DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendment to claim 2, the objection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
In view of the amendments to claims 1-4, 8-9, and 12, the claims are no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103 of independent claims 1 and 12, applicant argues that Touya does not teach “a potential regulating electrode arranged to be upstream of the target object in a case where the target object is placed on the stage and in a state where no electrode to which a variable potential is applied during writing is arranged between the target object and the potential regulating electrode, and configured to be set to have a fixed potential being positive with respect to the target object” because as stated on pg. 7 of the Remarks, “Touya discloses an electrostatic lens structured with an electrode to which a variable potential is applied to control a beam.”
The arguments are found to be unpersuasive because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim only requires that the potential regulating electrode be configured to be set to have a fixed potential being positive with respect to the target object. Touya discloses this limitation, as follows (copied from the 103 rejection of claim 1 below):
a potential regulating electrode (electrostatic lens 210, [0074], [0040], Fig. 1) arranged to be upstream of the target object in a case where the target object is placed on the stage (Fig. 1 shows 210 upstream of sample 216) and in a state where no electrode to which a variable potential is applied during writing is arranged between the target object and the potential regulating electrode (only shield 211 is between electrostatic lens 210 and sample 216, and 211 is connected and fixed to ground (no variable potential applied during writing), [0075], Fig. 1), and configured to be set to have a fixed potential being positive with respect to the target object ([0074] teaches a positive electric potential is constantly given to the electrostatic lens 210); and
In particular, in paragraph [0074], the electrostatic lens 210, interpreted as the potential regulating electrode, is disclosed to constantly receive a positive electric potential that may be a voltage within a range of 0 V – 250 V. Consequently, the configuration disclosed in Touya is capable of a fixed voltage that is positive with respect to the target object.
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 § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touya, et. al. (US 20130214172 A1), hereinafter Touya, in view of Nakayamada, et. al. (US 20110031387 A1), hereinafter Nakayamada.
Regarding claim 1, Touya teaches an electron beam writing apparatus (electron beam writing apparatus 100, [0035], Fig. 1) comprising:
an emission source configured to emit an electron beam (electron gun 201 emits electron beam 200, [0039], Fig. 1);
a stage (XY stage 105, Fig. 1, [0046]) configured to mount thereon a target object (sample 216, [0047], Fig. 1) on which a pattern is to be written with the electron beam ([0047]);
a potential regulating electrode (electrostatic lens 210, particularly the middle electrode, [0074], [0040], Fig. 1) arranged to be upstream of the target object in a case where the target object is placed on the stage (Fig. 1 shows 210 upstream of sample 216) and in a state where no electrode to which a variable potential is applied during writing is arranged between the target object and the potential regulating electrode (only shield 211 is between electrostatic lens 210 and sample 216, and 211 is connected and fixed to ground (no variable potential applied during writing), [0075], Fig. 1), and configured to be set to have a fixed potential being positive with respect to the target object ([0074] teaches a positive electric potential is constantly given to the electrostatic lens 210); and
a potential applying circuit configured to apply a voltage to one of the target object and the potential regulating electrode so that the potential regulating electrode has the fixed potential ([0098], [0074] voltage supply device 135 gives positive potential to electrostatic lens 210).
Although Touya teaches a state in which the potential regulating electrode has the fixed potential ([0074], [0098] voltage supply device 135 gives positive potential to electrostatic lens 210), Touya does not teach a correction circuit configured to correct a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object which occurs in a case where the target object is irradiated with the electron beam in a state in which the potential regulating electrode has the fixed potential.
Nakayamada teaches a correction circuit (control computer 110, [0102]) configured to correct a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object which occurs in a case where the target object is irradiated with the electron beam ([0012], [0115]-[016]).
Nakayamada modifies Touya by suggesting a correction circuit configured to correct a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object.
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 Nakayamada because correcting a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object allows for writing a pattern with the charged particle beam at the correct position (Nakayamada, [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Touya teaches wherein, only at an upstream of the potential regulating electrode, an electrode (main deflector 208 composed of electrodes is upstream of electrostatic lens 210, Fig. 5) is disposed to which an electric potential being variable during writing is applied ([0039], [0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Touya teaches the state in which the potential regulating electrode has the fixed potential ([0074] voltage supply device 135 gives positive potential to electrostatic lens 210).
Touya does not teach wherein the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation attributed to a potential distribution formed on the surface of the target object in the state in which the potential regulating electrode has the fixed potential.
Nakayamada teaches wherein the correction circuit (control computer 110, [0102]) corrects the positional deviation attributed to a potential distribution formed on the surface of the target object ([0012], [0115]-[0116]).
Nakayamada modifies Touya by suggesting a correction circuit configured to correct a positional deviation attributed to a potential distribution (charging) formed on the surface of the target object.
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 Nakayamada because correcting a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object allows for writing a pattern with the charged particle beam at the correct position (Nakayamada, [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Touya teaches wherein the surface of the target object is coated with resist ([0047]).
Touya does not teach the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation due to charging of the resist.
Nakayamada teaches the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation due to charging of the resist ([0012]).
Nakayamada modifies Touya by suggesting the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation due to charging of the resist.
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 Nakayamada because correcting a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object allows for writing a pattern with the charged particle beam at the correct position despite charging effects (Nakayamada, [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 8, Touya teaches further comprising: another potential regulating electrode (shield plate 211, Fig. 4, [0098]) arranged between the target object and the potential regulating electrode (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4), and configured to be controlled to be equipotential with the target object (Fig. 4, [0075], [0098] teaches 211 and sample 216 are both controlled to be 0 V).
Regarding claim 10, Touya teaches wherein, as the potential regulating electrode, an electrode substrate where an opening through which the electron beam passes is formed at its central part is used (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4 show 210 as having an opening though which the electron beam passes at its center.).
Regarding claim 12, Touya teaches an electron beam writing method ([0002]) comprising:
applying a constant voltage to one of a target object ( [0098] teaches constant voltage of 0 V applied to sample 216), which is placed on a stage (XY stage 105, Fig. 1, [0046]), and a potential regulating electrode ([0074], [0098] teaches a positive electric potential is constantly given to the electrostatic lens 210), which is arranged at an upstream of the target object (Fig. 1), in a state where no electrode to which a variable potential is applied during writing is arranged between the target object and the potential regulating electrode (only shield 211 is between electrostatic lens 210 and sample 216, and 211 is connected and fixed to ground (no variable potential applied during writing), [0075], Fig. 1), so that the potential regulating electrode has a fixed potential being positive with respect to the target object ([0098], [0074] voltage supply device 135 gives positive potential to electrostatic lens 210); and
writing a pattern on the target object with the electron beam ([0047]).
Although Touya teaches a state in which the potential regulating electrode has the fixed potential ([0074], [0098] voltage supply device 135 gives positive potential to electrostatic lens 210), Touya does not teach correcting a positional deviation of an electron beam on a surface of the target object which occurs in a case where the target object is irradiated with the electron beam.
Nakayamada teaches correcting a positional deviation of an electron beam on a surface of the target object which occurs in a case where the target object is irradiated with the electron beam ([0012], [0115]-[016]).
Nakayamada modifies Touya by suggesting correcting a positional deviation of an electron beam on a surface of the target object which occurs in a case where the target object is irradiated with the electron beam.
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 Nakayamada because correcting a positional deviation of the electron beam on a surface of the target object allows for writing a pattern with the charged particle beam at the correct position (Nakayamada, [0011]-[0014]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touya, et. al. (US 20130214172 A1), hereinafter Touya, in view of Nakayamada, et. al. (US 20110031387 A1), hereinafter Nakayamada, as evidenced by the instant application, Nomura, et. al., hereinafter Nomura.
Regarding claim 4, Touya teaches further comprising: a cover configured to partially cover the target object (shield plate 11, [0041], Fig. 1), a part of the cover generating the potential distribution (The shield plate 11 is analogous to the substrate cover 22 of the instant invention. Just like the instant application, the shield plate of Touya is disposed between the potential regulating electrode and the target object (as seen in Fig. 1 of Touya). Generating a potential distribution on the surface of the target object is a consequence of a structure being disposed between the electrode substrate and the target object in the state where an electric field has been produced, as evidence by [0033] of the instant application. Consequently, since the configuration of Touya is the same as that of the instant application, the shield plate of Touya would generate the potential distribution. See MPEP 2112 (II), which teaches that "[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touya (US 20130214172 A1) in view of Nakayamada (US 20110031387 A1), further in view of Matsumoto (US 20210257185 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Touya in view of Nakayamada does not teach wherein the target object is irradiated with multiple electron beams, and the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation by correcting a deviation of a beam array shape of the multiple electron beams.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the target object (target object 101, [0027]) is irradiated with multiple electron beams (multi-charged particle beam writing apparatus 100, [0027], forms multiple beams 20, [0033]), and the correction circuit (control system circuit 160, [0027], [0029]) corrects the positional deviation by correcting a deviation of a beam array shape of the multiple electron beams ([0002], Abstract).
Matsumoto modifies the combination by suggesting the target object is irradiated with multiple electron beams, and the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation by correcting a deviation of a beam array shape of the multiple electron beams
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 Matsumoto because the configuration allows for correcting a positional shift of a beam array occurring on the substrate surface of the multi-beam writing apparatus (Matsumoto, [0002]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touya (US 20130214172 A1) in view of Nakayamada (US 20110031387 A1), further in view of Iizuka (US 20150270101 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Touya teaches further comprising: a deflector configured to deflect the electron beam onto the target object (main deflector 208, Fig. 1, [0040]).
Touya in view of Nakayamada does not teach wherein the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation by correcting deflection sensitivity of the electron beam.
Iizuka teaches wherein the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation by correcting deflection sensitivity of the electron beam ([0063], [0069]).
Iizuka modifies the combination by suggesting the correction circuit corrects the positional deviation by correcting deflection sensitivity of the electron beam.
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 Iizuka because doing so allows for beam position drift to be corrected sufficiently accurately (Iizuka, [0071]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touya (US 20130214172 A1) in view of Nakayamada (US 20110031387 A1), further in view of Morita, et. al. (US 20190371565 A1), hereinafter Morita.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: an objective lens configured to generate a magnetic field, and to focus the electron beam on the surface of the target object,
Touya does not teach wherein the potential regulating electrode has a surface extending, at an inner peripheral side of the objective lens, from a height position closer to the target object than to the objective lens to a height position where an intensity of the magnetic field of the objective lens is one of less than and equal to a threshold.
Morita, et. al. teaches wherein the potential regulating electrode (focus correction lens 210) has a surface extending, at an inner peripheral side of the objective lens (Fig. 3), from a height position closer to the target object than to the objective lens to a height position where an intensity of the magnetic field of the objective lens is one of less than and equal to a threshold (see Fig. 3 and [0043] which teaches a strength of the magnetic field at the location of the upper end of the focus correction lens less than 0.05 T).
Morita modifies the combination by suggesting wherein the potential regulating electrode has a surface extending, at an inner peripheral side of the objective lens, from a height position closer to the target object than to the objective lens to a height position where an intensity of the magnetic field of the objective lens is one of less than and equal to a threshold.
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 Morita because such a configuration allows the position displacement amount of the beam illumination position to be less than 1 nm ([0043]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touya (US 20130214172 A1) in view of Nakayamada (US 20110031387 A1), further in view of Takahashi, et. al. (US 20170092459 A1), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 11, Touya teaches further comprising an objective lens that forms an image of the electron beam on the sample surface (objective lens 207, [0038]).
Touya in view of Nakayamada does not teach wherein a pole piece of the objective lens is used as the potential regulating electrode.
Takahashi teaches wherein a pole piece of the objective lens is used as the potential regulating electrode ([0064] teaches the objective lens 11 can be made to act as an electrostatic lens by applying a voltage to a pole piece).
Takahashi modifies the combination by suggesting a pole piece of the objective lens is used as the potential regulating electrode.
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 Takahashi because applying a voltage to the pole piece can be used to achieve high resolution, (Takahashi,[0064]).
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881