DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
Claim 6 has been amended to resolve the indefinite issues under 35 USC 112(b), therefore the rejection is withdrawn. Specifically, claim 6 has been amended to clarify that the additional switching circuit is a fourth switching circuit.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
The remarks take the position that Satoh does not apply the output of the amplifier to a diagnostic circuit and therefore switching element SW0 is not configured to switch the output of the amplifier between the electrode and the diagnostic circuit and is not configured to apply the output of the amplifier to a diagnostic circuit in a case that the output of the amplifier is connected to the diagnostic circuit and is detected from the electrode.
This has been found unpersuasive in view of the new interpretation discussed herein below.
Satoh teaches that the circuit 34a turns on the switch SW0 only when the control signal C0 is set to 1, when the control signal C0 is set to 0 the switch is off (col. 24, lines 12-18). In the off position, the output travels through the resistor R1 (col. 24, lines 53-57), thus detached from the electrode 30 via switch SW0. That is, the output from amplifier 32 does not directly travel to 30 because the switch is open and instead goes through R1 (i.e. detached from direct connection).
Note this is similar to the instant figure 3 of the drawings witch show the switch while in a disconnected state still attached via a resistor 84 attached in parallel. This resistor is required by claim 1.
The circuit 34A switches SW0 based on a count value (col. 24, lines 12-18). When the count value changes from n to 0, the output of the amplifying circuit 32 decreases in a large step and during the large step change the switching element SW0 is turned on and the output of the amplifying circuit is supplied directly to the sub deflector 30 (col. 25, lines 3-10).
That is, the counter 35, circuit 34A and resistor may be interpreted to be a diagnostic circuit1 because when the count value is between n-0 the amplifier decreases in a large step and switch allows amplifier output to directly pass to electrode (col. 25, lines 3-10), whereas when the count value is within the range 1 to n the amplifier increases in small steps thus amplifier output is directed towards the resistor (col. 24, lines 49-57). Therefore, the state of the count value of the counter 35 allows 34a to diagnose whether the amplifier is in a state of small steps or large steps. When in the state of n to 1 the switch is off and the amplifier output goes through R1 of the (diagnosis) circuit (col. 24, lines 48-57). That is, 34a diagnoses whether the count value from 35 indicates the state of the amplifier to be in a large step range or a small step range, and when in a small step range to send amplifier output to the resistor R1 and when in a large step range to send the output directly to the electrode 30.
The claim does not structurally require any particular elements for the diagnostic circuit or what the circuit diagnoses in the amplifier, therefore does not preclude the diagnostic circuit to the counter 35, the circuit 34a and the resistor R1 which determine whether the output should go through the resistor R1 of the circuit or directly be provided to the deflector 30 based on whether the amplifier is performing a small step or a large step.
Therefore, under the new grounds rejection herein below. The claims are found obvious.
Lastly, it is noted the remarks take the position that SW0 is not configured to switch the output of the amplifier between the electrode and the diagnostic circuit. This has been found unpersuasive. The switch (SW0) is configured to switch the output of the amplifier 32 between the electrode 30 and the resistor (r1) of the diagnostic circuit (35/34a/R1). In this case, the amplifier is connected to R1 (forming a circuit between 34a/35 and R1) and detached from direct coupling via the disconnected switch in open position as seen in figure 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are vague and indefinite for requiring “switch the output of the amplifier …configured to apply the output of the amplifier to the diagnostic circuit in a case that the output of the amplifier is connected to the diagnostic circuit and is detached from the electrode… a resistance configured to connect, parallelly to the switching circuit”.
Specifically, the amplifier output cannot be detached from the electrode and connected in parallel via a resistor. Figure 3 shows the resistor connected in parallel to the switch even when the switch is detached from the electrode. That is, output is always from the amplifier to the electrode. It appears that when the switch is attached to the diagnostic circuit, the amplifier output goes through the resistor. No unambiguous determination can be made see annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
696
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on respective indefinite claims 1 and 7.
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, 3-4, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (USPN 5,546,319) in view of Nishiyama (US pgPub 2010/0237261)
Regarding claim 1, Satoh et al. teach a charged particle beam writing apparatus (fig. 14) comprising:
an electrode (30) configured to deflect a charged particle beam (col. 1, lines 62-67 through col. 2, lines 1-4 teach scanning electrons using the sub deflector (i.e. deflecting electron beam));
an amplifier (32) configured to apply a deflection potential to the electrode (32 is upstream 30 and electrically connected thereto, thus providing potential to electrode);
a diagnostic circuit (35/34a and R1 (see discussion above)) configured to diagnose the amplifier (whether amplifier is in a state of large step change or small step change based on count value- see col. 24, lines 48-57 and col. 25, lines 3-10);
a switching circuit (switch SW0) arranged between an output of the amplifier and the electrode (fig. 14 shows SW0 between 32 and 30), configured to switch the output of the amplifier between the electrode and the diagnostic circuit (closed state of SW0 connection between 32 and 30 provides direct amplifier output from amp 32 to electrode 30 (col. 25, lines 6-9) and open state (off state) output to resistor R1 of diagnostic circuit 35/34a/R1 see col. 24, lines 53-57) and configured to apply the output of the amplifier to the diagnostic circuit in a case that the output of the amplifier is connected to the diagnostic circuit and is detached from the electrode (as seen in figure 14 in the open state SW0 provides amplifier output from 32 to resistor R1 of diagnostic circuit 35/34a/R1 while detached from direct attachment with electrode via switch SW1);
an electron optical system (optical elements within irradiation device of figure 1) configured to irradiate a target object (10 of figure 1) with the charged particle beam deflected by being applied with the deflection potential by the amplifier (see figure 1 and citations above);
a column (column required as lithography is performed under vacuum conditions) configured to include therein the electrode and the electron optical system (figure 1 shows system containing several optical elements and deflector sub deflector 30);
a first cable configured to connect an output side of the amplifier with the switching circuit (cable between 32 and switch SW0);
a second cable configured to connect the electrode with the switching circuit (cable from 30 to SW0 );
a third cable configured to connect the output side of the amplifier with the diagnostic circuit (cable between 34a and SW0 connects with amplifier when SW0 is in the position seen in figure 14); and
a resistance (R1 (note resistance not required to be distinct from the diagnostic circuit)) configured to connect, parallelly to the switching circuit an conductor of the first cable with an conductor of the second cable ((as seen in figure 14, R1 is parallel to switching circuit and cables between SW0 and 30 and 32),
wherein the conductor of the first cable is connected to one end side of the conductor of the second cable through the switching circuit (cable between 32 and SW0 and between 30 and SW0 connected through switch),
the conductor of the first cable is connected to one end side of an inner conductor of the third cable through the switching circuit (cable between 32 and SW0 and cable between 34A and SW0 are connected through the switch SW0), and
in a case of switching the output of the amplifier to a side of the electrode, the switching circuit detaches the third cable from the first cable (by closing switch SW0 detachment occurs from cable between 34a and SW0).
Satoh differs from the claimed invention by only teaching cables between various elements.
However, Nishiyama teaches coaxial cables with inner cables coupled to one another and outer cables coupled to one another via a connector (see figure 2a annotated herein below).
PNG
media_image2.png
613
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishiyama modifies the Satoh by suggesting coaxial connectors used as the electrical lines.
Since both inventions are directed towards providing cables between amplifiers and deflectors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the coaxial cables suggested in Nishiyama instead of the cables in the device of Satoh because it would provide in addition to a central conductor or signal line a shield or ground line coaxially placed therearound, therefore mitigating the risk of cross-talk between the various cables in the device ([0019]). Note: by substituting the cables taught in Satoh for the cables of Nishiyama, the inner conductors and outer conductors of the three cables would connect via the switch as required by the claim because the inner conductor is the signal line and the outer conductor is the ground or shield line therefore resulting in an outer conductor of the first coaxial cable is connected to one end side of an outer conductor of the second coaxial cable through the switching circuit, the outer conductor of the first coaxial cable is connected to one end side of an outer conductor of the third coaxial cable through the switching circuit as illustrated in the annotated figure 14 of Sato below.
PNG
media_image3.png
796
909
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Satoh teaches wherein the electrode deflects the charged particle beam to a desired position on the target object (as seen in figure 3, see col. 22, lines 7-17 for desired scan deflection).
Regarding claim 4, the Satoh in view of Nishiyama wherein the switching circuit switches a connection with the inner conductor of the first coaxial cable between the inner conductor of the second coaxial cable and the inner conductor of the third coaxial cable, and, in conjunction with this, switches a connection with the outer conductor of the first coaxial cable between the outer conductor of the second coaxial cable and the outer conductor of the third coaxial cable (as seen in figure 13 of Satoh, annotated modification by Nishiyama see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
796
909
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is the method of claim 1 and is commensurate and scope. Therefore claim 7 is obvious as discussed in the citations herein above.
Regarding claim 9, Satoh teaches deflecting, by applying the deflection potential by the amplifier, the charged particle beam to a desired position on the target object (as seen in figure 3, see col. 22, lines 7-17 for desired scan deflection. Amplifier provides voltage as seen in figure 14).
Regarding claim 10, Satoh fails to disclose performing blanking-deflection of the charged particle beam by applying the deflection potential by the amplifier.
However, Nishiyama teaches performing blanking-deflection of the charged particle beam by applying the deflection potential by the amplifier (amplifier 41 providing blanking control to blanker 23 in figure 1).
Nishiyama modifies the combined device by suggesting duplicating the amplifier circuits for multiple components within the device. Therefore, since both inventions are directed towards e-beam lithography devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined system to have a duplicated amplifier circuit suggested in Satoh in view of Hasegawa so as to account for setting time as suggested in Satoh and resolving anomalies as suggested in Hasegawa in the amplifier applied to the blanker as taught in Nishiyama.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (USPN 5,546,319) in view of Nishiyama (US pgPub 2010/0237261) and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US pgPub 2010/0030522).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the combined device further fails to disclose a first shaping aperture substrate and a second shaping aperture substrate, wherein the electrode deflects the charged particle beam in order that the charged particle beam is shaped by the first shaping aperture substrate and the second shaping aperture substrate.
However, Tsuchiya et al. teach a first shaping aperture substrate (fig. 1, 120) and a second shaping aperture substrate (126), wherein the electrode (124) deflects the charged particle beam in order that the charged particle beam is shaped by the first shaping aperture substrate and the second shaping aperture substrate ([0022] 124 downstream of 120 such that electrons are shaped by first and second shaping aperture substrates).
Tsuchiya et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting the electrode to be disposed between to shaping aperture plates.
Since both inventions are directed towards e-beam lithography devices and deflection of electrons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the deflector between two beam shaping aperture plates as discussed in Tsuchiya et al. because the shaping apertures ensure the spot of the electron beam is positioned on in necessary subfield regions to perform the writing ([0026]), therefore mitigating defects in the pattern.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (USPN 5,546,319) in view of Nishiyama (US pgPub 2010/0237261) and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (JP 2016046432)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 05 January 2026)
Regarding claim 5, Satoh teaches wherein the electrode is used as a first electrode (see claim 1 above), further comprising: a second electrode (figure 6a shows 30 made up of four electrostatic deflecting pairs, col. 3, lines 21-25) configured to make up a deflector by being paired with the first electrode (pairs see col. 3, lines 21-25);
Satoh only discloses one amplifier for deflector 30 in figure 14.
However, since Satoh envisioned electrode pairs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a duplicate a second amplifier configured to apply a deflection potential to the second electrode; and a second switching circuit arranged between an output of the second amplifier and the second electrode, and configured to switch the output of the second amplifier between the second electrode so that the same reduction of setting time during a step change can be achieved as discussed in the abstract for all electrodes in the system.
Satoh further fails to disclose the second switching circuit configured to switch the output of the amplifier between the second electrode and the diagnostic system.
However, Hasegawa teaches a second switching circuit (SW associated with second electrode 26b) configured to switch the output of the amplifier between the second electrode and the diagnostic system (switch between isolation of detector 106 in figure 1 when switch is open to passing to 106 when switch is closed).
Hasegawa et al. modifies Satoh by suggesting an additional detection device to determine presence or absence of noise from an amplifier signal from both electrodes pairs.
Since both inventions are directed towards circuits off a switch from the output of an amplifier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control circuit of Satoh to include the detection device of Hasegawa et al. because it would facilitate the identification of an abnormality ([0006] thus reducing the possibility that a defect may occur in the pattern drawn on the mask [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Satoh in view of Hasegawa teaches wherein the diagnostic circuit is used as a first diagnostic circuit (see discussion above with respect to Hasegawa), further comprising:
a third electrode and a fourth electrode configured to make up the deflector in combination with the first electrode and the second electrode (figure 6a shows 30 made up of four electrostatic deflecting pairs, col. 3, lines 21-25).
While Satoh only discloses a single amplifier provided to a single deflector and Hasegawa only teaches a single detector (i.e. diagnostic circuit) for a pair of deflectors, Satoh envisioned four deflector pairs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a duplicate a third amplifier and a fourth amplifier configured to apply deflection potentials to the third electrode and the fourth electrode; a second diagnostic circuit (duplicating the diagnostic circuit of Hasegawa) configured to diagnose the third amplifier and the fourth amplifier; a third switching circuit arranged between an output of the third amplifier and the third electrode, and configured to switch the output of the third amplifier between the third electrode and the second diagnostic circuit; and a third switching circuit arranged between an output of the fourth amplifier and the fourth electrode, and configured to switch the output of the fourth amplifier between the fourth electrode and the second diagnostic circuit, so that the additional deflector pairs may each have the advantages of Satoh in view of Hasegawa as discussed herein above. (i.e. a second diagnostic circuit for additional electrode pairs discussed in Satoh)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hasegawa et al. (JP 2016046432)further teaches a charged particle beam writing apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
an electrode (26) configured to deflect a charged particle beam ([0021]);
an amplifier (105) configured to apply a deflection potential to the electrode ([0037]);
a diagnostic circuit (105) configured to diagnose the amplifier ([0038]-[0039] teaches detection device is a computer that determines whether the deflection signals from the deflection amplifier include noise thus diagnose the amplifier);
a switching circuit (switch SW) arranged between an output of the amplifier and the electrode ([0043]), and configured to switch the output of the amplifier between the electrode and the diagnostic circuit (switch amplifier between just the electrode (when switch is off isolating the monitor circuit from amplifier) and connection to the electrode and detector 105 see paragraph [0043]. Note the claim does not require the switch to isolate the deflector or electrode from amplifier output);
an electron optical system (optical elements within irradiation device 20) configured to irradiate a target object (120) with the charged particle beam deflected by being applied with the deflection potential by the amplifier (see figure 1 and citations above);
a column (20) configured to include therein the electrode and the electron optical system (figure 1 shows 20 containing several optical elements and deflector 26);
a first cable configured to connect an output side of the amplifier with the switching circuit (cable between 105 through branch to switch SW).
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 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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Resistor is only used in isolation when switch is in off or open state as seen in figure 14. When in closed state or “On” state the amplifier output is directly sent to the electrode (see col. 25, lines 6-9). Thus resistor R1 is only in the circuit when the switch SW0 is in off state determined by 34a and part of the circuit 34A/35 thereof.
Prosecution Insights