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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/26 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-16, 18-21 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-16, 18-21 is/are rejected.
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_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbrink et al. (US 20110216299 A1) [hereinafter Steenbrink] in view of Platzgummer (US 20150069260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Steenbrink teaches a lens assembly for manipulating electron beamlets, comprising an electron-optical device for manipulating electron beamlets, the device comprising:
an array substrate (see e.g. fig 4: 41) in which an array of apertures is defined for the path of electron beamlets (see 43, [0081]),
an adjoining substrate (see 42) in which another array of apertures is defined for the path of the electron beamlets (see fig 4); and
a spacer (see 47) disposed between the substrates to separate the substrates such that the opposing surfaces of the substrates are parallel to each other (see fig 4), the spacer having an inner surface that defines an opening for the path of the electron beamlets (see fig 4), wherein the inner surface faces the path of the beamlets (see fig 4), the spacer is in contact with the another region of the array substrate (see fig 4, outer region of array substrate), and the first region of the array substrate is unsupported (see fig 4),
wherein the electron-optical device is configured to provide a potential difference between the substrates (see +/- signs in figs 4,5, [0083], etc).
Steenbrink may fail to explicitly disclose the array substrate having a thickness which is stepped so that the array substrate is thinner in a first region comprising all apertures of the array of apertures than another region of the array substrate.
However, the use of array substrates having thicker outer regions was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches using a thicker surrounding frame to stabilize a thinned membrane portion comprising all the apertures (see Platzgummer, [0059]). 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 Platzgummer in the system of the prior art to improve physical stabilization of the thinner portion comprising all the apertures, for example during operation, manufacturing, assembly, storage, etc, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches one of the array substrate and the adjoining substrate is upbeam of the other (see Steenbrink, e.g. fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose the upbeam substrate has a higher potential difference relative to a reference potential than the downbeam substrate. However, setting an arbitrary reference potential would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art, for example to simplify calculations by setting it as the downbeam potential. Alternately, the reference potential can be constructively defined as any number closer to the downbeam substrate potential than the upstream.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches the inner surface is shaped such that a creep path between the substrates over the inner surface is longer than a minimum distance between the substrates (see Steenbrink, e.g. fig 5, redefining the inner surface as that of 57A, 57B, which has a creep path longer than the vertical distance).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose the inner surface comprises corrugations, the corrugations are concentric and surround the opening. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the interior surface comprises a corrugation (see reading the inner surface as that of the embodiment in Steenbrink, with gaps on both sides [0087], alternately [0089], which constitutes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be read as a corrugation). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of corrugations. However, it is noted that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the inner insulator from two or more sections, for example to simplify manufacturing, thereby providing a plurality of longitudinally separated corrugations. It is noted 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.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches the array substrate comprises a first wafer etched to generate the regions having different thicknesses (see e.g. Steenbrink, [0045-46]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches the inner surface is stepped with an upper beam portion distanced further away from the path of the beamlets than a lower beam portion (redefining the inner structure as that of the structure in Steenbrink, [0087]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches a coating is provided on the surface of at least one of the substrates (see Steenbrink, [0050]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the coating is 0.5 Ohms/square or lower. However, 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 thickness of the coating to provide sufficient conductivity for the desired effect of providing the electrodes (see alternately use of additional conductive layer fig 6a: 66, with thickness parameter [0091]), including a thickness resulting in the claimed sheet resistance. It 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 11, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches the array of apertures defined in the adjoining substrate has the same pattern as the array of apertures defined in the array substrate (see Steenbrink, e.g. [0079], fig 4).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches the array of apertures in the array substrate comprises all apertures in the array substrate (see e.g. Steenbrink, fig 4: 43, [0079]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbrink and Platzgummer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (US 20040061064 A1) [hereinafter Ono].
