DETAILED ACTION
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the scattered electron shield is comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays.” In contrast, the specification does not teach the scattered electron shield being comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays. Although the specification teaches in [0044] that the scattered electron shield may be composed of gold and tungsten in order to also shield X-rays as well as the scattered electrons, the specification never mentions the scattered electron shield being comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain some desired amount of attenuation of X-rays. In [0044] the specification teaches the X-ray shield, a separately claimed structure, as having a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays, however the X-ray shield (component 20) is described as being a distinct structure from the scattered electron shield. Consequently there is no written description to suggest that the scattered electron shield is comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays.
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 1-19 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 10 recite “an x-ray shield disposed upstream of the blanking aperture array substrate and including an opening through which the multi charged particle beam passes in a central portion” is indefinite because it is unclear what the central portion is a central portion of. “A central portion” suggests a portion/area/part that is in the middle of something. It is unclear if the central portion is referring to a central portion of the opening of the x-ray shield or a central portion of the blanking aperture array system, or a central portion of some other entity. Consequently, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 11-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Claim 4 and claim 13 recite “wherein the scattered electron shield is in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate, and covers the circuit section.” The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close the scattered electron shield needs to be between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate in order to be considered “in close contact.”
Claim 7 and claim 16 recite “wherein the X-ray shield is in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate, and covers the circuit section.” The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close the X-ray shield needs to be between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate in order to be considered “in close contact.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto, et. al. (US 20180182593 A1), hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a blanking aperture array system (Abstract) comprising:
a blanking aperture array substrate including a plurality of beam passage holes through which beams in a multi charged particle beam pass from upstream to downstream and being provided with blankers to perform blanking deflection on the beams corresponding to the beam passage holes (blanking aperture array member 30, [0023], Fig. 1); and
an X-ray shield disposed upstream of the blanking aperture array substrate and including an opening through which the multi charged particle beam passes in a central portion (X-ray shielding plate 50, [0026], Fig. 3),
wherein a cell section including the beam passage holes and the blankers is provided in a central portion of the blanking aperture array substrate (30, 32, Fig. 1), and a circuit section including a circuit device to apply a voltage to each of the blankers is disposed in a periphery of the cell section (circuit that controls a blanker disposed under the blanker (a periphery), [0028]), and
the circuit section is disposed such that a shortest distance between the circuit section and an outermost peripheral beam passage hole of the plurality of beam passage holes is greater than or equal to a distance based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate (when looking at the distance between a non-outermost blanking aperture and an outermost blanking aperture, a distance between a circuit directly under a non-outermost blanker ([0028]) and an outermost blanker, as seen in Fig. 1, , can be greater than or equal to 10 µm since w3 is disclosed to be 10 µm, [0035], [0028]. This distance is based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate, [0005], [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto teaches a multi charged particle beam writing apparatus (writing apparatus 100, [0022], Fig. 1) comprising:
a charged particle beam source emitting a charged particle beam (electron gun 111, [0022], Fig. 1);
a shaping aperture array substrate including a plurality of first openings to form a multi charged particle beam by part of the charged particle beam passing through the plurality of first openings from upstream to downstream (shaping aperture array 10, [0023], Fig. 1);
a blanking aperture array substrate including a plurality of beam passage holes through which beams in the multi charged particle beam pass from upstream to downstream and being provided with blankers to perform blanking deflection on the beams corresponding to the beam passage holes (blanking aperture array 30, [0028], Fig. 1); and
an X-ray shield disposed upstream or downstream of the blanking aperture array substrate and including a second opening through which the multi charged particle beam passes in a central portion (X ray shield plate 50, [0026], Fig. 3),
wherein a cell section including the beam passage holes and the blankers is provided in a central portion of the blanking aperture array substrate (30, 32, Fig. 1), and a circuit section including a circuit device to apply a voltage to each of the blankers is disposed in a periphery of the cell section (circuit that controls a blanker disposed under the blanker (a periphery), [0028]), and
the circuit section is such that a shortest distance between the circuit section and an outermost peripheral beam passage hole of the plurality of beam passage holes is greater than or equal to a distance based on a range of scattered electrons in the blanking aperture array substrate (when looking at the distance between a non-outermost blanking aperture and an outermost blanking aperture, a distance between a circuit directly under a non-outermost blanker ([0028]) and an outermost blanker, as seen in Fig. 1, , can be greater than or equal to 10 µm since w3 is disclosed to be 10 µm, [0035], [0028]. This distance is based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate, [0005], [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches wherein the circuit section is disposed so that a shortest distance between the circuit section and an open end of the opening of the X-ray shield is greater than or equal to a distance defined by a sum of a penetration distance of X-rays and a range of photoelectrons generated by the X-rays (The x-ray shield 50 is more than the required distance from the circuit on the blanking array, see Fig. 3 and [0034-0036].).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto teaches wherein the circuit section is disposed so that a shortest distance between the circuit section and an open end of the opening of the X-ray shield is greater than or equal to a distance defined by a sum of a penetration distance of X-rays and a range of photoelectrons generated by the X-rays (The x-ray shield 50 is more than the required distance from the circuit on the blanking array, see Fig. 3 and [0034-0036].).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto teaches further comprising a scattered electron shield disposed upstream or downstream of the blanking aperture array substrate (shield plate 20, [0027], Fig. 3), and comprised of a member with a thickness greater than an electron range (20 has thickness T1, [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Matusmoto teaches further comprising a scattered electron shield disposed upstream or downstream of the blanking aperture array substrate (shield plate 20, [0027], Fig. 3), and comprised of a member with a thickness greater than an electron range (20 has thickness T1, [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches wherein the scattered electron shield is in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate, and covers the circuit section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto teaches wherein the scattered electron shield is in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate, and covers the circuit section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches wherein the scattered electron shield is disposed in the opening of the X-ray shield (electron shield 10 is in the opening of the x-ray shield 50 as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto teaches wherein the scattered electron shield is disposed in the opening of the X-ray shield (electron shield 10 is in the opening of the x-ray shield 50 as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches wherein the X-ray shield is in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate, and covers the circuit section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the X-ray shield is in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate, and covers the circuit section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches further comprising a scattered electron shield disposed both upstream (shield plate 20 is upstream of blanking aperture array 30, Fig. 1, [0023]) and downstream of the blanking aperture array substrate (limiting aperture member 116 is downstream of blanking aperture array 30, [0030]), and comprised of a member with a thickness greater than an electron range ([0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto teaches further comprising a scattered electron shield disposed both upstream (shield plate 20 is upstream of blanking aperture array 30, Fig. 1, [0023]) and downstream of the blanking aperture array substrate (limiting aperture member 116 is downstream of blanking aperture array 30, [0030]), and comprised of a member with a thickness greater than an electron range ([0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto teaches further comprising a second X-ray shield fixed to a lower surface of the shaping aperture array substrate (X ray shield plate 50 is fixed to shaping aperture array 10. The apertures create breaks in the shield plate. If we interpret a part of the x ray shield plate between apertures as an x-ray shield, then there are at least two (a second) x ray shields.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, et. al. (US 20180182593 A1) in view of Yamashita (US 20190051494 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the X-ray shield contains tungsten, gold, tantalum or lead.
Yamashita teaches wherein the X-ray shield contains tungsten, gold, tantalum or lead ([0025]).
Yamashita modifies Matsumoto by suggesting the X-ray shield contains tungsten, gold, tantalum, or lead.
Since Matsumoto and Yamashita are both directed to multi charged particle beam writing apparatuses with x-ray shielding plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita because larger atomic number/heavy metal materials such as those claimed have a higher X-ray absorption rate, allowing for successful shielding of X-rays.
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the X-ray shield contains tungsten, gold, tantalum or lead.
Yamashita teaches wherein the X-ray shield contains tungsten, gold, tantalum or lead ([0025]).
Yamashita modifies Matsumoto by suggesting the X-ray shield contains tungsten, gold, tantalum, or lead.
Since Matsumoto and Yamashita are both directed to multi charged particle beam writing apparatuses with x-ray shielding plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita because larger atomic number/heavy metal materials such as those claimed have a higher X-ray absorption rate, allowing for successful shielding of X-rays.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, et. al. (US 20180182593 A1) in view of Okunuki, et. al. (US 20090316860 A1), hereinafter Okunuki.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto does not teach wherein the scattered electron shield is comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays.
Okunuki teaches wherein the scattered electron shield is comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays (X-ray/reflected electron beam shielding plate 43, [0053]).
Okunuki modifies Matsumoto by suggesting the scattered electron shield is also capable of blocking X-rays.
Since both Matsumoto and Okunuki are concerned with blocking X-rays and scattered electrons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Okunuki because the shielding plate of Okunuki can block both scattered electrons and X-rays as desired to prevent leakage, (Okunuki, [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto does not teach wherein the scattered electron shield is comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays.
Okunuki teaches wherein the scattered electron shield is comprised of a member with a thickness to obtain a desired amount of attenuation of X-rays (X-ray/reflected electron beam shielding plate 43, [0053]).
Okunuki modifies Matsumoto by suggesting the scattered electron shield is also capable of blocking X-rays.
Since both Matsumoto and Okunuki are concerned with blocking X-rays and scattered electrons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Okunuki because the shielding plate of Okunuki can block both scattered electrons and X-rays as desired to prevent leakage, (Okunuki, [0052]-[0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881