poles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to operate the pole at ground potential and/or define that potential as ground, as a routine skill in the art, as well as to enable the known effective operation for beam energy and rotation control as taught by Nakasuji II.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Nakasuji, Florendo, and Nakasuji II teaches the portion where the coil is disposed is formed by the lower wall, a portion of the outer peripheral wall, and a portion of the inner peripheral wall (see Nakasuji, fig 2).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji, Florendo, and Nakasuji II, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ljungblad (US 20130300286 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Nakasuji and Florendo may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Nakasuji II, for similar reasons as claim 2 above. The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose one of an inner peripheral side end of the upper part of the inner peripheral wall and an inner peripheral side end of the upper wall is electrically connected to an electrode of an electron source disposed surrounded by the electromagnetic lens. However, the use of a shared ground potential for an ion source would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art. For example, Ljungblad teaches a known effective electron source system that provides rapid switching, utilizing ground potentials (see [0066,69], abstract). 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 Ljungblad in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to operate the electron source required for operation of the system, while also providing rapid switching. The combined teaching therefore discloses one of an inner peripheral side end of the upper part of the inner peripheral wall and an inner peripheral side end of the upper wall is electrically connected to an electrode (shared ground) of an electron source (defined the source as the entire top part of column including the interior of Nakasuji, e.g. fig 2: 35) disposed surrounded by the electromagnetic lens (see 12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji, Florendo, Nakasuji II, and Ljungblad as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 4890029 A) [hereinafter Miyoshi].
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Nakasuji, Florendo, Nakasuji II, and Ljungblad teaches the electrode of the electron source is magnetically connected to one of the inner peripheral side end of the upper part of the inner peripheral wall and the inner peripheral side end of the upper wall (natural result of magnets), and the electromagnetic lens generates a lens magnetic field in an acceleration space in the electron source (see Nakasuji, fig 3). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the electrode of the electron source is formed by a magnetic material. It is unclear what the anode is made of. However, the use of magnetic anode materials was well known in the art. For example, Miyoshi teaches electron source anode can be formed from iron (see Miyoshi, col 2, lines 62-64). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to select the use of magnetic materials as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji and Florendo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubozoe et al. (US 4806767 A) [hereinafter Kubozoe].
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Nakasuji and Florendo may fail to explicitly disclose a portion where the coil is disposed is formed to be detachable from other portions of the pole piece. However, the use of detachable pole pieces was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Kubozoe teaches manufacturing a lens assembly using detachable yoke elements and a removable coil (see Kubozoe, abstract). 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 Kubozoe in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of manufacturing the lens assembly, while also enabling the ability to provide removable access to the different elements, for example to allow easy switching parts for maintenance. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
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