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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Bluetooth” in para. [0040], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 17: “control lenses configured to adjust an charged particle-optical parameter” should be “control lenses configured to adjust a charged particle-optical parameter”
Claim 15: “The charged particle-optical device of clam 1” should be “claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sub-beam forming array” in claims 14 and 17.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a “sub-beam forming array” configured to split/divide a charged particle beam is taken to include “a plate (which may be a plate-like body) having a plurality of apertures” (See Spec. para. [0064]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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, 17, and 20, each recites “…at least a proportion of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures…” However, the phrase “a proportion of the sub-beams” is indefinite because it fails to specify what fraction or subset of the sub-beams must meet the recited threshold current condition. For example, it is unclear whether the claimed “proportion” encompasses one sub-beam, a minority of sub-beams, a majority of sub-beams, all sub-beams, or some other fraction, and the claims do not provide any objective boundary or selection criterion for determining the required proportion of the sub-beams. In addition, the specification describes “proportion” in a different context, namely as a proportion of electrons (or current) of an individual sub-beam that passes through an aperture of the beam shaping array (See Spec. para. [0125]). This disclosure relates to how much of a given sub-beam’s electron current passes through its corresponding aperture, and does not define or provide objective guidance for what constitutes “a proportion of the sub-beams” (i.e., the portion of the plurality of sub-beams) that must satisfy the threshold current requirement. Accordingly, because the claim language refers to a proportion of the sub-beams, and the specification only provides examples for a proportion of electrons within a sub-beam, the metes and bounds of the claims are not reasonably certain. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014/107401 A [hereinafter Canon] in view of US 2005/0279952 A1[hereinafter Hitachi].
Regarding Claim 1:
Canon teaches a charged particle-optical device for a charged particle apparatus configured to project a charged particle multi-beam toward a sample (para. [0060]: “a drawing apparatus that is advantageous for adjusting current density of a plurality of charged particle beams”), the charged particle-optical device comprising:
a control lens array (Fig. 1-21 and 22) comprising a plurality of control lenses configured to adjust an charged particle-optical parameter of respective sub-beams of a charged particle multi-beam for focusing by respective down-beam objective lenses (Fig. 1-34) (paras. [0014-0015]: a first focusing lens array 21 and a second focusing lens array 22 (“a control lens array”) which “have a plurality of lenses corresponding to each of the multi-beam 25... and is capable of changing the focal length” (“parameter”) of its corresponding sub-beam. After the first focusing lens array 21 and second focusing lens array 22 individually adjust the sub-beams 25’ optical parameters (focus + collimation) upstream, a downstream “fifth focusing lens array 34 is an objective lens array... focus the sub-multi beams 26” which are derived from sub-beams 25);
a beam shaping aperture array (Fig. 1-23), down-beam of the control lens array, comprising a plurality of apertures for the respective sub-beams (para. [0014]: “The second aperture array 23 ... has a plurality of circular aperture smaller than those of ...sub-multi-beam...”).
However, Canon does not specifically note a controller configured to control the control lens array so that the control lenses selectively manipulate the sub-beams.
Hitachi teaches a controller (the processing module of the focused ion beam (FIB) apparatus) configured to control the control lens array (Fig.2 -2: a condense lenses array) so that the control lenses selectively (para. [0023]: the condense lenses array can cause two different focusing modes switching)
(a) manipulate the respective sub-beams such that the respective sub-beams are shaped by the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array such that less than a threshold current of charged particles of each sub-beam passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0027, 0029-0030]: in a fine beam (observation) mode, the beam current is low, i.e., below a selected boundary/threshold, so that less than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3). and
(b) manipulate the respective sub-beams such that at least the threshold current of at least a proportion of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0029-0030]: in a milling mode, the beam current is high, i.e., at/above the selected boundary threshold, so that more than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3).
Although Hitachi does not explicitly use the word “threshold” as claimed, Hitachi teaches operating an electron beam charged-particle system in two different current regimes by controlling whether the aperture system blocks or transmits electrons. In particular, Hitachi teaches a “milling mode” on a “large current side” (e.g., I ≥ 20nA) and an “observation mode” with substantially lower probe current. Accordingly, Hitachi teaches a predetermined current boundary separating a low-current mode and a high-current mode, which is reasonably an equivalent of eh claimed “threshold current” used to distinguish the two operation conditions. In addition, although Hitachi describes controlling a single charged particle beam, a POSITA would have understood that the same technique is readily scalable to a plurality of beamlets/sub-beams in a multi-beam system because each sub-beam propagates along a corresponding optical path and is subject to the same types of optical controls (e.g., lens focusing and aperture current limiting). In a multi-beam architecture such as Canon, the lens and aperture functions are replicated as arrays, and therefore the lens-switching / aperture-defined current control of Hitachi can be applied per sub-beam (e.g., by applying the corresponding lens control setting to each beamlet’s lens and shaping aperture).
Canon teaches a charged particle multi-beam system having plural beams/beamlets and corresponding plural optical elements (lens arrays and aperture arrays) for forming and directing the beams toward the substrate/sample, i.e., a structure in which beam-forming and beam-limiting functions are implemented in an arrayed manner for multiple beams. Hitachi teaches selecting between two different beam operating conditions by switching/adjusting a condenser lens, and further teaches that “beam diameter or a beam current … is defined by a beam limiting aperture disposed immediately after the condenser lens,” with a fine/observation mode at low current and a high current density mode at much higher current. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the multi-beam system of Canon to operate in two lens-controlled regimes in which, for each beamlet/sub-beam, the lens setting is selected so that the beam is shaped relative to a corresponding shaping aperture (i) to limit transmitted current (low-current condition) or (ii) to allow a higher transmitted current (high-current condition). A POSITA would be motivated to do so because Hitachi provides a known, predictable technique for controlling the delivered beam current by adjusting lens conditions relative to an aperture, and applying that known technique to Canon’s multi-beam architecture would have predictably enabled the multi-beam apparatus to switch between a low-current condition suitable for inspection/observation and a high-current condition suitable for high-dose irradiation (flooding/conditioning), while retaining Canon’s multi-beam structure.
Regarding Claim 2:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. Canon further teaches an objective lens array, down-beam of the control lens array, comprising a plurality of objective lenses configured to focus respective sub-beams on the sample when the sub-beams are shaped by the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0014-0015]: the fifth focusing array 34 is an objective lens array includes einzel-type electrostatic lenes, which is downstream from the control lens arrays 21 and 22, focus the sub-multi beam 26 (derived from sub-beam 25 which is divided from the second aperture array 23).
Regarding Claim 12:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. Hitachi further teaches wherein the controller is configured such that when the control lenses selectively manipulate the respective sub-beams such that at least the threshold current of each of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array, substantially all of each of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0029-0030]: teaches that for each aperture diameter the FIB apparatus adjust lens conditions to maximize beam current, i.e., maximize effective transmission through the beam limiting aperture for the mill mode (high-current mode) so that the specimen can be irradiated by a high current onto the specimen).
Regarding Claim 14:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. Canon further teaches a sub-beam forming array (Fig. 1-20) configured to split a charged particle beam into the charged particle multi-beam comprising the sub-beams (para. [0014]: “The first aperture array 20 has a plurality of circular apertures … [and] the parallel beam … is converted to a multibeam … 25 (25a, 25b, 25c),” i.e., multiple sub-beams formed from the charged particle beam).
As previously discussed, “a sub-beam forming array” invokes 112(f) interpretation and is construed to cover its corresponding structure described in the specification, that is, “a plate… having a plurality of apertures” that forms sub-beams from a beam emitted from the source. Accordingly, Canon teaches the same or equivalent structure by disclosing a first aperture array having “a plurality of circular apertures arranged in a matrix” that convers an incident beam into a multi-beam group.
Regarding Claim 16:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. Hitachi further teaches wherein the threshold current is a flooding threshold (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0029-0030]: reference teaches two modes, and in the milling mode (high-current mode), the FIB apparatus intentionally provides substantially greater current deliver to the specimen surface, e.g., more than a selected boundary between the fine/observation current and high-current irradiation).
Regarding Claim 17:
Canon teaches a charged particle apparatus (para. [0002]: “a drawing apparatus which performs drawing on a substrate by controlling…of charged particle beams such as electron beams”) comprising:
a charged particle source configured to emit a charged particle beam (para. [0012]: “The irradiation optical system 5 includes an electron source (charged particle source) 10…”); and
a charged particle-optical device configured to project a charged particle multi-beam toward a sample (paras. [0014-0015]: “multi-beam forming optical system 6 includes a first aperture array 20 [which] has a plurality of circular apertures… converts [the beam] to a multibeam … 25 (25a, 25b, 25c) ...form an image on the wafer”), the charged particle-optical device comprising:
a control lens array (Fig. 1 – 21 and 22) comprising a plurality of control lenses configured to adjust an charged particle-optical parameter of respective sub-beams of a charged particle multi-beam for focusing by respective down-beam objective lenses (paras. [0014-0015]: teaches “The first focusing lens array 21 and the second focusing lens array 22… have a plurality of lenses… and optical power… individually for each lens… capable of changing the focal length,” and a downstream fifth focusing lens array 34, which is an objective lens array, in the projection optics used to project/focus the beams toward the wafer/sample (i.e., objective focusing downstream));
a beam shaping aperture array (Fig. 1- 23), down-beam of the control lens array, comprising a plurality of apertures for the respective sub-beams (para. [0014]: “The second aperture array 23… has a plurality of circular apertures smaller than those of the first aperture array 20… [and] the electron beam group 26 is further divided”); and
a sub-beam forming array (Fig. 1-20) configured to divide the charged particle beam into a charged particle multi-beam comprising the sub-beams (para. [0014]: “The first aperture array 20 has a plurality of circular apertures … [and] parallel beam… is [converted] to a multibeam … 25 (25a, 25b, 25c) ...”).
As previously discussed, “a sub-beam forming array” invokes 112(f) interpretation and is construed to cover its corresponding structure described in the specification, that is, “a plate… having a plurality of apertures” that forms sub-beams from a beam emitted from the source. Accordingly, Canon teaches the same or equivalent structure by disclosing a first aperture array having “a plurality of circular apertures arranged in a matrix” that convers an incident beam into a multi-beam group.
Canon does not specifically note that a controller configured to control the control lens array so that the control lenses selectively manipulate the respective sub-beams.
Hitachi teaches a controller (the processing module of the focused ion beam (FIB) apparatus) configured to control the control lens array (Fig.2 -2: a condense lenses array) so that the control lenses selectively (para. [0023]: the condense lenses array can cause two different focusing modes switching)
(a) manipulate the respective sub-beams such that the respective sub-beams are shaped by the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array such that less than a threshold current of charged particles of each sub-beam passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0027, 0029-0030]: in a fine beam (observation) mode, the beam current is low, i.e., below a selected boundary/threshold, so that less than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3), and
(b) manipulate the respective sub-beams such that at least the threshold current of at least a proportion of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0029-0030]: in a milling mode, the beam current is high, i.e., at/above the selected boundary threshold, so that more than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3).
Although Hitachi does not explicitly use the word “threshold” as claimed, Hitachi teaches operating an electron beam charged-particle system in two different current regimes by controlling whether the aperture system blocks or transmits electrons. In particular, Hitachi teaches a “milling mode” on a “large current side” (e.g., I ≥ 20nA) and an “observation mode” with substantially lower probe current. Accordingly, Hitachi teaches a predetermined current boundary separating a low-current mode and a high-current mode, which is reasonably an equivalent of eh claimed “threshold current” used to distinguish the two operation conditions. In addition, although Hitachi describes controlling a single charged particle beam, a POSITA would have understood that the same technique is readily scalable to a plurality of beamlets/sub-beams in a multi-beam system because each sub-beam propagates along a corresponding optical path and is subject to the same types of optical controls (e.g., lens focusing and aperture current limiting). In a multi-beam architecture such as Canon, the lens and aperture functions are replicated as arrays, and therefore the lens-switching / aperture-defined current control of Hitachi can be applied per sub-beam (e.g., by applying the corresponding lens control setting to each beamlet’s lens and shaping aperture).
Canon teaches a charged particle multi-beam system having plural beams/beamlets and corresponding plural optical elements (lens arrays and aperture arrays) for forming and directing the beams toward the substrate/sample, i.e., a structure in which beam-forming and beam-limiting functions are implemented in an arrayed manner for multiple beams. Hitachi teaches selecting between two different beam operating conditions by switching/adjusting a condenser lens, and further teaches that “beam diameter or a beam current … is defined by a beam limiting aperture disposed immediately after the condenser lens,” with a fine/observation mode at low current and a high current density mode at much higher current. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the multi-beam system of Canon to operate in two lens-controlled regimes in which, for each beamlet/sub-beam, the lens setting is selected so that the beam is shaped relative to a corresponding shaping aperture (i) to limit transmitted current (low-current condition) or (ii) to allow a higher transmitted current (high-current condition). A POSITA would be motivated to do so because Hitachi provides a known, predictable technique for controlling the delivered beam current by adjusting lens conditions relative to an aperture, and applying that known technique to Canon’s multi-beam architecture would have predictably enabled the multi-beam apparatus to switch between a low-current condition suitable for inspection/observation and a high-current condition suitable for high-dose irradiation (flooding/conditioning), while retaining Canon’s multi-beam structure.
Regarding Claim 18:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 17. Hitachi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the charged particle apparatus to operate to detect signal particles emitted by the sample using the multi-beam when the sub-beams are shaped by the beam shaping aperture array such that less than the threshold current of charged particles of each sub-beam passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0027, 0029-0030]: in the observation mode, after the specimen is irradiated by an ion beam of low current, secondary particles generated from the specimen can be detected, for example, by a charged particle detector 12, and in this mode, the beam current is low, i.e., below a selected boundary/threshold, so that less than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3).
Regarding Claim 19:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 17. Hitachi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the charged particle apparatus to perform flooding of a surface of the sample when at least the threshold current of at least a proportion of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0029-0030]: in the milling mode, the specimen surface is irradiated by an ion beam of high current, which meets/exceeds the high-current boundary).
Regarding Claim 20:
Canon teaches a method for projecting a charged particle multi-beam toward a sample (para. [0003]: “a method of correcting non-uniformity in current density between charged particle beams”), the method comprising:
manipulating respective sub-beams of a charged particle multi-beam using a control lens array comprising a plurality of control lenses for the respective sub-beams (para. [0014]: “the first focusing lens array 21 and the second focusing lens array 22 have a plurality of lenses corresponding to each of the multi-beams 25, and the optical power (reciprocal of refractive power) individually for each lens...In particular, the first focusing lens array 21 further focuses the multi-beam 25 while the second focusing lens array 22 collimates the focused multi-beam 25...”);
the sub-beams are shaped by respective apertures of a beam shaping aperture array, down-beam of the control lens array, comprising a plurality of apertures for the respective sub-beams (para. [0014]: “The second aperture array 23… has a plurality of circular apertures smaller than those of the first aperture array 20… [and] the electron beam group 26 is further divided”);
However, Canon does not specifically note that controlling the control lens array to manipulate the sub-beams.
Hitachi teaches controlling the control lens array to manipulate the sub-beams such that less than a threshold current of charged particles of each sub-beam passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0027, 0029-0030]: the condense lenses array can cause two different focusing modes switching, in a fine beam (observation) mode, the beam current is low, i.e., below a selected boundary/threshold, so that less than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3);
controlling the control lens array to manipulate the sub-beams such that at least the threshold current of at least a proportion of the sub-beams passes through the respective apertures of the beam shaping aperture array (paras. [0002, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0029-0030]: the condense lenses array can cause two different focusing modes switching, in a milling mode, the beam current is high, i.e., at/above the selected boundary threshold, so that more than a threshold current may pass the beam limiting aperture 3).
Although Hitachi does not explicitly use the word “threshold” as claimed, Hitachi teaches operating an electron beam charged-particle system in two different current regimes by controlling whether the aperture system blocks or transmits electrons. In particular, Hitachi teaches a “milling mode” on a “large current side” (e.g., I ≥ 20nA) and an “observation mode” with substantially lower probe current. Accordingly, Hitachi teaches a predetermined current boundary separating a low-current mode and a high-current mode, which is reasonably an equivalent of eh claimed “threshold current” used to distinguish the two operation conditions. In addition, although Hitachi describes controlling a single charged particle beam, a POSITA would have understood that the same technique is readily scalable to a plurality of beamlets/sub-beams in a multi-beam system because each sub-beam propagates along a corresponding optical path and is subject to the same types of optical controls (e.g., lens focusing and aperture current limiting). In a multi-beam architecture such as Canon, the lens and aperture functions are replicated as arrays, and therefore the lens-switching / aperture-defined current control of Hitachi can be applied per sub-beam (e.g., by applying the corresponding lens control setting to each beamlet’s lens and shaping aperture).
Canon teaches a charged particle multi-beam system having plural beams/beamlets and corresponding plural optical elements (lens arrays and aperture arrays) for forming and directing the beams toward the substrate/sample, i.e., a structure in which beam-forming and beam-limiting functions are implemented in an arrayed manner for multiple beams. Hitachi teaches selecting between two different beam operating conditions by switching/adjusting a condenser lens, and further teaches that “beam diameter or a beam current … is defined by a beam limiting aperture disposed immediately after the condenser lens,” with a fine/observation mode at low current and a high current density mode at much higher current. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the multi-beam system of Canon to operate in two lens-controlled regimes in which, for each beamlet/sub-beam, the lens setting is selected so that the beam is shaped relative to a corresponding shaping aperture (i) to limit transmitted current (low-current condition) or (ii) to allow a higher transmitted current (high-current condition). A POSITA would be motivated to do so because Hitachi provides a known, predictable technique for controlling the delivered beam current by adjusting lens conditions relative to an aperture, and applying that known technique to Canon’s multi-beam architecture would have predictably enabled the multi-beam apparatus to switch between a low-current condition suitable for inspection/observation and a high-current condition suitable for high-dose irradiation (flooding/conditioning), while retaining Canon’s multi-beam structure.
Claims 3-5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canon in Hitachi, further in view of US 2008/0023643 A1 [hereinafter Kruit].
Regarding Claim 3:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 2. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the beam shaping aperture array is associated with the objective lens array. Kruit teaches wherein the beam shaping aperture array is associated with the objective lens array (paras. [0016, 0042]: a lens array (“objective lens array”) “comprising a plurality of lenses to focus the beamlets with different incident angles into a plane”, a current limiting aperture array (“bream shaping array”), which is “normally part of an array of such apertures … included in an aperture plate” and “aligned with each lens in the lens array” (“associated with”)).
Canon teaches a multi-beam charged particle writing system using lens arrays and aperture arrays to form and condition multiple beams/sub-beams in one column. Kruit teaches that a current limiting aperture array is aligned with a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses, so the aperture array and lens array function together on corresponding beamlets. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Kruit’s aligned aperture–lens relationship into Canon, so that the beam shaping aperture array becomes structurally and functionally linked (“associated with”) the objective lens optics (i.e., the objective lens focusing operates together with an aperture plate that shapes/limits the beamlets). A POSITA would be motivated to associate the beam shaping aperture array with the objective lens array because this is a predictable way to improve beam conditioning, i.e., the lens array controls beam convergence/beam footprint while the aligned apertures shape/limit beamlets, supporting stable imaging/writing performance and uniformity in multi-beam operation.
Regarding Claim 4:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 2. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the beam shaping aperture array is down-beam of the objective lens array. Kruit teaches wherein the beam shaping aperture array is down-beam of the objective lens array (para. [0016]: “a current limiting aperture array located either before or after the lens array...”).
Canon teaches an objective lens array that focuses multi-beams onto the wafer/sample within a multi-beam charged particle column. Kruit expressly teaches that the aperture array may be located either before or after the lens array, including a configuration where the aperture array is downstream (down-beam) of the lens array. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Kruit’s downstream placement option to Canon yields an arrangement where the beam shaping aperture array is placed down-beam of the objective lens array, i.e., objective lenses operate first, and the downstream apertures then perform beam shaping/current limiting. A POSITA would be motivated to position the beam shaping aperture array down-beam of the objective lens array because Kruit teaches this as a known configuration option, and it provides a predictable beam-conditioning benefit, that is, a downstream aperture can act as an acceptance/limiting stop after lens focusing, to reduce unwanted portions of the beam and improving controllability.
Regarding Claim 5:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 2. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the control lens array is associated with the objective lens array. Kruit teaches wherein the control lens array is associated with the objective lens array (para. [0022]: macro-electrodes (“control lens array”) are arranged with and operate together with the lens array (“objective lens array”) to adjust the optical behavior experienced by the beamlets at the lens holes (“associated with”)).
Canon teaches that a multi-beam apparatus uses multiple lens arrays working together in a single column to condition beams (e.g., lens arrays upstream that influence beam focus/optical properties before final projection). Kruit teaches that the lens system may include controllable electrode structures (e.g., macro-electrodes facing lens holes) that operate with the lens array to adjust optical behavior, meaning the control structure is used together with the lens array for beam focusing/conditioning. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to adopt Kruit’s concept of control electrode structures (or control lens functionality) to operate together with the lens array into Canon’s multi-lens multi-beam column, the resulting apparatus has a control lens array that is associated with the objective lens array, i.e., the control optics are part of the same coordinated lens system used to achieve the desired focusing behavior. A POSITA would be motivated to associate the control lens array with the objective lens array because multi-beam systems commonly require coordinated lens control to maintain beam quality across beamlets, and Kruit teaches a known approach where additional controllable electrode/lens structures operate with the lens array to tune focusing behavior, which predictably improves uniformity and stability.
Regarding Claim 13:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the apertures of the beam shaping aperture array are dimensionally smaller than the respective apertures of the control lens array. Kruit teaches that wherein the apertures of the beam shaping aperture array are dimensionally smaller than the respective apertures of the control lens array (paras. [0042-0043]: teaches a beam shaping aperture array by disclosing “a current limiting aperture CLA, normally part of an array of such apertures CLA and included in an aperture plate AP,” aligned in the beam path, and further teaches that a lens array includes “cylindrical holes H1” through which the beamlets pass. Because CLA is expressly a current limiting aperture aligned with the lens holes, it functions as a more restrictive opening for limiting transmitted current relative to the lens-hole opening, thereby meeting claim’s requirement that the apertures of the beam shaping aperture array are dimensionally smaller than the apertures of the control lens array).
Canon teaches a charged-particle multi-beam system using a lens-array architecture that forms and conditions plural beams/sub-beams along the beam path toward the wafer/sample. Kruit teaches using a current limiting aperture array, i.e., “a current limiting aperture CLA… part of an array… included in an aperture plate AP”, aligned with the beam path through a lens array having “cylindrical holes H1,” where the CLA functions as a restrictive aperture that limits transmitted beam current. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Canon’s multi-beam lens-array apparatus to include Kruit’s current-limiting aperture array, resulting in a configuration where the beam shaping apertures (CLA array) are dimensionally smaller/more restrictive than the corresponding lens-array openings (lens holes), thereby shaping/limiting the beam current at each beamlet. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Kruit’s limiting aperture array into Canon because controlling beam current per beamlet is a known and predictable design goal in multi-beam charged-particle tools (e.g., to adjust current density / uniformity and suppress unwanted electrons), and Kruit provides a straightforward hardware solution (aperture plate with current-limiting apertures aligned with lens openings) that can be implemented without changing the overall multi-beam architecture of Canon.
Claims 6-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canon in Hitachi, further in view of US11562880 B2 [hereinafter Zeidler].
Regarding Claim 6:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the controller is configured to control the control lenses to focus the respective sub-beams to respective intermediate focus points down-beam of the control lens array. Zeidler teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the control lenses to focus the respective sub-beams to respective intermediate focus points down-beam of the control lens array (Col. 13, Lls.62-64; Col. 16, Lls. 25-27; Col. 15, Lls. 21-24: teaches controlling a lens array (MLA1) so that the individual beams form intermediate focus points down-beam of that lens array- “the first multi-lens array MLA1 includes a multiplicity of individually adjustable and focusing particle lenses,” “each individual particle beam has an intermediate focus, i.e., a beam waist, between the first multi-lens array MLA1 and the second multi-lens array MLA2,” the intermediate foci are described as being in the intermediate image plane 325 (i.e., intermediate focus points) down-beam of MLA1: “the foci of all particle beams… are located in the intermediate image plane 325”).
Canon teaches a multi-beam charged particle optical column using lens arrays to condition and focus multiple beams/sub-beams toward the wafer/sample. Zeidler teaches a particle beam system includes a first multi-lens array MLA1 (“control lens array”) and a second multi-aperture plate PA2 (“beam shaping aperture array”). Specifically, Zeidler teaches controlling a first multi-lens array so that each individual beam has an intermediate focus (beam waist) located down-beam of that lens array (e.g., in an intermediate image plane between lens stages). It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to combine Canon with Zeidler to provide a predictable configuration where Canon’s control lenses can be driven to form respective intermediate focus points down-beam of the control lens array. A POSITA would be motivated to implement intermediate focus points because placing a beam waist at a defined plane is a known technique to improve beam conditioning and controllability, especially when later optics and apertures are present downstream in a multi-beam column.
Regarding Claim 7:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 6. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the intermediate focus points are between the control lens array and the sample. Zeidler teaches wherein the intermediate focus points are between the control lens array and the sample (Col. 16. Lls. 22-26; Col. 15, Lls. 41-42: teaches that each individual particle beam has an “intermediate focus … between the first multi-lens array MLA1 and the second multi-lens array MLA2,” and further teaches that the intermediate image plane (325) is “imaged in the object plane … by the subsequent particle optical unit,” meaning the intermediate focus points occur upstream of the object plane (sample plane) and thus are between the control lens array (MLA1) and the sample).
Canon teaches that beamlets/sub-beams are conditioned by upstream optics and then ultimately focused onto the sample/wafer for exposure/writing. Zeidler teaches a particle beam system includes a first multi-lens array MLA1 (“control lens array”) and a second multi-aperture plate PA2 (“beam shaping aperture array”). Specifically, Zeidler teaches that the intermediate image plane (intermediate foci) occurs between an upstream lens array and downstream optics, and is later imaged into the object plane (sample plane) by subsequent optics. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Zeidler’s intermediate image plane concept to Canon results in intermediate focus points that are positioned between the control lens array and the sample. A POSITA would be motivated to place the intermediate focus between the control lenses and the sample because it is a predictable optical design choice that supports stable downstream focusing and consistent beam delivery across multiple beamlets.
Regarding Claim 8:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the controller is configured to control the control lenses to focus the respective sub-beams to reduce a cross-section of the sub-beams at the beam shaping aperture array, so that the cross-section of the individual beams is smaller than the cross-section of the respective beam shaping aperture of the beam shaping aperture array. Zeidler teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the control lenses to focus the respective sub-beams to reduce a cross-section of the sub-beams at the beam shaping aperture array, so that the cross-section of the individual beams is smaller than the cross-section of the respective beam shaping aperture of the beam shaping aperture array (Col. 16, Lls. 30-35; Col. 15, Lls. 10-12: teaches that a controller supplies “an individually adjustable voltage to the particle lenses of the first multi-lens array” to “individually adjust the focusing … for each individual particle beam,” and explains that when the first multi-lens array “exerts a strongly focusing effect, the beam diameter… is comparatively small upon arrival at the second multi-aperture plate,” so “more particles can then pass through” and “fewer particles are blocked,” whereas with “a less strongly focusing setting… more particles are blocked… and fewer particles pass through the openings.” Accordingly, Zeidler teaches controlling the lenses to reduce the beam cross-section at the aperture plate so that the beams more readily pass through the respective apertures).
Canon teaches aperture arrays and lens arrays in a multi-beam column where apertures shape/limit beams and lenses control the beam paths for correct delivery to the wafer. Zeidler teaches a particle beam system includes a first multi-lens array MLA1 (“control lens array”) and a second multi-aperture plate PA2 (“beam shaping aperture array”). Specifically, Zeidler teaches adjusting lens focusing so that the beam diameter at an aperture plate is comparatively small, causing more particles to pass through the openings and fewer to be blocked, while weaker focusing causes more blocking. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Zeidler’s focusing-to-aperture-plane beam-diameter control into Canon to provide a predictable way to control the sub-beams so the cross-section at the beam shaping aperture array is reduced, increasing transmission through the apertures. A POSITA would be motivated to reduce the beam cross-section at the aperture plane because it is a known technique to increase throughput and improve current control, ensuring the intended portion of each beam passes through the shaping apertures.
Regarding Claim 15:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the control lens array comprises a plate in which is defined a plurality of apertures arranged respectively in a path of the respective sub-beams and the beam shaping aperture array comprises a plate in which is defined the plurality of apertures of the beam shaping array that are arranged in the respective paths of the respective sub-beams. Zeidler teaches wherein the control lens array comprises a plate in which is defined a plurality of apertures arranged respectively in a path of the respective sub-beams and the beam shaping aperture array comprises a plate in which is defined the plurality of apertures of the beam shaping array that are arranged in the respective paths of the respective sub-beams (Claims 18-19: teaches that the beam shaping aperture array comprises “a second multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of fourth openings,” i.e., a plate defining plural apertures in respective beam paths, and further teaches that at least one multi-lens array (including the first multi-lens array) “comprises a lens multi-aperture plate with a multiplicity of openings” with “a multiplicity of electrodes” arranged at each opening “to individually influence the individual charged particle beam passing through the respective opening,” i.e., a control lens array comprising a plate with apertures in the paths of the respective sub-beams).
Canon teaches forming and conditioning multiple beamlets using plates/arrays arranged along the beam path (e.g., aperture arrays and lens arrays for multi-beam formation and control). Zeidler teaches a particle beam system includes a first multi-lens array MLA1 (“control lens array”) and a second multi-aperture plate PA2 (“beam shaping aperture array”). Specifically, Zeidler teaches a multi-beam microscope architecture that uses a lens multi-aperture plate with a multiplicity of openings as part of a multi-lens array, and also uses a multi-aperture plate comprising a multiplicity of openings downstream in the beam path. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Zeidler’s plate-based lens array and plate-based aperture array structures into Canon to yield the claimed configuration where both the control lens array and the beam shaping aperture array are implemented as plates defining plural apertures aligned with the respective beam paths. A POSITA would be motivated to use plate-based arrays because they provide a predictable and manufacturable way to implement high-density parallel beam optics, enabling stable alignment and consistent beam-to-beam control across the multi-beam array.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canon in view of Hitachi, further in view of US 2012/0241606 A1 [hereinafter Han].
Regarding Claim 9:
Canon in view of Hitachi teaches the charged particle-optical device of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that a detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements configured to detect signal particles emitted from the sample. Han teaches a detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements configured to detect signal particles emitted from the sample (paras. [0025-0026]: teaches when the primary beamlets hit the sample, “each beamlet spot generates a corresponding secondary electron (SE) beamlet,” producing “an array of SE beamlets,’ and that “signal electrons from each SE beamlet… may be detected in parallel by multiple detector elements in the detector system”).
Canon teaches a multi-beam charged particle apparatus that projects multiple beams/sub-beams to a wafer/sample for writing/processing. Han teaches detecting “signal particles” (e.g., secondary electrons) emitted from the sample using a detector array having multiple detector elements. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to add Han’s detector array to Canon yields a multi-beam system capable of detecting signal particles emitted from the sample using a plurality of detector elements. A POSITA would be motivated to add a detector array because monitoring emitted signal particles is a known technique for alignment, calibration, inspection, and process feedback, especially valuable in multi-beam systems
Regarding Claim 10:
The combined references of Canon, Hitachi, and Han teach the charged particle-optical device of claim 9. Han further teaches wherein the detector elements are associated with respective sub-beams of the charged particle multi-beam (paras. [0026, 0044-0045]: teaches that “SE detection optics… focus each SE beamlet onto a detector element,” “the detector may include an array of detector cells, and each cell may detect a separate… beamlet,” and that “the number of cells in the detector array may correspond to the number of beamlets…” (e.g., 25 detector cells for 25 SE beamlets)).
Canon teaches a plurality of sub-beams/beamlets used in parallel to operate on the sample. Han teaches mapping beamlets to detection channels by using a detector array where detector cells correspond to respective beamlets, enabling parallel detection. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Han’s detector architecture into Canon provides detector elements associated with respective sub-beams, enabling per-beam signal capture. A POSITA would be motivated to associate detector elements with respective sub-beams to obtain beam-by-beam measurement, improving uniformity control, fault detection, and parallel throughput.
Regarding Claim 11:
The combined references of Canon, Hitachi, and Han teach the charged particle-optical device of claim 10. Han further teaches wherein at least part of the detector array is between the control lens array and the sample (paras. [0027 and 0031]: discloses a column configuration including “… an electrostatic lens array … objective lens … a substrate … and [a] secondary electron (SE) detector array,” and further explains that “the SE detector array … is positioned just following the Wien filter,” which is part of the column located upstream of the sample).
Canon teaches a multi-beam column with multiple lens arrays arranged along the beam path toward the sample. Han teaches placing at least part of the detector array within the column, i.e., upstream of the sample and integrated along the beam path. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Han’s placement teaching to Canon yields a configuration where at least part of the detector array is positioned between upstream beam-control optics (control lens array region) and the sample. A POSITA would be motivated to place the detector array in that region because in-column placement allows efficient collection and separation of signal particles while maintaining compact column geometry and stable optics.
Conclusion
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 2021 July 07. It is note, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 21184294.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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 on (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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881