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose a surface of the array substrate between the first region of the array substrate and the another region of the array substrate is orthogonal to the surface of the array substrate facing the adjoining substrate. However, 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 internal shapes of the outer frame parts of the plates as a routine skill in the art, for example to interface with different lens holder shapes. Additionally, the use of electrode plates having orthogonal internal surfaces was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Ono teaches a known effective aperture plate assembly comprising a surface of the substrate between the thinner region of the substrate and the other region of the substrate is orthogonal to the surface of the substrate facing the adjoining substrate (see Ono, fig 2a), which may be formed with low cost manufacturing (see [0148]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide a substrate having at least one orthogonal surface as claimed, as a routine skill in the art based on available equipment and manufacturing expertise.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbrink and Platzgummer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 20160141142 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer teaches a first wafer (see Steenbrink, fig 4, e.g. defining as 42) in which the aperture array is defined, disposed in contact with the spacer (see 47). Yagi may fail to explicitly disclose a second wafer disposed on a surface of the first wafer in a region not corresponding to the aperture array. However, the use of auxiliary wafers was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Matsumoto teaches mounting an aperture lens array on a second wafer (see e.g. Matsumoto, fig 3: 212) disposed on a surface of the first wafer in a region not corresponding to the aperture array (see fig 3), which enables e.g. an interfacing system (see fig 4). 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 Matsumoto in the system of the prior art in order to enable the intended operation of providing an interface for the electrodes, while also enabling further flexibility to mount the system wherever it is needed, using known effective wafer mounting, in the manner taught by Matsumoto.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbrink and Platzgummer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fichter et al. (US 20160314931 A1) [hereinafter Fichter].
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose a protective resistor configured to provide controlled discharge of stored electric charges in the lens to prevent damages. However, the use of resistors as part of power protection circuits was well known in art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Fichter teaches a known effective system to provide control over even voltages in charged particle beams (see Fichter, abstract, [0034]) which enables the ability to provide a measurement and control loop (e.g. [0027]) and provide even multiple high voltages (see abstract), comprising a protective resistor (see e.g. feedback resistor, [0021]; fig 8, etc) configured to provide controlled discharge of stored electric charges in the lens to prevent damages (natural result of using resistor for feedback control, which would naturally prevent damages to downstream components due to non-corrected voltages and noise). 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 Fichter 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 providing more effective control over the voltages.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Steenbrink, Platzgummer, and Fichter teaches a circuit board (see e.g. Fichter, [0031]) electrically connected to the array substrate and/or the adjoining substrate; wherein the protective resistor is electrically connected to the circuit board (on the PCB, see [0031]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbrink, Platzgummer, and Fichter, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Burgin et al. (US 5920076 A) [hereinafter Burgin] as evidenced by Zhang (US 20120080148 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Steenbrink, Platzgummer, and Fichter teaches a connector (required for intended operation of system) configured to electrically connect the array substrate or the adjoining substrate to the circuit board (required for intended operation of connecting components to PCBs). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the connector is surrounded by material of 25 kV/mm or greater. However, it is noted it would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art to place the device in e.g. a room or basement where it is surrounded by building materials of greater than 25kV/mm. Nevertheless it is noted that it was well known in the art to use jacketing material having greater than 25 kV/mm. For example, Burgin teaches PTFE (possessing 55kV/mm dielectric strength, see Zhang, [0009]) is a known effective insulating structure (see Burgin, col 13, lines 58-60) and teaches a flexible system to enable the ability to provide effective routing and sealing while ensuring effective electrical and mechanical connection (see e.g. fig 9). 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 Burgin 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 the system, including using the known effective PTFE insulator, as taught by Burgin.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenbrink and Platzgummer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Platzgummer (US 20080099693 A1) [hereinafter Platzgummer II].
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose a detector array configured to detect electrons emitted from the sample. However, Platzgummer II teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector array configured to detect electrons emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer II, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). 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 the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer II in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer II.
Regarding claim 16, Steenbrink teaches an objective lens assembly for manipulating electron beamlets, the objective lens assembly comprising an electron-optical device for manipulating electron beamlets, the device comprising:
an array substrate (see e.g. fig 4: 41) in which an array of apertures is defined for the path of electron beamlets (see 43, [0081]),
an adjoining substrate (see 42) in which another array of apertures is defined for the path of the electron beamlets (see fig 4);
a spacer (see 47) disposed between the substrates to separate the substrates such that the opposing surfaces of the substrates are parallel to each other (see fig 4), the spacer having an inner surface that defines an opening for the path of the electron beamlets (see fig 4), wherein the inner surface faces the path of the beamlets (see fig 4), the spacer is in contact with the another region of the array substrate (see fig 4, outer region of array substrate), and the first region of the array substrate is unsupported (see fig 4); and
wherein the electron-optical device is configured to provide a potential difference between the substrates (see +/- signs in figs 4,5, [0083], etc).
Steenbrink may fail to explicitly disclose the array substrate having a thickness which is stepped so that the array substrate is thinner in a first region comprising all apertures of the array of apertures than another region of the array substrate.
However, the use of array substrates having thicker outer regions was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches using a thicker surrounding frame to stabilize a thinned membrane portion comprising all the apertures (see Platzgummer, [0059]). 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 Platzgummer in the system of the prior art to improve physical stabilization of the thinner portion comprising all the apertures, for example during operation, manufacturing, assembly, storage, etc, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
The combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose a detector assembly.
However, Platzgummer II teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector assembly configured to detect electrons emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer II, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). 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 the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer II in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer II.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Steenbrink, Platzgummer, and Platzgummer II teaches the detector assembly is down beam of the electron-optical device (see Platzgummer II, fig 1:15).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Steenbrink, Platzgummer, and Platzgummer II teaches the detector assembly comprising a detector array configured to detect electrons emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer II, [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Steenbrink teaches a lens assembly for manipulating electron beamlets, the objective lens assembly comprising an electron-optical device for manipulating electron beamlets, the device comprising:
an array substrate (see e.g. fig 4: 41) in which an array of apertures is defined for the path of electron beamlets (see 43, [0081]),
an adjoining substrate (see 42) in which another array of apertures is defined for the path of the electron beamlets (see fig 4);
a spacer (see 47) disposed between the substrates to separate the substrates such that the opposing surfaces of the substrates are parallel to each other (see fig 4), the spacer having an inner surface that defines an opening for the path of the electron beamlets (see fig 4), wherein the inner surface faces the path of the beamlets (see fig 4), the spacer is in contact with the another region of the array substrate (see fig 4, outer region of array substrate), and the first region of the array substrate is unsupported (see fig 4); and
wherein the electron-optical device is configured to provide a potential difference between the substrates (see +/- signs in figs 4,5, [0083], etc), the lens assembly is a condenser lens array (e.g. lens assembly defined to comprise fig 1: 4-10) and is configured to generate the electron beamlets from an electron beam emitted by a source (see fig 1: 1).
Steenbrink may fail to explicitly disclose the array substrate having a thickness which is stepped so that the array substrate is thinner in a first region comprising all apertures of the array of apertures than another region of the array substrate.
However, the use of array substrates having thicker outer regions was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Platzgummer teaches using a thicker surrounding frame to stabilize a thinned membrane portion comprising all the apertures (see Platzgummer, [0059]). 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 Platzgummer in the system of the prior art to improve physical stabilization of the thinner portion comprising all the apertures, for example during operation, manufacturing, assembly, storage, etc, in the manner taught by Platzgummer.
The combined teaching of Steenbrink and Platzgummer may fail to explicitly disclose a detector assembly.
However, Platzgummer II teaches a system the uses protective diaphragm comprising a detector assembly configured to detect electrons emitted from the sample (see Platzgummer II, [0076]), which mitigates problems with contamination and fogging arising from exposing the target to the electron beam (see [0010,60], fig 1). 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 the detector/protective diaphragm of Platzgummer II in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to reduce problems with contamination while also learning more information about the target being simultaneously imaged and/or the processing, in the manner taught by Platzgummer II.
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