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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to the drawings and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments have necessitated new rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims over Ren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,062,541 B2), hereinafter Ren (2018), have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Ren (2018) for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-25 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 14 recite the limitation “between the transfer lens and the workpiece”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “between the transfer lens and the workpiece” to mean “between the transfer lens array and the workpiece on the stage”.
Claims 2-13 and 15-25 are rejected because of their dependence on claims 1 and 14, respectively.
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 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0254167 A1), hereinafter Zhao, in view of Inada et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,269,541 B2), hereinafter Inada, and Mangnus (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0087835 A1), hereinafter Mangnus.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a system comprising:
an electron source (FIG. 2, element 202) that emits an electron beam (FIG. 2, element 2021);
a stage (FIG. 2, element 222) configured to hold a workpiece (FIG. 2, element 220);
a single global magnetic lens in a path of the electron beam (paragraph 0051; FIG. 2, magnetic lens 206);
a global beam-limiting aperture in the path of the electron beam downstream of the single global magnetic lens (FIG. 2, beam-limiting aperture 2081);
collimated lenses in the path of the electron beam (FIG. 5B, element 512) downstream of the global beam-limiting aperture and the single global magnetic lens (paragraphs 0076-0077 disclose that beam-splitting device 2082, shown in FIG. 2 as downstream of the aperture 2081 and magnetic lens 206, may comprise the multi-aperture plate 500B shown in FIG. 5B; therefore, element 512 of multi-aperture plate 500B is downstream of the aperture and the magnetic lens), wherein the collimated lenses are configured to focus the electron beam (paragraph 0077, lines 6-7);
an aperture array in the path of the electron beam downstream of the collimated lenses (FIG. 5B, aperture array 502), wherein the aperture array is configured to generate a plurality of beamlets from the electron beam (paragraph 0076, lines 8-10), and wherein the aperture array is illuminated telecentrically by the electron beam (FIG. 2);
an image lens array in a path of the beamlets downstream of the aperture array (paragraph 0078 and FIG. 2, image lenses 210), wherein the beamlets are individually focused by the image lens array (paragraph 0078, lines 8-16); and
a transfer lens in the path of the beamlets downstream of the image lens array (FIG. 2, transfer lens 218), wherein the beamlets are directed at the workpiece on the stage using the transfer lens (paragraph 0080), wherein the path of the beamlets between the transfer lens and the workpiece on the stage does not include a crossover (FIG. 2).
Zhao fails to disclose that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets.
However, optimizing the number of beamlets is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Zhao teaches that “the care area 1100 can be divided into any number of strips based on the number of beamlets” (paragraph 0132). As such, Zhao identifies the number of beamlets as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., changing the number of strips to be scanned on the target. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number of beamlets and identifies said number as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the number of beamlets to meet the claimed number since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Zhao fails to disclose a single global collimated lens; that the beamlets are focused onto an intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array.
However, Inada discloses a single global collimated lens (FIG. 23, element 36) in the path of the beam downstream (FIG. 23 shows an arrow indicating that the downstream direction is to the right within unit 18) of the global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 23, element 302) and the single global magnetic lens (FIG. 23, element 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao to include a single global collimated lens, based on the teachings of Inada that this arrangement minimizes the effects of aberrations caused by the single global collimated lens (Inada, column 18, lines 30-40).
Zhao in view of Inada fails to disclose that the beamlets are focused onto an intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array.
However, Mangnus discloses that the beamlets are individually focused (paragraph 0041, lines 11-14) by the image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231) onto an intermediate image plane (FIG. 3, the intermediate image plane being identified by the horizontal dotted line passing through element 233); and
a transfer lens array (FIG. 3, element 250) in the path of the beamlets (FIG. 3, elements 211, 212, 213) downstream of the image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada to include that the beamlets are focused onto an intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array, based on the teachings of Mangnus that this advantageously allows for optimizing the beam focusing and energy amounts (Mangnus, paragraphs 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Optimizing the number of beamlets is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Zhao teaches that “the care area 1100 can be divided into any number of strips based on the number of beamlets” (paragraph 0132). As such, Zhao identifies the number of beamlets as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., changing the number of strips to be scanned on the target. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number of beamlets and identifies said number as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the number of beamlets to meet the claimed number since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Zhao discloses that the beamlets are configured to illuminate a single die on the workpiece (paragraph 0104, sub-FOV 808).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Zhao discloses a Wien filter disposed in the path of the beamlets, wherein the Wien filter is configured to split secondary electrons from primary electrons (paragraph 0083, Wien filter 224); and
a detector array configured to measure the secondary electrons (paragraph 0083, detector array 228).
In addition, Mangnus discloses that the Wien filter (paragraph 0110) is disposed between the transfer lens array and the stage (paragraph 0110 discloses that the Wien filter is disposed between detector 402 and objective lens array 241; FIG. 10 shows that this location is also between the transfer lens array 250 and stage 208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that the Wien filter is disposed between the transfer lens array and the stage, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this arrangement of the Wien filter enables clearer detection of secondary particles without interference from primary particles (Mangnus, paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Mangnus discloses a pre-scanner (FIG. 10, element 265) and a main scanner (FIG. 10, element 260) in the path of the beamlets (paragraphs 0130-0131), wherein the pre-scanner and the main-scanner are configured to scan the beamlets simultaneously (paragraph 0131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include a pre-scanner and a main scanner in the path of the beamlets, wherein the pre-scanner and the main-scanner are configured to scan the beamlets simultaneously, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this configuration maximizes scanning efficiency (Mangnus, paragraph 0130) while reducing aberration effects (Mangnus, paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Zhao discloses that the electron source is a thermal field emission source, and wherein the thermal field emission source is the only source for the electron beam (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Mangnus discloses an objective lens array (FIG. 3, element 241) that defines a gap distance between electrodes (paragraphs 0087, distances d1, d2) in the objective lens array (paragraph 0076, line 17) configured to optimize image resolutions of primary electron beamlets (paragraph 0091, lines 10-15) and collection efficiencies of secondary electron beamlets (paragraph 0087, lines 10-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include an objective lens array that defines a gap distance between electrodes in the objective lens array configured to optimize image resolutions of primary electron beamlets and collection efficiencies of secondary electron beamlets, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this provides the advantageous ability to vary the landing energy of the beamlets while maintaining a constant focus (Mangnus, paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Mangnus discloses an objective lens array disposed at a particular distance along an optical path of the beamlets from a surface of the workpiece (paragraph 0057, lines 5-9).
Optimizing a distance between a lens and a workpiece is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mangnus teaches that “the geometry of the lower electrode [of the objective lens array] can be optimized for a certain landing energy…[t]he focus could alternatively be corrected by changing the distance between the lower electrode and the sample 208” (paragraph 0056). As such, Mangnus identifies the distance between the objective lens array and a surface of the workpiece as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting the focus of the sub-beams. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the distance between the objective lens array and a surface of the workpiece and identifies said distance as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between the objective lens array and a surface of the workpiece to meet the claimed distance since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Zhao discloses a method comprising:
emitting an electron beam (FIG. 2, element 2021) with an electron source (FIG. 2, element 202);
directing the electron beam through a single global magnetic lens (paragraph 0051; FIG. 2, magnetic lens 206);
directing the electron beam through a global beam-limiting aperture downstream of the single global magnetic lens (FIG. 2, beam-limiting aperture 2081);
directing the electron beam through collimated lenses (FIG. 5B, element 512) in a path of the electron beam downstream of the global beam-limiting aperture and the single global magnetic lens (paragraphs 0076-0077 disclose that beam-splitting device 2082, shown in FIG. 2 as downstream of the aperture 2081 and magnetic lens 206, may comprise the multi-aperture plate 500B shown in FIG. 5B; therefore, element 512 of multi-aperture plate 500B is downstream of the aperture and the magnetic lens) whereby the electron beam is focused by the collimated lenses (paragraph 0077, lines 6-7);
generating a plurality of beamlets (paragraph 0076, lines 8-10) from the electron beam using an aperture array downstream of the collimated lenses (FIG. 5B, aperture array 502), wherein the aperture array is illuminated telecentrically by the electron beam (FIG. 2);
directing the beamlets through an image lens array in a path of the beamlets downstream of the aperture array (paragraph 0078 and FIG. 2, image lenses 210) thereby individually focusing the beamlets onto an intermediate image plane with the image lens array (paragraph 0078, lines 8-16); and
directing the beamlets at a workpiece (FIG. 2, element 220) on a stage (FIG. 2, element 222) using a transfer lens downstream of the image lens array (FIG. 2, transfer lens 218), wherein a path of the beamlets between the transfer lens and the workpiece does not include a crossover (FIG. 2).
Zhao fails to disclose that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets.
However, optimizing the number of beamlets is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Zhao teaches that “the care area 1100 can be divided into any number of strips based on the number of beamlets” (paragraph 0132). As such, Zhao identifies the number of beamlets as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., changing the number of strips to be scanned on the target. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number of beamlets and identifies said number as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the number of beamlets to meet the claimed number since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Zhao fails to disclose a single global collimated lens; that the beamlets are focused onto an intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array.
However, Inada discloses a single global collimated lens (FIG. 23, element 36) in a path of the beam downstream (FIG. 23 shows an arrow indicating that the downstream direction is to the right within unit 18) of the global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 23, element 302) and the single global magnetic lens (FIG. 23, element 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao to include a single global collimated lens, based on the teachings of Inada that this arrangement minimizes the effects of aberrations caused by the single global collimated lens (Inada, column 18, lines 30-40).
Zhao in view of Inada fails to disclose individually focusing the beamlets onto an intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array.
However, Mangnus discloses individually focusing the beamlets (paragraph 0041, lines 11-14) by the image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231) onto an intermediate image plane (FIG. 3, the intermediate image plane being identified by the horizontal dotted line passing through element 233); and
a transfer lens array (FIG. 3, element 250) downstream of the image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada to include that the beamlets are focused onto an intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array, based on the teachings of Mangnus that this advantageously allows for optimizing the beam focusing and energy amounts (Mangnus, paragraphs 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
Optimizing the number of beamlets is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Zhao teaches that “the care area 1100 can be divided into any number of strips based on the number of beamlets” (paragraph 0132). As such, Zhao identifies the number of beamlets as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., changing the number of strips to be scanned on the target. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number of beamlets and identifies said number as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the number of beamlets to meet the claimed number since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Zhao discloses that the beamlets illuminate a single die on the workpiece (paragraph 0104, sub-FOV 808).
Regarding claim 17, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Zhao discloses splitting secondary electrons from primary electrons using a Wien filter (paragraph 0083, Wien filter 224); and
measuring the secondary electrons (paragraph 0083, detector array 228).
In addition, Mangnus discloses splitting secondary electrons from primary electrons (paragraph 0110) between the transfer lens array and the stage (paragraph 0110 discloses that the Wien filter is disposed between detector 402 and objective lens array 241; FIG. 10 shows that this location is also between the transfer lens array 250 and stage 208) using a Wien filter (paragraph 0110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include splitting secondary electrons from primary electrons between the transfer lens array and the stage using a Wien filter, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this arrangement of the Wien filter enables clearer detection of secondary particles without interference from primary particles (Mangnus, paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 21, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses simultaneously scanning the beamlets (paragraph 0131) with a pre-scanner (FIG. 10, element 265) and a main scanner (FIG. 10, element 260).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include simultaneously scanning the beamlets with a pre-scanner and a main scanner, based on the additional teachings of that this configuration maximizes scanning efficiency (Mangnus, paragraph 0130) while reducing aberration effects (Mangnus, paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 22, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses that each of the beamlets is formed and imaged separately using an image lens array (paragraph 0041, lens array 231), a transfer lens array (paragraph 0044, lines 2-3, lens array 250), and an objective lens array (paragraph 0044, lines 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that each of the beamlets is formed and imaged separately using an image lens array, a transfer lens array, and an objective lens array, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this enables control of the focusing of each individual beam in accordance with desired beam energies or beam magnification (Mangnus, paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 23, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses that a same focusing voltage (paragraph 0149, lines 9-15; one voltage supply connected to each of the lens arrays applies the same voltage to each array) is applied to an image lens array (element 231), a transfer lens array (element 250), and an objective lens array (element 241) that the beamlets pass through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that a same focusing voltage is applied to an image lens array, a transfer lens array, and an objective lens array that the beamlets pass through, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that the use of a singular focusing voltage simplifies the system by requiring fewer voltage supplies controlled by a control system (Mangnus, paragraph 0149).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0248731 A1), hereinafter Tanimoto.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose that the image lens array includes three electrode plates, wherein each of the electrode plates includes a plurality of apertures, wherein one of the electrode plates is biased such that the beamlets are focused, and wherein another two of the electrode plates are grounded.
However, Tanimoto discloses that the image lens array (FIG. 8A, element 801) includes three electrode plates (FIG. 8A, elements 802, 803, 804), wherein each of the electrode plates includes a plurality of apertures (paragraph 0096, lines 10-11), wherein one of the electrode plates is biased (paragraph 0096, lines 18-19) such that the beamlets are focused (paragraph 0099, lines 7-9), and wherein another two of the electrode plates are grounded (paragraph 0096, lines 15-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that the image lens array includes three electrode plates, wherein each of the electrode plates includes a plurality of apertures, wherein one of the electrode plates is biased such that the beamlets are focused, and wherein another two of the electrode plates are grounded, based on the teachings of Tanimoto that this configuration enables beam path correction for more accurate beam convergence (Tanimoto, paragraphs 0099-0100).
Claims 6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as respectively applied to claims 5 and 17 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0158644 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 6, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 5 discloses the system of claim 5.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose that a relationship between an angle of the beamlets relative to the workpiece and an angle caused by deflection using the Wien filter is such that source energy dispersion blurs generated by the electrostatic and magnetic deflection fields in the Wien filter are cancelled.
However, Jiang discloses that a relationship between an angle of the beamlets relative to the workpiece (FIG. 1F, angles with respect to the horizontal plane, i.e., (90°- β) and (90°- γ)) and an angle caused by deflection using the Wien filter (paragraph 0060; FIG. 1F, angles β, γ) is such that source energy dispersion blurs generated by the electrostatic and magnetic deflection fields in the Wien filter (paragraph 0033) are cancelled (paragraphs 0060-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that a relationship between an angle of the beamlets relative to the workpiece and an angle caused by deflection using the Wien filter is such that source energy dispersion blurs generated by the electrostatic and magnetic deflection fields in the Wien filter are cancelled, based on the teachings of Jiang that this cancellation procedure can be applied to a wide range of different beam path types (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose cancelling energy dispersion blurs generated by the electrostatic and magnetic deflection fields in the Wien filter using a relationship between an angle of the beamlets relative to the workpiece and an angle caused by deflection using the Wien filter.
However, Jiang discloses cancelling energy dispersion blurs (paragraphs 0060-0061) generated by the electrostatic and magnetic deflection fields in the Wien filter (paragraph 0033) using a relationship between an angle of the beamlets relative to the workpiece (FIG. 1F, angles with respect to the horizontal plane, i.e., (90°- β) and (90°- γ)) and an angle caused by deflection using the Wien filter (paragraph 0060; FIG. 1F, angles β, γ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include cancelling energy dispersion blurs generated by the electrostatic and magnetic deflection fields in the Wien filter using a relationship between an angle of the beamlets relative to the workpiece and an angle caused by deflection using the Wien filter, based on the teachings of Jiang that this cancellation procedure can be applied to a wide range of different beam path types (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose correcting transfer chromatic blur induced by the Wien filter due to source energy spread by cancelling the source energy spread.
However, Jiang discloses correcting transfer chromatic blur induced by the Wien filter due to source energy spread by cancelling the source energy spread (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include correcting transfer chromatic blur induced by the Wien filter due to source energy spread by cancelling the source energy spread, based on the teachings of Jiang that this cancellation procedure can be applied to a wide range of different beam path types (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as respectively applied to claims 5 and 17 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,211,669 B2), hereinafter Ren.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 5 discloses the system of claim 5.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose that the detector array and a global projection lens in a path of the second electrons are configured to be mechanically adjusted along an optical axis.
However, Ren discloses that the detector array (column 23, lines 41-42) and a global projection lens (column 11, lines 16-17) in a path of the second electrons (column 9, lines 46-50) are configured to be mechanically adjusted (column 23, lines 35-36) along an optical axis (column 22, lines 22-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that the detector array and a global projection lens in a path of the second electrons are configured to be mechanically adjusted along an optical axis, based on the teachings of Ren that this adjustment enables dynamic maximization of collection efficiency (Ren, column 22, lines 22-31).
Regarding claim 20, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose adjusting a position of a detector array and a global projection lens along an optical axis of the secondary electrons.
However, Ren discloses adjusting a position (column 23, lines 35-36) of a detector array (column 23, lines 41-42) and a global projection lens (column 11, lines 16-17; column 9, lines 46-50) along an optical axis of the secondary electrons (column 22, lines 22-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include adjusting a position of a detector array and a global projection lens along an optical axis of the secondary electrons, based on the teachings of Ren that this adjustment enables dynamic maximization of collection efficiency (Ren, column 22, lines 22-31).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steenbrink et al. (WO Patent No. 2010/037832 A2), hereinafter Steenbrink.
Regarding claim 8, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose that spacing of apertures in the image lens array and transfer lens array is from 10 μm to 1 mm.
However, Steenbrink discloses that spacing of apertures in the image lens array and transfer lens array is from 10 μm to 1 mm (paragraph 0045).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Steenbrink teaches a range of 50 μm to 0.5 mm (500 μm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 μm to 1 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to meet the claimed range of aperture spacings.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,039,862 A), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 11, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose that the electron source includes: a transparent substrate in the path of the beamlets, wherein the transparent substrate has a patterned thin film; and a plurality of laser beams that illuminate the patterned thin film.
However, Smith discloses that the electron source includes:
a transparent substrate (FIG. 1, element 8) in the path of the beamlets (FIG. 1), wherein the transparent substrate has a patterned thin film (FIG. 1, element 9); and
a plurality of laser beams that illuminate the patterned thin film (column 4, lines 54-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include that the electron source includes: a transparent substrate in the path of the beamlets, wherein the transparent substrate has a patterned thin film; and a plurality of laser beams that illuminate the patterned thin film, based on the teachings of Smith that this produces images with sharp edges (Smith, column 4, lines 50-55) with improved efficiency (Smith, column 4, lines 27-34).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP Patent No. 2001230193 A), hereinafter Sasaki (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 24, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Zhao discloses image-formation of secondary electron beamlets (paragraph 0087) from a secondary electron image plane to a detector array (paragraph 0088) through a projection optics (paragraph 0089), wherein the projection optics includes two global project lenses thereby cancelling secondary electron beamlet rotation (paragraph 0089, lines 6-11).
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose cancelling secondary electron beamlet coma, distortion, and transfer chromatic aberration.
However, Sasaki discloses cancelling secondary electron beamlet coma, distortion (page 5, Embodiment 1 first paragraph), and transfer chromatic aberration (page 10, paragraph (A-5)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include cancelling secondary electron beamlet coma, distortion, and transfer chromatic aberration, based on the teachings of Sasaki that this cancellation improves imaging performance (Sasaki, page 3, paragraph before marker [0016]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mankos et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,538,256 B1), hereinafter Mankos.
Regarding claim 25, Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14, including creating the at least 1000 beamlets (see claim 14 supra).
In addition, Mangnus discloses creating the beamlets (FIG. 3, beamlets 211, 212, 213) on an image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231), a transfer lens array (FIG. 3, element 250), and an objective lens array (FIG. 3, element 241).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include creating the at least 1000 beamlets on an image lens array, a transfer lens array, and an objective lens array, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this arrangement advantageously allows for optimizing the beam focusing and energy amounts (Mangnus, paragraphs 0044-0045).
Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus fails to disclose creating the beamlets modulated by a laser using patterned photocathode sourcelets on an objective lens array.
However, Mankos discloses creating the beamlets modulated by a laser using patterned photocathode sourcelets (column 2, lines 63-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhao in view of Inada and Mangnus to include creating the beamlets modulated by a laser using patterned photocathode sourcelets, based on the teachings of Mankos that this enables high throughput with high spatial resolution (Mankos, column 2, lines 31-47).
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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights