DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of the amendment to the specification. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 10, 4 and 13, and 7 and 16, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1-19 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “Matsumoto does not address or consider the problem of scattered electrons entering the interior of the blanking aperture array substrate.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (addressing the problem of scattered electrons entering the interior of the blanking aperture array substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). There is no requirement by the claims that the structure must solve the problem of scattered electrons entering the interior of the blanking aperture array substrate, even though this is the problem that the instant application aims to solve. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts that “Matsumoto also does not disclose or suggest the position of the circuit under blanking aperture array 30 is based on a range of scattered electrons in the blanking aperture array substrate as recited in Claim 1.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that “the position of the circuit under blanking aperture array 30 is based on a range of scattered electrons in the blanking aperture array substrate”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Rather, the claim as recited requires “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 or equal to a distance based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate.” The limitation of the claim is broader than the statement made in the remarks. In particular, the claim requires that the distance that the shortest distance is greater than be based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate, not that the position of the circuit section be based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate.
Applicant asserts that “Matsumoto also has no disclosure or suggestion of arranging the position of the circuit inside the substrate in consideration of a travel distance of the scattered electrons that have entered the substrate.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., arranging the position of the circuit inside the substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts that “Matsumoto addresses the distance between the circuit and the lower surface of the BAA chip, and not a distance between the circuit section and an outermost peripheral beam passage hole… The Office Action refers to w3 being 10 µm in [0035]. However, this distance is a distance between adjacent blankers 34.” However, Matsumoto discloses in [0028] that “A circuit that controls a blanker is directly under the blanker, and is within 10 μm from the surface (the lower side in FIG. 1) of a BAA chip, thus when an electron having an energy of several tens keV collides with the surface of the BAA chip, the electron reaches the circuit and causes charging or a failure. For this reason, in FIG. 1, the side of the BAA chip, on which the electrodes and circuits are provided, is set to the lower side (the emission side of a beam).” This teaching by Matsumoto demonstrates that the distance of 10 µm away from the lower side of the BAA chip is based on an electron range in the blanking aperture array substrate. Based on Figs. 1 and 3 of Matsumoto, a shortest distance between the interpreted circuit section and an outermost peripheral beam passage hole of the plurality of beam passage holes is at least equal to 10 µm. Therefore, even though Matsumoto is not configured identically to the applicant’s invention as disclosed in the instant specification and figures, Matsumoto still successfully anticipates the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claims 7 and 16 are 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. Claims 7 and 16 recite “wherein the X-ray shield is in contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate” contains new matter which was not disclosed. There is no disclosure that the X-ray shield is in contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate. Note that this limitation was amended from the previously recited limitation that taught the X-ray shield being in close contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate. The amendment to the claim makes the claim limitation narrower—previously “in close contact” meant that the X-ray shield be in close proximity to the cell section and the circuit section, but after amendment, “in contact” indicates that the X-ray shield be contacting the cell section and the circuit section. As depicted in Fig. 9 of the instant application, the X-ray shield 50 is not in contact with the circuit section 36, and is not “in contact between the cell section and the circuit section of the blanking aperture array substrate” as claimed. Consequently, claims 7 and 16 incorporate new matter and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 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, in a central portion of the X-ray shield, an opening through which the multi charged particle beam passes (X-ray shielding plate 50, [0026], Fig. 3, Fig. 1),
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, [0028]), 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, in a central portion of the X-ray shield, a second opening through which the multi charged particle beam passes (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, 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 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 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights