DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/20/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue the office action failed to identify which part of Talbot showed the “flood column housing” because it only pointed to fig 6. However, some kind of vacuum housing structure (and also some kind of structural elements) would have been required for the intended operation of the system. A skilled artisan would have looked at the application, including fig 6, and understood that the wafer must be placed in an evacuated space for the intended operation of the charged particle beam, thereby requiring a vacuum housing. Alternately, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the housing could be read as any structural part of the device, e.g. a frame, etc, helping to hold components in place (e.g. with screws and bolts), which would have been required since components like 605, 650, 660 would not remain floating fixed in space.
The remarks argue the office action failed to identify which part of Talbot showed the “lens support” because it only explained “some kind of mechanical support required for intended operation of holding lenses and components in place, see e.g. fig 11”. For similar reasons, a skilled artisan would have understood this is some kind of physical structure not explicitly shown in the illustration but required for its operation, as evident by PHOSITA looking at the illustration. Furthermore, Killer is relied upon to teach more specific details of the mechanical support.
The remarks argue Talbot fails to show “an anchor body” because element 1120 is an alignment deflector. However, the non-rejection points not to 1120 specifically, but the region around 1120. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the anchor body can be read as a portion of the support structure holding the components around 1120 in place. Further, under BRI, the anchor body can be read as said support structure, can include 1120, flood gun 615, components upstream of the lens support region, etc. Examiner respectfully suggests clarifying the structure of the lens support and anchor body.
Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
The remarks argue the combined teaching fails to show “a lens support arranged between the anchor body and the lens arrangement . . . configured to . . . extend between the flood column housing and the lens arrangement”. However, for similar reasons as discussed above, the lens support is, by definition, whatever portion of the support structure (which must exist) that is between the anchor body portion (which must exist) and the lens arrangement.
The remarks argue that PHOSITA would not be motivated to combine Killer and Talbot because the cited problem of protecting against contamination is unrelated to the problem being addressed by the instant application. However, it is noted that Killer is directed to the problem of reducing contamination effects present in beams of ion, neutral particles, or electrons (see Killer, [0024-25]). Thus, Applicant’s invention and Killer are directed to the same field of endeavor, i.e. controlling charged particles beams, and directed to the same class of problems, i.e. improving control of charged particle beams.
Furthermore, it has been held that the mere fact that the references relied upon fail to evince an appreciation of the problem identified and solved by the applicant, is not, standing alone, conclusive evidence of the nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter. The references may suggest doing what an applicant has done even though workers in the art were ignorant of the existence of the problem. In re Gershon, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967). It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
It is further noted that it has held that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot et al. (US 6091249 A) [hereinafter Talbot] in view of Killer et al. (US 20210151308 A1) [hereinafter Killer].
Regarding claim 1, Talbot teaches a flood column for projecting a charged particle flooding beam (see fig 6: 675) along a beam path towards a sample (see 660) to flood the sample with charged particles prior to assessment of the flooded sample using an assessment column (see e.g. 605), the flood column comprising:
a flood column housing (see fig 6, required for intended operation of system, see floating components in fig 6);
an anchor [region]
a lens arrangement (see e.g. fig 11: 1130, 1135, etc) arranged in a down-beam part of the flood column (see fig 11); and
a lens support (some kind of mechanical support required for intended operation of holding lenses and components in place, see e.g. fig 11) arranged between the anchor [region]
wherein the lens support is configured to position the lens arrangement and the anchor body relative to each other (see same) and to extend between the flood column housing and the lens arrangement (natural result of geometries);
Talbot may fail to explicitly disclose the anchor region being an anchor body. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims the portion of the microscope support structure and/or components upstream of the lens arrangement elements (see e.g. Talbot, fig 2, 11, etc) can be read as the anchor body in the claim. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Talbot may fail to explicitly disclose the lens support comprises an electrical insulator; the lens support is in direct line of sight of at least a portion of the beam path in the down- beam part.
However, the use of insulator structures to hold lenses and other components in place was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Killer teaches known effective lens holding systems comprising an electrical insulator (see e.g. Killer, fig 5b: 36); the lens support is in direct line of sight of at least a portion of the beam path in the down- beam part (see e.g. fig 5b), which can help prevent contamination (see [0030]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Killer it the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of the system and/or enable proved protection from contamination, in the manner taught by Killer.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer teaches the lens arrangement comprises a final lens arrangement (e.g. reading as Talbot, fig 11: 805) that is arranged adjacent to the sample (see fig 11).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer may fail to explicitly disclose the final lens arrangement is an electrostatic lens. However, the use of electrostatic lenses as objective lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select the use of a known effective electromagnetic or electrostatic objective lens to enable the intended operation of the system.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer teaches the anchor body comprises an aperture body (see e.g. Talbot, fig 11: 1125) arranged in the beam path and configured to blank and/or shape the charged particle flooding beam (see 1125).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer teaches the lens support is supported by the aperture body (all the support elements must mounted together to each other or some other mount to hold them in place).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer teaches a charged particle assessment tool comprising:
a stage (see Talbot, fig 1: 14) configured to support a sample (e.g. 22);
a charged particle system (see e.g. fig 6: 605) for assessing the sample, wherein the charged particle system is configured to project a charged particle beam towards the sample and to detect charged particles emanating from the sample (see 635); and
the flood column according to claim 1 or claim 15 configured to project a charged particle flooding beam (see 675) towards the sample so as to flood the sample, the beam path of the primary charged particle beam is spaced apart from the beam path of the charged particle beam of the flood column (see fig 6; alternately see fig 10).
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot and Killer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Essers (US 6590210 B1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer teaches the lens arrangement further comprises an objective lens (defining Talbot, fig 11: 805 as the objective lens). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose wherein, in the direction of beam path, the objective lens is separated from the final lens arrangement; and the objective lens is arranged up-beam of the final lens arrangement. However, the use of final lens arrangements downstream of objective lenses was well known in the art. For example, Essers teaches a lens system to enable further control over charged particle beams exiting an objective lens (see e.g. Essers, col 5, lines 53-56), further focusing of secondary electrons emitted from the sample (see e.g. col 10, lines 18-23), as well as enabling operation in higher pressure environments (see e.g. col 3, lines 51-59), said system comprising a final lens arrangement (e.g. 18, 44, etc) that is arranged adjacent to the sample (11), wherein, in the direction of beam path, the objective lens (see 62) is separated from the final lens arrangement (see fig 1, 11, etc); and the objective lens is arranged up-beam of the final lens arrangement (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to combine the teachings of Essers in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enhance operation of the system, including enabling further control of the primary and/or secondary beams, as well as enabling the additional ability to operate in higher pressure environments, in the manner taught by Essers.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Talbot and Killer may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Essers, for similar reasons as claim 4 above. Therefore, the combined teaching teaches the final lens arrangement is an electrostatic lens (see Essers, col 5, lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Talbot, Killer, and Essers teaches part of the objective lens is configured to extend along the beam path in a direction away from the final lens arrangement (see e.g. Talbot, fig 11, above and to the sides; see also Essers, fig 1) so as to reduce the extent of the lens support that is in direct line of sight of at least a portion of the beam path (natural result of having a lens between external supports and/or housing and beam path).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Talbot, Killer, and Essers teaches the objective lens and final lens arrangement are secured to each other by at least part of the lens support (naturally requires some kind of support to hold everything together, see generally, Essers, fig 1: 60). It is noted that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot, Killer, and Esser, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hegde et al. (US 20170287675 A1) [hereinafter Hegde].
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Talbot, Killer, and Essers may fail to explicitly disclose the objective lens is configured to contribute to deceleration of the flooding beam. However, the use of objective lens operation to control acceleration and deceleration of beam to e.g. control landing energies, was very well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Hegde teaches a system to enable precise control over beam landing energies to improve pre-charge level configuration (see e.g. Hegde, [00478), including adjusting objective lens power based on a feedback system (see [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Hegde in the system of the combined prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve control over the beam, including enabling appropriate acceleration and/or deceleration to enable the intended operation of the system.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm 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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights