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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 10: element WC
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, “wherein the path of the beamlets does not include a crossover.” It is not clear what is meant by this negative limitation. In particular, it is unclear whether this limitations requires no crossovers in any of the beamlets, or no crossover of the beamlets with respect to each other, or something else entirely. Instant Fig. 4 is described as demonstrating a multi-beam system without a crossover, but it appears to show crossovers for each beamlet at the intermediate plane. This inconsistency in the meaning of “crossover” makes the claims indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intermediate image plane" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the intermediate image plane” to mean “[[the]]an intermediate image plane”. Claims 2-13 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the optical axis” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the optical axis” to mean “[[the]]an optical axis”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the optical path of the beamlets” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the optical path of the beamlets” to mean “the
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the path of the electron beam” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the path of the electron beam” to mean “[[the]]a path of the electron beam”. Claims 15-25 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 14.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the intermediate image plane" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the intermediate image plane” to mean “[[the]]an intermediate image plane”. Claims 15-25 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “between the transfer lens and the stage” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “between the transfer lens and the stage” to mean “between the transfer lens array and the stage”. Claims 18-20 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 17.
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, 5-6, 10, 12-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,062,541 B2), hereinafter Ren (2018), in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0158644 A1), hereinafter Jiang, and Mangnus (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0087835 A1), hereinafter Mangnus.
Regarding claim 1, Ren (2018) discloses a system comprising:
an electron source that emits an electron beam (FIG. 8A, element 101);
a stage configured to hold (column 5, lines 12-13) a workpiece (FIG. 8A, element 8);
a single global magnetic lens in a path of the electron beam (FIG. 8A, element 131);
a global beam-limiting aperture in the path of the electron beam (FIG. 8A, element 171);
a single global collimated lens in the path of the electron beam (FIG. 8A, element 210) downstream of the global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 8A, element 171), wherein the single global collimated lens is configured to focus the electron beam (column 14, lines 5-6);
an aperture array in the path of the electron beam (FIG. 8A, element 121) downstream of the single global collimated lens (FIG. 8A, element 210), wherein the aperture array is configured to generate a plurality of beamlets from the electron beam (column 14, lines 7-10), wherein the aperture array is illuminated telecentrically by the electron beam (column 14, lines 5-7); and
an image lens array in a path of the beamlets (FIG. 8A, element 122) downstream of the aperture array (FIG. 8A, element 121).
Ren (2018) fails to disclose that the global beam-limiting aperture is downstream of the single global magnetic lens; the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets; the beamlets are individually focused by the image lens array onto the intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array in the path of the beamlets downstream of the image lens array, wherein the beamlets are directed at the workpiece on the stage using the transfer lens array; and wherein the path of the beamlets does not include a crossover.
However, Jiang discloses a global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 1A, element 112) downstream of a single global lens (FIG. 1A, element 106); and
that the path of the beamlets does not include a crossover (paragraph 0063, line 4).
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 Ren (2018) to include a global beam-limiting aperture downstream of the single global magnetic lens; and that the path of the beamlets does not include a crossover, based on the teachings of Jiang that a beamlet path without a crossover provides greater flexibility in the type of beam path, including divergent, telecentric, or convergent beams (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang fails to disclose that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets; the beamlets are individually focused by the image lens array onto the intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array in the path of the beamlets downstream of the image lens array, wherein the beamlets are directed at the workpiece on the stage using the transfer lens array.
However, Mangnus discloses that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets (paragraph 0122: 100 by 100 beam-limiting apertures produces 10,000 beamlets);
the beamlets are individually focused (paragraph 0041, lines 11-14) by the image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231) onto the 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), wherein the beamlets are directed at the workpiece on the stage (FIG. 3, element 208) using the transfer lens array (paragraph 0044, lines 14-19: the transfer lens array 250 delivers the beamlets to objective lenses 234; FIG. 3 shows that objective lenses 234 are between transfer lens array 250 and workpiece 208; therefore, the transfer lens array directs the beamlets towards the workpiece 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang to include that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets; the beamlets are individually focused by the image lens array onto the intermediate image plane; and a transfer lens array in the path of the beamlets downstream of the image lens array, wherein the beamlets are directed at the workpiece on the stage using the 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Mangnus discloses that the beamlets include at least 2500 of the beamlets (paragraph 0122: 100 by 100 beam-limiting apertures produces 10,000 beamlets).
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, Mangnus teaches a range of 9 to 10,000 beamlets, which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 2500 beamlets”. 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to meet the claimed number of beamlets.
Regarding claim 3, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Mangnus discloses that the beamlets are configured to illuminate a single die on the workpiece (paragraph 0038, single imaging area).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include that the beamlets are configured to illuminate a single die on the workpiece, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this enables the construction of highly detailed images of the sample for analysis (Mangnus, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 5, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Mangnus discloses a Wien filter (paragraph 0110) disposed in the path of the beamlets 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), wherein the Wien filter is configured to split secondary electrons from primary electrons (paragraph 0110); and
a detector array configured to measure the secondary electrons (FIG. 10, element 402).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include a Wien filter disposed in the path of the beamlets between the transfer lens array and the stage, wherein the Wien filter is configured to split secondary electrons from primary electrons; and a detector array configured to measure the secondary electrons, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that the Wien filter enables clearer detection of secondary particles without interference from primary particles (Mangnus, paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 6, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 5 discloses the system of claim 5.
In addition, 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 additional teachings of Jiang that this cancellation procedure can be applied to a wide range of different beam path types (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 10, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Jiang 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 0031, lines 2-3).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include 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, based on the additional teachings of Jiang that a thermal field emission source is easily characterized by brightness and energy spread (Jiang, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 12, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 the 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, Ren (2018) discloses a method comprising:
emitting an electron beam with an electron source (FIG. 8A, element 101);
directing the electron beam through a single global magnetic lens (FIG. 8A, element 131);
directing the electron beam through a global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 8A, element 171);
directing the electron beam through a single global collimated lens in the path of the electron beam (FIG. 8A, element 210) downstream of the global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 8A, element 171) whereby the electron beam is focused by the single global collimated lens (column 14, lines 5-6);
generating a plurality of beamlets from the electron beam (column 14, lines 7-10) using an aperture array (FIG. 8A, element 121) downstream of the single global collimated lens (FIG. 8A, element 210), wherein the aperture array is illuminated telecentrically by the electron beam (column 14, lines 5-7); and
directing the beamlets through an image lens array in a path of the beamlets (FIG. 8A, element 122) downstream of the aperture array (FIG. 8A, element 121).
Ren (2018) fails to disclose that the global beam-limiting aperture is downstream of the single global magnetic lens; the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets; the beamlets are individually focused onto the intermediate image plane with the image lens array; and directing the beamlets at a workpiece on a stage using a transfer lens array downstream of the image lens array, wherein a path of the beamlets does not include a crossover.
However, Jiang discloses a global beam-limiting aperture (FIG. 1A, element 112) downstream of a single global lens (FIG. 1A, element 106); and
that a path of the beamlets does not include a crossover (paragraph 0063, line 4).
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 Ren (2018) to include that the global beam-limiting aperture is downstream of the single global magnetic lens; and that a path of the beamlets does not include a crossover, based on the teachings of Jiang that a beamlet path without a crossover provides greater flexibility in the type of beam path, including divergent, telecentric, or convergent beams (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang fails to disclose that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets; the beamlets are individually focused onto the intermediate image plane with the image lens array; and directing the beamlets at a workpiece on a stage using a transfer lens array downstream of the image lens array.
However, Mangnus discloses that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets (paragraph 0122: 100 by 100 beam-limiting apertures produces 10,000 beamlets);
the beamlets are individually focused (paragraph 0041, lines 11-14) onto the intermediate image plane (FIG. 3, the intermediate image plane being identified by the horizontal dotted line passing through element 233) with the image lens array (FIG. 3, element 231); and
directing the beamlets (paragraph 0044, lines 14-19: the transfer lens array 250 delivers the beamlets to objective lenses 234; FIG. 3 shows that objective lenses 234 are between transfer lens array 250 and workpiece 208; therefore, the transfer lens array directs the beamlets towards the workpiece 208) at a workpiece on a stage (FIG. 3, element 208) using 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang to include that the plurality of beamlets includes at least 1000 of the beamlets; the beamlets are individually focused onto the intermediate image plane with the image lens array; and directing the beamlets at a workpiece on a stage using a transfer lens array downstream of the image 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses that the beamlets include at least 2500 of the beamlets (paragraph 0122: 100 by 100 beam-limiting apertures produces 10,000 beamlets).
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, Mangnus teaches a range of 9 to 10,000 beamlets, which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 2500 beamlets”. 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to meet the claimed number of beamlets.
Regarding claim 16, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses that the beamlets illuminate a single die on the workpiece (paragraph 0038, single imaging area).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include that the beamlets illuminate a single die on the workpiece, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that this enables the construction of highly detailed images of the sample for analysis (Mangnus, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 17, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses splitting secondary electrons from primary electrons (paragraph 0110) between the transfer lens 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); and
measuring the secondary electrons (paragraph 0081).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include splitting secondary electrons from primary electrons between the transfer lens and the stage using a Wien filter; and measuring the secondary electrons, based on the additional teachings of Mangnus that the Wien filter enables clearer detection of secondary particles without interference from primary particles (Mangnus, paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 18, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
In addition, 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 additional 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
In addition, 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 additional teachings of Jiang that this cancellation procedure can be applied to a wide range of different beam path types (Jiang, paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 22, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Ren (2018) discloses that each of the beamlets is formed and imaged separately (column 14, lines 58-63) using an image lens array (FIG. 8A, element 122).
In addition, Mangnus discloses that each of the beamlets is formed and imaged separately using 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include that each of the beamlets is formed and image separately using 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 (2025).
Regarding claim 7, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 5 discloses the system of claim 5.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 the optical axis.
However, Ren (2025) 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 the 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 the optical axis, based on the teachings of Ren (2025) that this adjustment enables dynamic maximization of collection efficiency (Ren (2025), column 22, lines 22-31).
Regarding claim 20, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 17 discloses the method of claim 17.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 (2025) 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 (2025) that this adjustment enables dynamic maximization of collection efficiency (Ren (2025), column 22, lines 22-31).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to meet the claimed range of aperture spacings.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as respectively applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0241606 A1), hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 9, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus fails to disclose 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.
However, Han discloses a pre-scanner and a main scanner in the path of the beamlets (paragraph 0039, lines 9-11), wherein the pre-scanner and the main-scanner are configured to scan the beamlets simultaneously (paragraph 0046).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 teachings of Han that this arrangement ensures complete scanning is performed in an efficient manner (Han, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 21, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus fails to disclose simultaneously scanning the beamlets with a pre-scanner and a main scanner.
However, Han discloses simultaneously scanning the beamlets (paragraph 0046) with a pre-scanner and a main scanner (paragraph 0039, lines 9-11).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include simultaneously scanning the beamlets with a pre-scanner and a main scanner, based on the teachings of Han that this arrangement ensures complete scanning is performed in an efficient manner (Han, paragraph 0047).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,033,830 B2), hereinafter Ren (2024), and Sasaki et al. (JP Patent No. 2001230193 A), hereinafter Sasaki (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 24, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus fails to disclose image-formation of secondary electron beamlets from a secondary electron image plane to a detector array through a projection optics, wherein the projection optics includes two global project lenses thereby cancelling secondary electron beamlet rotation, coma, distortion, and transfer chromatic aberration.
However, Ren (2024) discloses image-formation of secondary electron beamlets from a secondary electron image plane (FIG. 3, element SP2) to a detector array (FIG. 3, element 140) through a projection optics (FIG. 3, element 152), wherein the projection optics includes two global project lenses (column 11, lines 17-18) thereby cancelling secondary electron beamlet rotation (column 11, lines 33-35).
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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus to include image-formation of secondary electron beamlets from a secondary electron image plane to a detector array through a projection optics, wherein the projection optics includes two global project lenses thereby cancelling secondary electron beamlet rotation, based on the teachings of Ren (2024) that canceling the secondary electron beam rotation reduces aberrations (Ren (2024), column 12, lines 1-3).
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang, Mangnus, and Ren (2024) 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang, Mangnus, and Ren (2024) 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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, Ren (2018) in view of Jiang and Mangnus as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Mangnus discloses creating the at least 1000 (paragraph 0122: 100 by 100 beam-limiting apertures produces 10,000 beamlets) 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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).
Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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 Ren (2018) in view of Jiang 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wieland (WO Patent No. 2009/147202 A1), hereinafter Wieland, teaches a number of beamlets including at least 2500 of the beamlets.
Schubert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0247663 A1), hereinafter Schubert, teaches a system comprising: an electron source that emits an electron beam; a stage configured to hold a workpiece; a single global magnetic lens in a path of the electron beam; a single global collimated lens in the path of the electron beam; an aperture array in the path of the electron beam downstream of the single global collimated lens, wherein the aperture array is configured to generate a plurality of beamlets from the electron beam, wherein the aperture array is illuminated telecentrically by the electron beam; and an image lens in a path of the beamlets downstream of the aperture array, wherein the beamlets are focused by the image lens array onto the intermediate image plane.
Standiford et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,040,942 B1), hereinafter Standiford, teaches a plurality of beamlets formed and imaged separately using an image lens array and a transfer lens array.
Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0254167 A1), hereinafter Zhao, teaches image-formation of secondary electron beamlets from a secondary electron image plane to a detector array through a projection optics, wherein the projection optics includes two global project lenses thereby cancelling secondary electron beamlet rotation.
Kruit et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0392735 A1), hereinafter Kruit, teaches an objective lens array that defines a gap distance between electrodes in the objective lens array configured to optimize collection efficiencies of secondary electron beamlets.
Ren et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0381212 A1), hereinafter Ren (2020) teaches a Wien filter disposed in the path of the beamlets, wherein the Wien filter is configured to split secondary electrons from primary electrons; and a detector array configured to measure the secondary electrons.
Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0151552 A1), hereinafter Jiang (2014), teaches 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 canceled.
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881