DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on February 5th, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim limitation “a calibrator configured to tune each of the plurality of amplifiers” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure describes the calibrator as an element outputting a calibration signal controlling voltage applied to the feedback resistor (“In some embodiments, the calibrator 82 is configured to output the calibration signal to the electrical potential applicator 83. … The multiplexer 84 is configured to distribute the voltage to the relevant feedback resistor 70 at the required time.”). No disclosure of what generates the signal or what form the signal takes appears to be present. It is further unclear how the calibration signal tunes the amplification. It is disclosed elsewhere that tuning involves adjusting the resistance of a feedback resistor (“By adjusting the resistance value of the feedback resistor 70, the amplification factor applied by the amplifier 61 can be controlled.”). Therefore, examiner’s best guess is that the resistor is a digital potentiometer and the calibration signal sets the wiper to the desired value, but even if this is correct it still does not tell us what generates the calibration signal or how it’s determined what signal is needed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Examiner has not examined the claim on the merits because this is the only limitation and no possible interpretation is apparent.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8-9 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.
Claim limitation “an electrical potential applicator configured to apply electrical potential to determine the resistance value of the feedback resistor,” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure describes the electrical potential applicator as a digital to analog converter (“In some embodiments, the electrical potential applicator 83 comprises a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) configured to convert a digital calibration signal into an analog DC voltage.”). However, no disclosure of how the digital to analog converter can be configured to apply electrical potential so as to determine the resistance value of the feedback resistor appears to be present. A DAC only functions to converter a signal from one form to another, and does not fulfill the function of applying electrical potential so as to determine the resistance value of the feedback resistor. Furthermore, it is only disclosed to convert a calibration signal which is disclosed to “tune the amplifier” by “adjusting the resistance value of the feedback resistor 70”. A signal used to adjust the resistance value cannot also determine the resistance value, because it is changing the resistance value. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the limitation simply to require a digital to analog converter.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0320382 (Almogy et al.) in view of US 2009/0050822 (Nakasuji et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Almogy et al. discloses a multi-beam electron-optical system or a charged-particle assessment tool, the system comprising:
an objective lens array assembly comprising a plurality of objective lenses, each configured to project one of a plurality of charged-particle beams onto a sample (fig. 1, element 150, ‘a high-performance objective lens array’ P 61);
a detector array associated with the objective lens array assembly and configured to detect charged-particles emitted from the sample, the detector array including a plurality of detector elements (fig. 1, element 170).
Almogy et al. does not disclose circuit comprising a plurality of amplifiers, one amplifier in data communication with one detector element of the detector array; wherein each amplifier is configured to independently tune amplification of a signal from a corresponding detector element.
However, Nakasuji et al. discloses a multi-beam electron-optical system for a charged-particle assessment tool including an amplifier in data communication with the detector array of detector elements (fig. 36, element 32-4); and circuit comprising a plurality of amplifiers, one amplifier in data communication with one detector element of the detector array; wherein each amplifier is configured to independently tune amplification of a signal from a corresponding detector element (‘Each of the amplifiers is provided with a gain adjuster 34-4’ P 265). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the system of Almogy et al. to include the plurality of amplifiers of Nakasuji et al. so that the signal could be amplified to levels sufficient for the signal processor to use. It would further have been obvious to include the gain adjusters so that the gain could be adjusted based on the signal strength.
Regarding claim 2, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the claimed invention except Almogy et al. does not specify whether the detector array is a current detector array configured to detect the charged-particles by reference to their charge. Nakasuji et al. discloses the use of this form of detector (“secondary electron beams emitted from the sample by the irradiation of the focussed electron beam (called the "primary electron beam") are detected by … a semiconductor-based detector (using PIN diodes).” P 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art a the time the application was filed to use semiconductor-based detectors because they are very compact which is extremely useful when needing an array of detectors.
Regarding claim 3, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 1, wherein each amplifier is configured to independently tune amplification of the signal from the detector element to increase a proportion of an input range of downstream electronics used (intended use, only requires that each amplifier be independently tuneable).
Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. does not disclose a plurality of analogue to digital converters in data communication with a corresponding amplifier to convert a signal from the detector element to a digital output. Analogue to digital converters are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a converter so that the signal processors 33-4 could receive data in a digital form, which is the form most signal processing circuits are designed to use.
Regarding claim 5, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 1, wherein each amplifier comprises a feedback resistor configured to determine an amplification factor of the amplifier (fig. 36 of Nakasuji illustrates gain adjusters 34-4 as feedback resistors).
Regarding claim 6, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 5, wherein: the feedback resistor is variable (feedback resistors are shown using the standard symbol for variable resistors).
Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. does not disclose the feedback resistor comprises a fixed resistor and a variable resistor the fixed resistor has a higher resistance value than the variable resistor. Fixed resistors are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include one to ensure a certain minimal level of resistance is guaranteed, preventing the gain from becoming too large. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the application was filed to make the fixed resistor have a larger resistance or a smaller resistance as desired under obvious to try grounds, there being only 3 options – fixed is larger, variable is larger, or both equal.
Regarding claim 7, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 6, wherein a resistance value of the feedback resistor depends on an applied electrical potential (‘The gain adjusters 34-4 are electrically connected to the aperture plate electrode 13-4 through a common amplifier 35-4’ Nakasuji et al., P 265).
Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. does not disclose a sample and hold circuit configured to hold the applied electrical potential so as to maintain the resistance value of the feedback resistor. Sample and hold circuits are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include one if a fixed gain where desired.
Regarding claim 8, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an electrical potential applicator configured to apply electrical potential so as to determine the resistance value of the feedback resistor; the electrical potential applicator comprises a digital to analogue converter configured to output the electrical potential. Digital to analog converters are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include one so that digital signals could be converted for use in applying a potential to the feedback resistor.
Regarding claim 9, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a multiplexer configured to control application of the electrical potential by the electrical potential applicator for each of the plurality of amplifiers for a respective detector element in turn. Multiplexers are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add one to the circuit of Nakasuji et al. so that the same signal could be applied to each detector element, reducing the number of needed control signals.
Regarding claim 10, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 1, wherein each detector element comprises: a metal member configured to receive the charged-particles emitted from the sample; or a scintillator or an array of PIN elements detector (“Secondary electron beams emitted from the sample by the irradiation of the focussed electron beam (called the "primary electron beam") are detected by a combination of a scintillator and a photomultiplier (photomultiplier tube) or a semiconductor based detector (using PIN diodes).” Nakasuji et al., P 6).
Regarding claim 11, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 1, wherein at least an element of the circuit is associated with the detector array (‘Signal processors 33-4 (only 33-4a, 33-4b, 33-4c are illustrated in FIG. 36) are connected to the respective detectors 31-4 through amplifiers 32-4” Nakasuji et al., P. 265).
Regarding claim 12, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether the at least an element of the circuit is structurally integrated into the detector array. Structurally integrating connected parts is common in the art and obvious as a matter of design choice, as applicant has not disclosed that structurally integrating the amplification circuit and detector solves any particular problem, and it appears the invention would work just as well with integrated or separate but connected circuits.
Regarding claim 13, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 1, wherein the detector array is between: the plurality of objective lenses and the sample, and the detector array faces the sample; or .the plurality of objective lenses is between the detector array and the sample (Almogy, fig. 1, also Nakasuji et al., fig. 36).
Regarding claim 14, Almogy et al. in view of Nakasuji et al. disclose the multi-beam electron-optical system of claim 1, comprising: a secondary projection apparatus aligned with a secondary electron-optical axis of the charged-particle assessment tool, wherein the detector array is associated with the secondary projection apparatus (Almogy, fig. 1, also Nakasuji et al., fig. 36).
Regarding claim 15, Almogy et al. discloses a method for assessing a sample surface with a plurality of sub-beams, the method comprising:
projecting, by use of an objective lens array assembly, the sub-beams onto a surface of a sample (‘objective lens assembly (150) … adapted for focusing the plurality of electron beams onto a specimen (20)’ abstract);
detecting, by a detector array associated with the objective lens array assembly, charged-particles emitted from the sample, wherein the detector array includes a plurality of detector elements (‘a detection assembly (170) for individually detecting each signal beam on a corresponding detection element.’ abstract).
Almogy does not disclose amplifying, by each of a plurality of amplifier, one amplifier corresponding to one detector element, a signal from each detector element, wherein each amplifier is configured to independently tune the amplification of the signal from the detector element.
Nakasuji et al. discloses a method for assessing a sample surface by detecting charged-particles emitted from the sample and amplifying, by each of a plurality of amplifier, one amplifier corresponding to one detector element, a signal from each detector element (‘The electro-optical system 70 has a detector 31-4 (only 31-4a, 31-4b, 31-4c are illustrated in FIG. 36) for each aperture of the multi-aperture plate 23-4. Signal processors 33-4 (only 33-4a, 33-4b, 33-4c are illustrated in FIG. 36) are connected to the respective detectors 31-4 through amplifiers 32-4 (only 32-4a, 32-4b, 32-4c are illustrated in FIG. 36), respectively.’ P 265), wherein each amplifier is configured to independently tune the amplification of the signal from the detector element (‘Each of the amplifiers is provided with a gain adjuster 34-4 (only 34-4a, 34-4b, 34-4c are illustrated in FIG. 36) to adjust the gain or offset value of the associated amplifier.’ P 265).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Almogy et al. to include the amplification of Nakasuji et al. so that the signal would be amplified to levels sufficient for the signal processor to use. It would further have been obvious to include the gain adjusters so that the gain could be adjusted based on the signal strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation, applicant argues that the claimed terms are claimed to be part of a circuit, and a circuit connotates a structure. The terms interpreted under 112(f) do not use the term circuit. Claim 4 uses the term “calibrator” which is synonymous with “means for calibrating”. Claims 8-9 recite “an electrical potential applicator” which is synonymous with “means for applying an electrical potential”. It is true that the calibrator is claimed to be an element in a larger structure that is a circuit, but that is not the same as being claimed as a circuit. The circuit is also claimed as being a part of a larger structure that is a multi-beam electron-optical system, that does not make the circuit an electron-optical system.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that Nakasuji does not teach a plurality of amplifier configured to independently tune amplification because Nakasuji tunes the plurality of amplifier to generate the same outputs.
Nakasuji does disclose that the plurality of amplifier can be adjusted in concert to correct for temporal variation in the signal strength (“In this event, the electron beam is irradiated to measure time fluctuations in a current which flows through the aperture plate electrode, and the result is input to the gain adjuster of the amplifier in the secondary electron detectors.” P 268). However, Nakasuji also discloses individual adjustments of each amplifer to correct for spatial variation (“Also, since variations in the multi-aperture plate and the transmittance of secondary electrons can be corrected by adjusting the gains of the amplifiers, outputs from the respective detectors are free from variations.” P 270). Regardless, the claims only require the amplifiers to be configured to be independently adjustable, which they are simply by having separate variable resistors. Whether they are actually adjusted independently or in concert is intended use, all that examiner must show is that the plurality of amplifiers are capable of being independently tuned.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time 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, 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights