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
The preliminary amendments filed 12/22/2023 have been entered. Claims 1-23 were pending, however, see election/restriction section below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-19 and 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 20-21 are now pending in the application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the legal phraseology ‘said’. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 15, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…said yoke components being arranged circumferential around the longitudinal axis and comprise highly…”, which should read ‘…said yoke components being arranged circumferential around the longitudinal axis and comprising highly…’;
Claim 1 recites “…configured to direct a magnetic flux density coming from said at least one permanent magnet through the yoke body and in said gaps induce a magnetic field, which is reaching inwards into the passage space…”, which is grammatically unclear, should read, for example, ‘…configured to direct a magnetic flux density coming from said at least one permanent magnet through the yoke body and, in said gaps, induce a magnetic field reaching inwards into the passage space…’;
Claim 1 recites “…between the inner and outer yoke shell…”, which should read ‘…between the inner and outer yoke shells…’;
Claim 1 refers the “the magnetic flux in the magnetic circuit”, however, the claim previously refers to ‘a magnetic flux density’ from the permanent magnet(s), and refers to both ‘a closed magnetic circuit’ and ‘a magnetic circuit assembly’; Examiner believes the closed magnetic circuit is intended here based on the context, and that the magnetic flux is general magnetic flux in that circuit in context, as the limitation is followed by ‘to cause a variation in the magnetic flux density’; Accordingly, Examiner believes the limitation should read ‘magnetic flux in the closed magnetic circuit’; Claims 7-8 should similarly recite ‘the closed magnetic circuit’;
Claims 3-4 recite “the outside”, which, while understood, should read ‘outside’ to avoid the nominal antecedent basis issue;
Claim 3 recites “…supplying the coil and coil elements with…”, which, while definite in context could lead to ambiguity due to inconsistent/vague terminology; Consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims; Accordingly, this limitation should read ‘…supplying the electromagnetic adjustment coil and sector coil elements with…’;
Claim 5 recites “the electric interface(s)”, while claim 3 recites ‘electrical interfaces’; Accordingly, claim 5 should recite ‘the electrical interfaces’;
Claim 6 recites “the electric interface(s)”, while claim 4 recites ‘an electrical interface’; Accordingly, claim 6 should recite ‘the electrical interface’; Additionally, ‘include’ should be changed to agree in number as well;
Claim 11 recites “…wherein the second yoke component realizes a housing body of said lens assembly, which surrounds the other components of the assembly including all other yoke components.”; However, the claims do not previously recite any lens assembly, only ‘A charged particle lens’ and ‘a magnetic circuit assembly’; Similarly, ‘the assembly’ is ambiguous; Furthermore, while understood in context, ‘the other components’ lacks antecedent basis; Accordingly, the claim should read ‘…wherein the second yoke component realizes a housing body of said lens, which surrounds other components of the lens including all other yoke components.’;
Claim 15 is objected to for its formatting, as the list of components has three elements listed, but with two with a dash and one without, and different indentation; While definite in context, this draws into question whether some differentiation is intended;
Claim 20 refers to “a particle-optic system”, but refers to “said particle-optical system” thereafter; Accordingly, the claim should read ‘a particle-optical system’;
Claim 21 similarly recites “a respective particle-optic system”, which should read ‘a respective particle-optical system’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 and 20-21 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.
The term “highly magnetic permeable material” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly magnetic permeable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The only instruction provided by the specification on what is considered ‘highly’ magnetically permeable is those which are ‘ferromagnetic or ferromagnetic’ (which Examiner believes is a typographical error), but does not indicate any specific degree of magnetic permeability. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘magnetically permeable material’.
Claim 1 recites “…said at least one permanent magnet being arranged between the at least two yoke components and circumferentially around the inner yoke shell…”, however, this limitation appears to only make sense in the case of two toke components, otherwise, it is not clear what would be required by ‘arranged between’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…said at least one permanent magnet being arranged between two of the at least two yoke components and circumferentially around the inner yoke shell…’.
Claim 1 recites “configured to direct a magnetic flux density coming from said at least one permanent magnet through the yoke body…”, however, it is not clear upon plain reading what element is ‘configured to direct’. One could reasonably interpret this limitation as pointing either to the magnetic circuit assembly or to one of the permanent magnets or yoke body that make up the circuit assembly. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein said magnetic circuit assembly is configured to direct…’.
Claim 1 recites “…to cause a variation in the magnetic flux density in at least one of the gaps.”, however, claim 1 does not previously require the recited magnetic flux density to be in the gaps, and thus it is unclear how a variation in the magnetic flux density in the gaps can occur. The claim previously requires “…[unknown element] configured to direct a magnetic flux density coming from said at least one permanent magnet through the yoke body…” and that the unknown element be configured to, “…in said gaps induce a magnetic field…”. No particular magnetic flux density is previously required in the gaps. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…to cause a variation in a magnetic flux density corresponding to the magnetic field in at least one of the gaps’.
Claim 5 recites “…wherein the electric interface(s) include a passageway formed in the outer yoke shell.”, however, it is unclear if this requires a single passageway, or one passageway for each interface. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the electrical interfaces each include a passageway formed in the outer yoke shell.’
Claim 7 recites “…resulting in a change of the magnetic flux density in the at least two gaps.”, however, first, the claim has the same issue as claim 1 regarding the required positioning of the previously recited magnetic flux density. Furthermore, the claim is directed to an apparatus, and thus, limitations to a result of a capability required of a claim element do not make sense, as it is not clear how this would limit the structure and/or functionality of the claim element. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…to induce a change in the magnetic flux density corresponding to the magnetic field in the at least two gaps’.
The term “mainly” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mainly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification gives no degree to which the modification would need to affect one branch relative to another. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘affecting one of two or more branches of the magnetic circuit more than another’.
Claim 8 has similar issues to claim 7, is similarly rendered indefinite, and is thus similarly interpreted as ‘…to induce a change in the magnetic flux density corresponding to the magnetic field in a corresponding gap’.
Claim 20 recites “…said particle-optical system…configured for influencing said charged-particle beam propagating through said lens along a longitudinal axis thereof.” It is unclear which element the longitudinal axis is intended to be ‘thereof’, as either the system or the lens could be reasonably understood from the present phrasing. Additionally, if intended to refer to the longitudinal axis of the lens, ‘the longitudinal axis’ should be used, as claim 1 recites such an axis. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘“…said particle-optical system…configured for influencing said charged-particle beam propagating through said lens along the longitudinal axis thereof’, which makes clear that the longitudinal axis is that of the lens, as no other such axis is previously recited.
It is unclear if claim 21 intends to require an arbitrary additional charged particle lens for each respective column in addition to the single instance of the charge particle of claim 1 (required by claim 20), or if this is intended to require that each respective column have a respective instance of the charged particle lens of claim 1 (i.e., as required in claim 20, upon which claim 21 depends). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a respective instance of the charged particle lens’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Ninhuijs (ON Doc. No. NL 2027307 B1) in view of Yasuda (EPO Doc. No. EP 2587517 A1).
Examiner notes that Yasuda is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 03/13/2026.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs teaches a charged particle lens configured to modify a charged-particle beam of a charged particle optical system (Title, Abstract), the lens being provided with a passage space extending primarily along a longitudinal axis and allowing the passage of a charged-particle beam (See Figs. 1-2, beam e-, along longitudinal axis, including passage space), said lens including a magnetic circuit assembly comprising:
- at least one permanent magnet (See Figs. 1-2, items 12, 12a, 12b); and
- a yoke body (See Figs. 1-2 items 11a, 11b);
said yoke body being composed of at least two yoke components, of which a first yoke component realizes an inner yoke shell, arranged surrounding the passage space (See Figs. 1-2, item 11b, surrounding passage space), and a second yoke component realizes an outer yoke shell which is arranged surrounding the inner yoke shell (See Figs. 1-2, item 11a, surrounding 11b), said yoke components being arranged circumferential around the longitudinal axis and comprise highly magnetic permeable material (See Figs. 1-2, items 11a, 11b surrounding longitudinal axis circumferentially; p. 5, l. 34 – p. 6, l. 2);
said at least one permanent magnet being arranged between the at least two yoke components and circumferentially around the inner yoke shell (See Figs. 1-2, items 12, 12a, 12b, each of which are between two yoke components and arranged circumferentially around item 11b), said at least one permanent magnet comprising a permanent magnetic material being magnetically oriented with its two magnetic poles towards respective yoke components (See p. 5, l. 29-30; p. 7, l. 33 – p. 8, l. 2; The arrangement disclosed teaches two magnetic poles magnetically oriented toward respective yoke components, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, i.e., one or more of 11a and 11b, each);
wherein in the magnetic circuit assembly, the at least one permanent magnet and the yoke body form a closed magnetic circuit but having at least two gaps formed between respective axial faces of different yoke components (See Figs. 1-2, items 10-1 and gap on opposite side, 100-1 and 100-2; ), configured to direct a magnetic flux density coming from said at least one permanent magnet through the yoke body and in said gaps induce a magnetic field, which is reaching inwards into the passage space (See Figs. 1-2; p. 5, l. 3-26; These limitations are inherent in the arrangement of Figs. 1-2, as the permanent magnets 12, 12a, 12b will direct some magnetic field outward, which will inherently direct some magnetic flux density through the yoke body and induce a magnetic field in the gaps, that reaches inwards in to the passage space, as is the purpose of the applied field, e.g., see background, and thus the disclosed magnetic circuit is configured to do so),
Van Ninhuijs does not teach the charged particle lens including an electromagnetic adjustment coil located between the inner and outer yoke shell and configured to be driven by an adjustable supply current, wherein the electric current in the electromagnetic adjustment coil is substantially running along a circumferential direction around the longitudinal axis, the electromagnetic adjustment coil being configured to modify the magnetic flux in the magnetic circuit to cause a variation in the magnetic flux density in at least one of the gaps.
However, Examiner notes that the general use of such adjustment coils is well represented in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised thereof.
Nevertheless, Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens including an electromagnetic adjustment coil (See Figs. 1-2, 9, items 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 204; [0025]-[0026]; [0032]; [0041]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]) (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the adjustment coil of Yasuda to be driven by an adjustable supply current in order to achieve the disclosed functionality for fine-tuning the magnetic field with the adjustment coil), wherein the electric current in the electromagnetic adjustment coil is substantially running along a circumferential direction around the longitudinal axis (See Figs. 1-2, 9; One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the coils to be in the circumferential direction around the longitudinal axis in order to correct the beam as disclosed), the electromagnetic adjustment coil being configured to modify the magnetic flux in the magnetic circuit to cause a variation in the magnetic flux density (See Figs. 1-2, 9, items 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 204; [0025]-[0026]; [0032]; [0041]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]).
Examiner notes that were such an adjustment coil applied to van Ninhuijs in a similar manner, that it would cause the variation in magnetic flux density in the gaps as required. Additionally, Yasuda discloses the relative position of the adjustment coil and the permanent magnet to achieve good cooling of the adjustment coil, which would naturally result in the adjustment coil being located between the inner and outer yoke shells of van Ninhuijs if similarly applied, which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do, from Yasuda’s teachings of heat management.
Accordingly, 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 van Ninhuijs to include the charged particle lens including an electromagnetic adjustment coil , as taught by Yasuda, in order to achieve the charged particle lens including an electromagnetic adjustment coil located between the inner and outer yoke shell and configured to be driven by an adjustable supply current, wherein the electric current in the electromagnetic adjustment coil is substantially running along a circumferential direction around the longitudinal axis, the electromagnetic adjustment coil being configured to modify the magnetic flux in the magnetic circuit to cause a variation in the magnetic flux density in at least one of the gaps by the combination of van Ninhuijs and Yasuda.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to improve the magnetic lens of van Ninhuijs by allowing fine tuning of the magnetic field via the conventional adjustment coil in the manner disclosed by Yasuda.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Yasuda further teaches (See Fig. 13; [0064]).
However, Yasuda teaches the sig coil as being formed of a sectorial coil arrangement.
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 Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda to include wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil is further provided with an electromagnetic sectorial adjustment coil arrangement which comprises two or more sector coil elements, each sector coil element being realized with a general winding axis pointing in a respective radial direction, the sector coils of the sectorial adjustment coil being arranged in mutual circumferential angular offsets around the longitudinal axis (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Doing so represents combining known techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use the known technique of providing sectorial coil arrangements for more geometric control of the field arrangements to another disclosed coil that would benefit from the feature in a similar manner that would be predictable.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 2.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda does not explicitly teach wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil and the sectorial adjustment coil arrangement are respectively provided with electrical interfaces to the outside of the charged particle lens for supplying the coil and coil elements with respective electrical currents.
However, electrical feedthroughs, vias, and other interfaces are typical in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the adjustment coil of Yasuda to necessarily have some form of electrical interface to the external current source in order to provide the electrical current that drive the adjustment coil. Accordingly, while not explicitly recited, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosure of Yasuda as requiring some such interface in practice.
Accordingly, 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 van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda to explicitly include wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil and the sectorial adjustment coil arrangement are respectively provided with electrical interfaces to the outside of the charged particle lens for supplying the coil and coil elements with respective electrical currents.
Doing so represents the application of typical technology in its typical fashion in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda does not explicitly teach wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil is provided with an electrical interface to the outside of the charged particle lens, configured to supply the coil with electrical current.
However, electrical feedthroughs, vias, and other interfaces are typical in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the adjustment coil of Yasuda to necessarily have some form of electrical interface to the external current source in order to provide the electrical current that drive the adjustment coil. Accordingly, while not explicitly recited, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosure of Yasuda as requiring some such interface in practice.
Accordingly, 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 van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda to explicitly include wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil is provided with an electrical interface to the outside of the charged particle lens, configured to supply the coil with electrical current.
Doing so represents the application of typical technology in its typical fashion in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 3.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda does not explicitly teach wherein the electric interface(s) include a passageway formed in the outer yoke shell.
However, electrical feedthroughs, vias, and other interfaces are typical in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the adjustment coil of Yasuda to necessarily have some form of electrical interface to the external current source in order to provide the electrical current that drive the adjustment coil. Accordingly, while not explicitly recited, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosure of Yasuda as requiring some such interface in practice.
Accordingly, 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 van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda to explicitly include wherein the electric interface(s) include a passageway formed in the outer yoke shell.
Doing so represents the application of typical technology in its typical fashion in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 4.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda does not explicitly teach wherein the electric interface(s) include a passageway formed in the outer yoke shell.
However, electrical feedthroughs, vias, and other interfaces are typical in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the adjustment coil of Yasuda to necessarily have some form of electrical interface to an outside of the yoke shell (that is cylindrical and otherwise solid) to the external current source in order to provide the electrical current that drive the adjustment coil. Accordingly, while not explicitly recited, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the disclosure of Yasuda as requiring some such interface in practice.
Accordingly, 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 van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda to explicitly include wherein the electric interface(s) include a passageway formed in the outer yoke shell.
Doing so represents the application of typical technology in its typical fashion in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda further teaches wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil, and optionally a sectorial adjustment coil arrangement provided therewith, is configured to induce a redistribution of magnetic flux between two or more branches of the magnetic circuit, resulting in a change of the magnetic flux density in the at least two gaps (See Yasuda: Figs. 1-2, 9, items 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 204; [0025]-[0026]; [0032]; [0041]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]; Examiner notes that in the arrangements described, the adjustment coil is ‘configured to’, i.e., constructed to be capable of, induce a change in magnetic flux, i.e., via modification of the adjustment coil field, which would change the magnetic flux density in the gaps in combination with the arrangement of van Ninhuijs).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda further teaches wherein the electromagnetic adjustment coil, and optionally a sectorial adjustment coil arrangement provided therewith, is configured to induce a modification of magnetic flux affecting mainly one of two or more branches of the magnetic circuit, resulting in a change of the magnetic flux density in a corresponding gap (See Yasuda: Figs. 1-2, 9, items 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 204; [0025]-[0026]; [0032]; [0041]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]; Examiner notes that in the arrangements described, the adjustment coil is ‘configured to’, i.e., constructed to be capable of, induce a larger change in magnetic flux, i.e., via modification of the adjustment coil field, in one direction than in the other, which would change the magnetic flux density in the gaps accordingly in combination with the arrangement of van Ninhuijs).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda further teaches wherein two or more electromagnetic adjustment coils are located at different locations associated with different components of the magnetic circuit assembly, configured to adjust the magnetic field in the two gaps differently (See Yasuda: Figs. 1-2, 9, items 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 204; [0025]-[0026]; [0032]; [0041]-[0043]; [0061]-[0063]; Examiner notes that in the arrangements described, the adjustment coil is ‘configured to’, i.e., constructed to be capable of, induce a larger change in magnetic flux, i.e., via modification of the adjustment coil field, in different locations, i.e., near different components, which would change the magnetic flux density in the gaps accordingly in combination with the arrangement of van Ninhuijs).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Yasuda further teaches further comprising a holder component configured to keep the electromagnetic adjustment coil, and optionally a sectorial adjustment coil arrangement provided therewith, in a defined position between the at least two components of the yoke body (See Figs. 1, 2, 9, items 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 204;; Examiner notes that some element is holding the adjustment coil in the defined position between two components of the yoke body, and that the yoke body itself is not excluded).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs further teaches wherein the second yoke component realizes a housing body of said lens assembly, which surrounds the other components of the assembly including all other yoke components (See Fig. 2, item 11a).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs further teaches wherein the at least one permanent magnet has a magnetization oriented substantially radially (See p. 5, l. 29-30; p. 7, l. 33 – p. 8, l. 2; The arrangement disclosed teaches two magnetic poles magnetically oriented radially, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, i.e., one or more of 11a and 11b, each).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs further teaches wherein the at least one permanent magnet is composed of at least two sub-components, namely:
- segmented according to two or more layers stacked along a longitudinal axis (See Fig. 2, items 12a, 12b); and/or
- split into two or more sectors arranged around a longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 13.
Van Ninhuijs further teaches wherein at least one thermal control device is placed between respective two of said sub-components (See Fig. 2, item 14, between 12a, 12b).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged particle lens of claim 1.
Van Ninhuijs further teaches having an overall rotationally symmetric shape along said longitudinal axis (See Figs. 1-2), wherein the components of the magnetic circuit assembly, namely,
- the at least one permanent magnet; and
- the yoke body; as well as
the electromagnetic adjustment coil,
are arranged coaxial with said longitudinal axis and have basic shapes corresponding to hollow cylinders or hollow polygonal prismatic shapes (See Figs. 1-2; i.e., ring/hollow cylindrical shaped).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches a charged-particle optical apparatus including a particle-optic system, said particle-optical system being configured for controlling a charged-particle beam propagating within said charged-particle optical apparatus (Abstract), said particle-optical system including the charged particle lens of claim 1 (See claim 1 above for claim mapping), configured for influencing said charged-particle beam propagating through said lens along a longitudinal axis thereof (Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, van Ninhuijs in view of Yasuda teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 20.
Yasuda further teaches wherein the apparatus is realized as a multi-column system comprising a plurality of particle-optical columns ([0001]; [0037]; [0045]-[0047]), each column being configured to employ a respective particle beam and comprising a respective particle-optic system which includes a respective instance of a charged particle lens ([0001]-[0021]; [0037]; [0045]-[0047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights