DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Page 24, lines 19-22 of the specification indicate that the diverging primary charged particle beam is collimated by at least collimating lens 303 to form a collimated or parallel primary charged particle beam 309. However, the Fig. labels the diverging beam as item 309, not the beam that has been collimated by lens 303. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “tangent vectors 103”, see page 30, line 21. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "85.1" and "85.5" have both been used to designate the aperture in plate and because reference character “85.1” has been used to designate both the apertures in the first plate 304 and the bottom left aperture 85.5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4, in the upper portion of the figure, on the rightmost side of the rightmost aperture, there is an item indicator line with no item number indicated. This item appears to be pointing to item 175/175.4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, line 4 has a space before the period;
Page 9, line 16 recites “optional”, which should read ‘optionally’;
Page 24, line 11 refers to “the image plane tilt 321”, however, item 321 is previously indicated as referring to the intermediate image surface, not the tilt thereof;
Page 25, line 14 refers to “an adjacent electrostatic field lenses 307”, which should read ‘an adjacent electrostatic field lens 307’;
Page 27, line 22 has the WIPO doc number in a different sized font;
Page 30, lines 2-4 state that the first multi-aperture plate is covered with a metal layer for stopping and absorbing the impinging electron beam in the circumference of the apertures; However, the metal layer is shown in Fig. 2 as only being present outside of the apertures (i.e., present in all but the apertures);
Page 30, line 22 refers to “passing electron beam 77”, however, there is no item 77 in the figure, and the beamlet and charged particle beam are, respectively, items 3.1 and 309 in Fig. 2;
Page 30, line 22 refers to “second segment 101.2”, which should read ‘second segment 331.2’;
Page 30, lines 24 and 25 each refer to “bottom surface 107”, however, there is no item 107, and thus these portions should read ‘bottom surface 76’;
Page 30, line 24 refers to “multi-aperture plate 73.1”, however, the multi-aperture plate was previously indicated as item 304 and there is no item 73.1 in Fig. 2;
Page 30, line 26 refers to “first segment 101.1”, which should read ‘first segment 331.1’;
Page 31, line 15 recites “und”, which should read ‘and’;
Page 34, line 28 refers to “substrate 183”, however, item 183 is not shown as a substrate in Fig. 4, and is previously indicated as being a ‘shielding electrode’;
Page 35, line 2, refers to “bulk material 183”, ”, however, as discussed above, item 183 is previously indicated as being a ‘shielding electrode’;
Page 37, lines 19 recites “each or the”, which should read ‘each of the’;
Page 38, line 23 refers to “shielding aperture 183”, however, as discussed above, item 183 is previously indicated as being a ‘shielding electrode’;
Page 51, lines 10-11 recites “In the example of figure 18, three multi-aperture plates 306.3, 306.4 and 306.9 are used for…”, however, figure 18 shows plate 310 as the third plate, not 306.9;
Page 51, line 21 also refers to “306.9”, however, the figure shows plate 310, not 306.9;
Page 51, line 25 refers to “the plurality of multipole electrodes 82.”, however, figure 18 shows no item 82, and Examiner believes the item number should read ‘81’;
Page 52, lines 4-6 recite “In the example of figure 18, supporting zones 197 of predetermined thickness are provided in the periphery of the membrane zones 199 or the multi-aperture plates 306.”, which Examiner believes should read ‘In the example of figure 18, supporting zones 197 of predetermined thickness are provided in the periphery of the membrane zones 199 of the multi-aperture plates 306.’;
Page 53, lines 13-14 recites “multi-aperture plates 304 to 306.9 and 310” in reference to figure 19, however, figure 19 does not show item 306.9;
Page 53, line 17 refers to “voltage wiring connections 201”, however, no item 201 is shown in the figure, and Examiner believes this should read ‘voltage wiring connections 251’;
Page 53, line 29 recites “…low voltage signals are separates as much as possible…”, which should read ‘…low voltage signals are separates as much as possible…’;
Page 54, lines 2, 5, and 19 refer to “electrode 82”, however, figure 20 shows no item 82, and Examiner believes this should read ‘electrode 84’;
Page 54, line 3 recites “an angle f”, however, figure 20 shows no such angle f, and Examiner believes this should read ‘an angle φ’;
Page 54, line 25 refers to “filter plate 204”, which should read ‘filter plate 304’;
Pages 54 and 55 refer to items f, f1, f2, and f3, however, figure 20 uses the convention φ, φ1, φ2, and φ3; Consistent item indicators should be used;
Page 55, lines 5-9 recite “The angles f1 can be selected in a way that the exit plane of the terminating multi-aperture plate 310 and the plane of the tilt component 323 at angle f3 intersect each other in a line with the unit plane of the electrostatic lens field 92…”, which does not make sense upon plain reading and appears to have typographical errors; First, f1 (i.e., φ1) is a single angle, not a plurality; Second, it is unclear what is intended by ‘intersect each other in a line with the unit plane of the electrostatic lens field 92…’, because the plane of tilt component 323 and the exit plane of terminating multi-aperture plate 310 would appear to intersect in a line (e.g., in the figure, to the right, off the page), but it is unclear how ‘with the unit plane of the electrostatic lens field 92’ is intended to modify such an intersection line, as the unit plane is not indicated in the figure or further described in the specification;
Page 55, line 10 refers to “electrode 82”, however, figure 20 shows no item 82, and Examiner believes this should read ‘electrode 84’;
Page 55, line 15 recites “Es described above”, which should read ‘As described above’;
Page 55, line 17 refers to “objective lens 203”, however, figure 20 shows no item 203, and Examiner believes this should read ‘objective lens 102’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-19, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 12-15, 17-19, and 25 each recite “charge particle beamlets” in at least one location, which should read ‘charged particle beamlets’;
Claim 1 recites “…a circumference of each terminating aperture comprising a corresponding individually addressable electrode disposed therein…”; While definite in context, ‘a corresponding individually addressable electrode’ should refer back to the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes so as to ensure clarity in the elements required by the claim and the correspondence thereof, e.g., ‘…a circumference of each terminating aperture comprising a corresponding individually addressable electrode of the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes disposed therein…’
Claim 1 recites “…the penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because such micro-lens fields will naturally have some penetration depth and/or shape, for clarity, the limitation should read ‘…a penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields…’, because no particular penetration depth and/or shape is previously recited;
Claim 5 recites “…each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a second plurality individually addressable multi-pole electrodes…”, which should read ‘…each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a second plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes’;
Claim 5 recites “…and configured to deflect, focus or correct aberrations…”, which should read ‘…and configured to deflect, focus, or correct aberrations…’, so as to ensure no grouping can be interpreted within the list;
Claim 6 recites “…wherein the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each of the plurality of electrodes of the terminating multi-aperture plate…”; While definite in context, ‘the plurality of electrodes’ is somewhat ambiguous additional electrodes are required in claim 5 (which claim 6 depends on), and because the recitation is inconsistent with the previous recitations of ‘a first plurality of individually addressable electrodes’, and thus the limitation should read ‘…wherein the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each of the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes of the terminating multi-aperture plate…’;
Claim 8 recites “…wherein the condenser electrode comprises a segmented electrode comprising a plurality of at least four electrode segments, and the control unit is configured to provide an asymmetric voltage distribution to the at least four electrode segments…”, which is somewhat unclear upon plain reading because of the phrasing “a plurality of at least four” and “the at least four”; For clarity, Examiner suggests removing ‘a plurality of’, such that the claim reads ‘…wherein the condenser electrode comprises a segmented electrode comprising at least four electrode segments, and the control unit is configured to provide an asymmetric voltage distribution to the at least four electrode segments…’;
Claim 10 recites “…at least one of the condenser lenses with the condenser electrode or…”, which should read ‘…at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or…’, as there is only one condenser lens previously required in the claims;
Claim 10 recites “the terminating aperture plate” in two places, which is inconsistent with previous recitations and should read ‘the terminating multi-aperture plate’;
Claim 12 recites “A method of individually changing the focus distance of each of a plurality of primary charged particle beam spots…”; While definite in context, no particular focus distance is previously recited, and thus the claim should read ‘A method of individually changing a focus distance of each of a plurality of primary charged particle beam spots…’;
Claims 12-13 recite “the plurality of individually addressable electrodes”; While definite in context, the claims previously recite “individually addressable terminating electrodes”, not specifically a plurality; Consistent terminology should be used, i.e., ‘the individually addressable terminating electrodes’;
Claim 12 recites “the plurality of individual voltages”; While definite in context, the claim previously recites “individual voltages”, not specifically a plurality; Consistent terminology should be used, i.e., ‘the individual voltages’;
Claims 13-14 suffer from a similar issue regarding ‘the plurality’ of the individual voltages;
Claim 12 recites “…the penetration depth of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because such micro-lens fields will naturally have some penetration depth (even if zero), for clarity, the limitation should read ‘…a penetration depth of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields…’, because no particular penetration depth is previously recited;
Claim 13 recites “…to influence the shape and/or lateral position of each electrostatic micro-lens field…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because such micro-lens fields will naturally have some shape and/or lateral position (even if zero), for clarity, the limitation should read ‘…a shape and/or lateral position of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields…’, because no particular shape and/or lateral position is previously recited;
Claim 14 recites “…the focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, it is nevertheless ambiguous, because claim 12 recites “an axial focus position”, and there are additional potential focus positions; Consistent terminology should be maintained, i.e., ‘the axial focus position’;
Claim 15 recites “…to influence the shape and/or lateral position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because such beamlets will naturally have some shape and/or lateral position (even if zero), for clarity, the limitation should read ‘…a shape and/or lateral position of each of each of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets…’, because no particular shape and/or lateral position is previously recited, or the claim should depend on claim 13, which initializes such variables; See 112(b) section below;
Claim 16 recites “…before passing the plurality of terminating apertures f the terminating multi-aperture plate…”, which should read ‘…before passing the plurality of terminating apertures of the terminating multi-aperture plate…’;
Claim 16 recites “…to influence the focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets…”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because such beamlets will naturally have some focus position, for clarity, the limitation should read ‘…to influence a focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets…’, because no particular focus position is previously recited;
Claims 17-18 recite “the plurality of individual voltages”; While definite in context, the claims previously recite “individual voltages”, not specifically a plurality; Consistent terminology should be used, i.e., ‘the individual voltages’;
Claims 17-18 recite “…to jointly influence the axial and lateral focus position, the shape, and the propagation direction of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets.”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, because such beamlets will naturally have each of these factors, for clarity, the limitation should read ‘…to jointly influence the axial focus position, a lateral focus position, a shape, and a propagation direction of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets.’, because no particular lateral focus position, shape, or propagation direction are previously recited;
Claim 19 has a blank line between the fourth and fifth clauses of the claim, which should be removed;
Claim 19 recites “…a control unit configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to the at least a first multi-aperture plate, the terminating multi-aperture plate and the condenser electrode…”; First, ‘to the at least a’ does not make sense upon plain reading, and should read ‘at least the’, because: Second, a first multi-aperture plate is already previously recited in the claim; Finally, a comma should be placed after ‘the terminating multi-aperture plate’ so as to ensure no grouping can be interpreted within the list; Accordingly, this portion should read ‘…a control unit configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to at least the first multi-aperture plate, the terminating multi-aperture plate, and the condenser electrode…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18, 20, and 23-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a multi-beam generation unit, comprising in order of a propagation direction of an incident primary charged particle beam: a filter plate comprising a plurality of first apertures configured to generate a plurality of primary charge particle beamlets” and “a control unit configured to individually control the condenser electrode and each of the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes to influence the penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields to independently adjust a lateral and/or axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets on an intermediate image surface to pre-compensate a field curvature and/or an image plane tilt of the multi-beam system” (Emphases added by Examiner), which are vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), does not require a primary charged particle beam, nor any means for generating a such beam, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the multi-beam generation unit in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Examiner notes that this claim pertains to an apparatus, and under the BRI, functional limitations of an apparatus claim only require sufficient structure to perform the functionality. The limitations “to influence the penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields to independently adjust a lateral and/or axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets on an intermediate image surface to pre-compensate a field curvature and/or an image plane tilt” are interpreted as intended use, with the portion “to influence the penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields” being interpreted as limiting the structure (i.e., the structure need be capable of achieving such functionality through its electrode control), and the portion “to independently adjust a lateral and/or axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets on an intermediate image surface to pre-compensate a field curvature and/or an image plane tilt” being interpreted as non-limiting intended use. A structure which is capable of controlling electrodes to influence the penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields, will be capable of independently adjusting a lateral and/or axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets on an intermediate image surface to pre-compensate a field curvature and/or an image plane tilt. Additionally, it is not clear upon plain reading what is intended by “comprising in order of a propagation direction of an incident primary charged particle beam”, which appears to be limiting the structure by reference to the manner in which the device is intended to be used, but this does not limit the structure, as the beam is not a part of the beam generation unit, as best understood. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, rendering it further indefinite. Furthermore, the term “the multi-beam system” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘a multi-beam generation unit, comprising, in order: a filter plate comprising a plurality of first apertures configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets in response to impingement by an incident primary charged particle beam” and “a control unit configured to individually control the condenser electrode and each of the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes to influence a penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields (See above discussion regarding intended use limitations) to independently adjust a lateral and/or axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets on an intermediate image surface to pre-compensate a field curvature and/or an image plane tilt” (Emphases added by Examiner)’.
Claim 2 recites “…each cylinder electrode is in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture to generate a suction field or a depression field during use of the multi-beam generation unit.”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the cylinder electrodes being physically disposed in the circumference of their corresponding terminating apertures doesn’t generate a suction or depression field, applying voltages to the relevant electrodes during operation does, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating cylinder electrodes in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…each cylinder electrode is in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture, and is configured to generate a suction field or a depression field during use of the multi-beam generation unit.’.
Claim 3 recites “…each multi-pole electrode in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture to generate a suction field, a depression field and/or a deflection field and/or an astigmatism correction field during use of the multi-beam generation unit…”, which is indefinite for two reasons. First, the limitation “each multi-pole electrode in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture to generate” appears to indicate that the multi-pole electrodes are physically located in the circumference of their corresponding terminating apertures, however, it is unclear how the positional limitation is modified by “to generate”. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, the grouping of a suction field, a depression field and/or a deflection field and/or an astigmatism correction field is unclear, because it is not clear what potential combinations of fields are potentially covered by the claim, and furthermore, how many could physically be manifested at once. 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 ‘…each multi-pole electrode in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture and configured to generate one or more of a suction field, a depression field, a deflection field, and an astigmatism correction field during use of the multi-beam generation unit…’.
Claim 5 recites “…each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a second plurality [of] individually addressable multi-pole electrodes defining a plurality of electrostatic multi-pole elements in the circumference of the plurality of apertures…”, which is indefinite for two reasons. First, claim 5 depends only on claim 1, which does not require any multi-pole electrodes, and as such it is unclear what is intended by “each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a second plurality [of] individually addressable multi-pole electrodes” (Emphasis added by Examiner). It is possible this claim is intended to depend on claim 3, which does require a first plurality of multi-pole electrodes, however, at present, the claim depends only on claim 1. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, ‘second’ is interpreted as omitted in this and later limitations in the claim. The limitation “each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a respective circumferences housing the respective plurality of multi-pole elements. Additionally, “the circumference of the plurality of apertures does not make sense, as each aperture has its own circumference. 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 ‘…each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes, each of the plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes defining a respective electrostatic multi-pole element in the circumference of its respective aperture, thereby forming a plurality of electrostatic multi-pole elements…’.
Claim 6 recites “…wherein the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each of the plurality of [individually addressable ]electrodes…”. The wording is somewhat ambiguous, such that it is unclear if “the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each of the plurality of individually addressable electrodes” is intended to require providing a plurality of individual voltages, each one of the plurality of voltages going to a respective one of the individually addressable electrodes, or providing a plurality of voltages to each and every one of the individually addressable electrodes, i.e., such that each individually addressable electrode receives a respective plurality of voltages. In other words, it is not clear if the plurality of voltages are one to one with the individually addressable electrodes, or whether each electrode receives a plurality of voltages. 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 control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages, each individual voltage provided to a respective individually addressable electrode of the plurality of individually addressable electrodes…’.
Claim 7 recites “…wherein the electrostatic lens array comprises a plurality of apertures comprising a plurality of second cylinder electrodes…” (Emphasis added by Examiner), however, claim 7 depends only on claim 1, which does not require any cylinder electrodes, and as such it is unclear what is intended by ‘second’. It is possible this claim is intended to depend on claim 2, which does require a first plurality of electrostatic cylinder electrodes, however, at present, the claim depends only on claim 1. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, ‘second’ is interpreted as omitted in this and later limitations in the claim, such that it reads ‘…wherein the electrostatic lens array comprises a plurality of apertures comprising a plurality of electrostatic cylinder electrodes…’.
Claim 8 recites “…to facilitate focusing of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets in the curved and tilted intermediate image surface with the tilt component.”, however, claim 8 depends only on claim 1, which does not require that the intermediate image surface be curved or tilted, and “the tilt component” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Additionally, under the BRI, the intermediate image surface is not a required element of the ‘multi-beam generation unit’, as the structure need only be capable of controlling electrodes to influence a penetration depth and or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields. 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 recitation of intended use (as it does not further limit the structure of the apparatus), reading ‘…to facilitate focusing of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets in the intermediate image surface’, so as to avoid antecedent basis issues.
Claim 12 recites “a method of individually changing [a] focus distance of each of a plurality of primary charged particle beam spots”, “providing a condenser lens electrode adjacent to the terminating multi-aperture plate and downstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate in a propagation direction of a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets”, and “individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes to influence [a] penetration depth of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields to independently adjust an axial focus position of each primary charge particle beamlet on a curved intermediate image surface” (Emphases added by Examiner). It is unclear how such methods can be performed without providing a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets, else ‘a plurality of primary charged particle beam spots’ and ‘a propagation direction of a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets’ do not make sense, as no such beamlets are required to be formed or provided, and thus the direction of such beams does not make sense, and no such spots would exist to be modified (nor the beams forming the spots, i.e., see the third underlined limitation). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitation are interpreted as ‘a method of individually changing a focus distance of each of a plurality of primary charged particle beam spots of a corresponding plurality of primary charged particle beamlets, the method comprising: providing the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets along a propagation direction;”, “providing a condenser lens electrode adjacent to the terminating multi-aperture plate and downstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate in the propagation direction”, and “individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes to influence a penetration depth of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields to independently adjust an axial focus position of each primary charged particle beamlet on a curved intermediate image surface’. Examiner notes that this interpretation leaves the third limitation unchanged.
Claim 12 recites “…using the control unit to provide individual voltages to each of the individually addressable electrodes…”. The wording is somewhat ambiguous, such that it is unclear if “using control unit to provide individual voltages to each of the individually addressable electrodes” is intended to require providing a individual voltages, each one of the individual voltages going to a respective one of the individually addressable electrodes, or providing individual voltages to each and every one of the individually addressable electrodes, i.e., such that each individually addressable electrode receives respective individual voltages. In other words, it is not clear if the individual voltages are one to one with the individually addressable electrodes, or whether each electrode receives individual voltages (i.e., plural). 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 ‘…using control unit to provide individual voltages, each individual voltage provided to a respective individually addressable electrode of the individually addressable electrodes…’.
Claim 15 recites “…providing a first multi-stigmator plate comprising a plurality of apertures and a plurality of individually addressable second multi-pole electrodes upstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate…” (Emphasis added by Examiner), however, claim 15 depends only on claim 12, which does not require any multi-pole electrodes, and as such it is unclear what is intended by ‘second’. It is possible this claim is intended to depend on claim 13, which does require first multi-pole electrodes, however, at present, the claim depends only on claim 12. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, ‘second’ is interpreted as omitted in this and later limitations in the claim, such that it reads ‘…providing a first multi-stigmator plate comprising a plurality of apertures and a plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes upstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate…’.
Claim 16 recites “…using the control unit to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable ring electrode…”. The wording is somewhat ambiguous, such that it is unclear if “using the control unit to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable ring electrode” is intended to require providing a plurality of individual voltages, each one of the plurality of voltages going to a respective one of the individually addressable ring electrodes, or providing a plurality of voltages to each and every one of the individually addressable ring electrodes, i.e., such that each individually addressable ring electrode receives a respective plurality of voltages. In other words, it is not clear if the plurality of voltages are one to one with the individually addressable ring electrodes, or whether each ring electrode receives a plurality of voltages. 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 ‘…using control unit to provide a plurality of individual voltages, each individual voltage provided to a respective individually addressable ring electrode of the plurality of individually addressable ring electrodes…’.
Claim 17 recites “…further comprising individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes and/or the ring electrodes to jointly influence the axial and lateral focus position, the shape, and the propagation direction of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets.” First, “individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes and/or the ring electrodes to jointly influence” does not make sense under the BRI, as ‘or’ would mean there is no joint influence. Second, as best understood in light of Applicant’s disclosure, in order to influence “the axial and lateral focus position, the shape, and the propagation direction of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets”, more elements would be required to achieve this functionality. Claim 16 requires that the ring electrodes are used to influence the focus position of the beamlets, and claim 12 requires that the terminating electrodes are used to influence the penetration depth of the micro-lens fields to adjust axial focus positions of the primary charged particle beamlets. Accordingly, the structure required by the method of claim 17 is only capable of jointly influencing the axial focus position. Previous claims (that claim 17 does not depend on) discloses influencing the lateral focus position and the shape, but those claims require multi-pole electrode elements. In Applicant’s disclosure, the structures capable of controlling the direction of the beamlets are electrostatic deflectors (e.g., the steering multi-aperture plate, which is not claimed), and multi-pole elements. Accordingly, the claim has not required sufficient structure to achieve the functionality claimed. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. While many embodiments are separately claimed, and separately disclosed, in order to claim the functionality of all of the embodiments, each the embodiments must be claimed with a common dependence chain. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…further comprising individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes and the ring electrodes to jointly influence the axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets.’.
Claim 18 recites “…further comprising individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes and/or any of the multi-pole electrodes to jointly influence the axial and lateral focus position, the shape, and the propagation direction of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets.” First, “individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes and/or any of the multi-pole electrodes to jointly influence” does not make sense under the BRI, as ‘or’ would mean there is no joint influence. Second, as best understood in light of Applicant’s disclosure, in order to influence “the axial and lateral focus position, the shape, and the propagation direction of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets”, more elements would be required to achieve this functionality. Claim 12 requires that the terminating electrodes are used to influence the penetration depth of the micro-lens fields to adjust axial focus positions of the primary charged particle beamlets. Claim 12 does not require any multi-pole electrodes, and thus “any of the multi-pole electrodes” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 13 and 15 each recite multi-pole elements, however, claim 18 depends on neither of these claims. Accordingly, the structure required by the method of claim 18 is only capable of jointly influencing the axial focus position. Previous claims (that claim 18 does not depend on) discloses influencing the lateral focus position and the shape, but those claims require multi-pole electrode elements. In Applicant’s disclosure, the structures capable of controlling the direction of the beamlets are electrostatic deflectors (e.g., the steering multi-aperture plate, which is not claimed), and multi-pole elements. Accordingly, the claim has not required sufficient structure to achieve the functionality claimed. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. While many embodiments are separately claimed, and separately disclosed, in order to claim the functionality of all of the embodiments, each the embodiments must be claimed with a common dependence chain. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘……further comprising individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes to influence the axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge particle beamlets.’
Claim 20 recites “…wherein the terminating multi-aperture plate comprises a plurality of individually addressable electrodes in a circumference of each one of the plurality of terminating apertures, and the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable electrode.” First, “in a circumference of each one of the plurality of terminating apertures”, should read ‘in respective circumferences of each one of the plurality of terminating apertures’ to indicate the correct relationship between the elements and their numbers. Second, the wording is somewhat ambiguous, such that it is unclear if “the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable electrode” is intended to require providing a plurality of individual voltages, each one of the plurality of voltages going to a respective one of the individually addressable electrodes, or providing a plurality of voltages to each and every one of the individually addressable electrodes, i.e., such that each individually addressable electrode receives a respective plurality of voltages. In other words, it is not clear if the plurality of voltages are one to one with the individually addressable electrodes, or whether each electrode receives a plurality of voltages. 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 terminating multi-aperture plate comprises a plurality of individually addressable electrodes in respective circumferences of each one of the plurality of terminating apertures, and the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages, each individual voltage provided to a respective individually addressable electrode of the plurality of individually addressable electrodes.’
Claim 23 recites “the curved surface”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 21 recites ‘a curved intermediate surface’, however, claim 23 has inconsistent terminology and does not depend on claim 21. 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 individually adjust a lateral focus position of each primary charged particle beamlet with an accuracy below 20nm’.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust a lateral focus position of each primary charged particle beamlet on the curved surface with an accuracy below 20nm”, however, the claim does not require sufficient structure to adjust lateral focus positions of the charged particle beamlets, as Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the multi-pole elements are those which are capable of adjusting the lateral focus position, which are not required by claim 23 or claim 19. 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 multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust a focus position of each primary charged particle beamlet with an accuracy below 20nm’.
Claim 24 recites “the curved intermediate surface”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 21 recites ‘a curved intermediate surface’, however, claim 24 does not depend on claim 21. 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 multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust a shape or an aberration of each primary charged particle beamlet to provide a plurality of stigmatic focus points.’
Claim 24 recites “wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust a shape or an aberration of each primary charged particle beamlet to provide a plurality of stigmatic focus points on the curved intermediate surface.”, however, the claim does not require sufficient structure to adjust a shape or an aberration of each primary charged particle beamlet, as Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the multi-pole elements are those which are capable of adjusting a shape and an aberration of the beamlets, which are not required by claim 24 or claim 19. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Because no other functionality/structure/capabilities are required by the claim, other than those which require additional structure, it is wholly unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are, and further examination is forgone until amelioration by Applicant.
Claim 25 recites “…wherein the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable multi-pole electrode…”. The wording is somewhat ambiguous, such that it is unclear if “the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable multi-pole electrode” is intended to require providing a plurality of individual voltages, each one of the plurality of voltages going to a respective one of the individually addressable multi-pole electrodes, or providing a plurality of voltages to each and every one of the individually addressable multi-pole electrodes, i.e., such that each individually addressable multi-pole electrode receives a respective plurality of voltages. In other words, it is not clear if the plurality of voltages are one to one with the individually addressable multi-pole electrodes, or whether each multi-pole electrode receives a plurality of voltages. 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 control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages, each individual voltage provided to a respective individually addressable multi-pole electrode of the plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes.’
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sarov (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2021/180365 A1).
Examiner notes that Sarov is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/26/2024.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches a multi-beam generation unit (See Fig. 2), comprising[, in order]:
a filter plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.1; See p. 13, l. 22-30) comprising a plurality of first apertures (See Fig. 2, item 75.1, ; See p. 13, l. 22-30) configured to generate a plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets [in response to impingement by an incident primary charged particle beam] (See Fig. 2, items 77.1-77.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30), the filter plate configured to be connected to a ground level (See p. 16, l. 13-16);
a terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-8) comprising a plurality of terminating apertures (See Fig. 2, apertures in item 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-8) and a first plurality of individually addressable electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2 in apertures of 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-8, 12-16), a circumference of each terminating aperture comprising a corresponding individually addressable electrode [of individually addressable electrodes ]disposed therein (See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2 wherein the apertures housing each instance of items 81.1, 81.2 each have a circumference comprising one respective instance of items 81.1, 81.2); and
a condenser lens (See Fig. 2, item 84; See p. 14, l. 21-29) comprising a condenser electrode (See Fig. 2, item 82; See p. 14, l. 21-29) comprising a single aperture configured to transmit the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets (See Fig. 2, showing a single aperture in item 82 transmitting plurality of beamlets 77.1-77.3; See p. 14, l. 21-29), the condenser electrode configured to generate a plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields penetrating each of the plurality of terminating apertures (See p. 14, l. 21-29); and
a control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2) configured to individually control the condenser electrode and each of the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes (See p. 15, l. 6-9) to influence [a] penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields (See above discussion regarding intended use limitations; Examiner notes that disclosed the individual control of the condenser electrode and the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes, e.g., via the voltages applied to 81.1, 81.2 and 82, is capable of influencing a penetration depth and/or shape of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields; See, e.g., p. 14, l, 12-16, disclosing structure capable of individually controlling the shape of the fields, and p. 14, l. 5-12, disclosing structure capable of individually controlling the penetration depths of the fields) to independently adjust a lateral and/or axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets on an intermediate image surface to pre-compensate a field curvature and/or an image plane tilt (See above discussion regarding intended use limitations, wherein these limitations are interpreted as intended use that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus; See p. 13, l. 11-12).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches wherein the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes comprises a first plurality of electrostatic cylinder electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 79; See p. 14, l. 5-12), each cylinder electrode is in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture See Fig. 2, items 79; See p. 14, l. 5-12)[, and is configured] to generate a suction field or a depression field during use of the multi-beam generation unit (Examiner notes that the cylinder electrodes of Sarov are capable of forming these kinds of fields during use of the multi-beam generation unit; See p. 14, l. 5-12; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches wherein the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes comprises a first plurality of electrostatic multi-pole electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2 in apertures of 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-8, 12-16), each multi-pole electrode in the circumference of its corresponding terminating aperture (See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2 in apertures of 73.3) [and configured ]to generate [one or more of ]a suction field, a depression field[,] a deflection field[, and] an astigmatism correction field during use of the multi-beam generation unit (Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation requires only structure capable of performing this function, which is clearly satisfied by the disclosed structure of Sarov above; See also: See p. 14, l. 3-8, 12-16; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1,
Sarov further teaches further comprising a further multi-aperture plate configured as a first multi-stigmator plate upstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.2; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, lines 3-8, 12-16; Examiner notes that 73.2 and 73.3 are both disclosed as comprising a set of electrostatic elements, with the given example being with ring electrodes for 73.3 and multi-pole electrodes for 73.2, however, the disclosure does not limit to this arrangement, see p. 41; Thus, under the BRI, Sarov’s item 73.2 embodied as a stigmator reads on the limitation), wherein:
the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a plurality of apertures (See Fig. 2, item 73.2; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, lines 3-8, 12-16);
each aperture of the first multi-stigmator plate comprises a plurality [of ]individually addressable multi-pole electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 73.2 (and 73.3 for exemplary demonstration of multi-pole disposal); See p. 14, l. 12-16, which describes the stigmator embodiments as having a plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes in each aperture)[, each of the plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes] defining a [respective] electrostatic multi-pole element in the circumference of [its respective aperture, thereby forming a plurality of electrostatic multi-pole elements] (See Fig. 2, items 73. (and 73.3 for exemplary demonstration of multi-pole disposal); See p. 14, l. 12-16); and
each individually addressable multi-pole electrode is connected to the control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2, connected to items 27/41; See p. 15, l. 6-9) and configured to deflect, focus[,] or correct aberrations of each individual beamlet of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets (See p. 14, lines 12-16; p. 15, l. 6-9; Examiner notes for completeness that the BRI requires only a structure capable of deflecting, focusing, or correcting aberrations of each beamlet).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 5.
Sarov further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages[, each individual voltage provided to a respective individually addressable electrode] of the plurality of [individually addressable ]electrodes of the terminating multi-aperture plate (See p. 14, l. 8-16, 30-32; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches further comprising a further multi-aperture plate configured as a electrostatic lens array upstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, items 73.2; See p. 14, l. 8-12), wherein the electrostatic lens array comprises a plurality of apertures comprising a plurality of [electrostatic] cylinder electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 73.2; See p. 14, l. 8-12), and each [electrostatic] cylinder electrode is individually connected to the control unit (See Fig. 2, item 73.2; See p. 14, l. 8-12, 30-32; p. 15, l. 6-9) so that the [electrostatic] cylinder electrodes are configured to define a plurality of electrostatic lens fields (See Fig. 2, items 73.2; See p. 14, l. 8-12; p. 15, l. 6-14; Examiner notes for completeness that the BRI of the claim requires only a structure capable of defining such electrostatic lens fields).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches further comprising a first ground electrode plate comprising a plurality of apertures (See Figs. 3-7, each of which shows a electrode plate with apertures therein, capable of being grounded, e.g. items 108 and 114; See p. 18, l. 29-30; p. 24, l. 10-14; Additionally, under the BRI, the absorber layer 99 (see Figs. 3-7), and the conductive layer 177 (see Figs. 11-12) reads on the limitation as well), wherein the ground electrode plate is configured to define a first ground electrode (Examiner notes that a grounded plate defined a ground electrode), and the ground electrode plate is between the filter plate and the terminating multi-aperture plate (See Figs. 3-7, each of which shows an electrode plate with apertures therein, capable of being grounded, e.g. items 108 and 114; See p. 18, l. 29-30; p. 24, l. 10-14; Additionally, under the BRI, the conductive layer 177 (see Figs. 11-12) reads on the limitation as well).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches wherein the terminating multi-aperture plate further comprises a conductive shielding layer (See Figs. 11-12, item 102.2; See p. 29, l. 25-31) comprising the plurality of apertures (See Figs. 11-12, item 102.2, having the plurality of apertures), wherein the conductive shielding layer is electrically isolated from the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes (See Figs. 11-12, wherein the layer 102.2 is electrically isolated from the individually addressable electrodes by layers 305/313), the conductive shielding layer is at a bottom side of the terminating multi-aperture plate between the individually addressable electrodes and the condenser lens (See Figs. 11-12, wherein 102.2 is ‘at a bottom side’ of the plate between the individually addressable electrodes and the condenser lens).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, a method of individually changing [a] focus distance of each of a plurality of primary charged particle beam spots[of a corresponding plurality of primary charged particle beamlets] (See Fig. 2, items 77.1-77.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 8-16), the method comprising:
[providing the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets along a propagation direction (See Fig. 2, items 77.1-77.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30;);]
providing individually addressable terminating electrodes at each of a plurality of terminating apertures of a terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2 in apertures of plate 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-8, 12-16);
providing a condenser lens electrode (See Fig. 2, showing condenser 84 having electrodes 82; See p. 14, l. 21-29) adjacent to the terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.3, adjacent to electrodes 82) and downstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate in [the] propagation direction of a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets (See Fig. 2, showing electrodes 82 downstream of plate 73.3 in the propagation direction of the beamlets 77.1-77.3);
using a control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2) to provide a first voltage to the condenser lens electrode (See p. 14, l. 19-29; p. 15, l. 6-9) to generate a plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields which penetrate the plurality of terminating apertures (See p. 14, l. 19-29; p. 15, l. 6-9);
using the control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2) to provide individual voltages[, each individual voltage provided to a respective] individually addressable electrode[ of the individually addressable electrodes] (See p. 14, l. 8-16); and
individually controlling the individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes to influence [a] penetration depth of each of the plurality of electrostatic micro-lens fields to independently adjust an axial focus position of each primary charge[d] particle beamlet on a curved intermediate image surface (See p. 13, l. 5-12; p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the method of claim 12.
Sarov further teaches wherein:
the individually addressable terminating electrodes comprise first multi-pole electrodes (See p. 14, l. 12-16);
the method further comprises individually controlling the individual voltages to the first multi-pole electrodes to influence [a] shape and/or lateral position of each [of the plurality of ]electrostatic micro-lens field[s] (See p. 14, l. 12-16; p. 15, l. 6-9) to independently adjust a lateral focus position and shape of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets on the curved intermediate image surface (See 13, l. 5-12; p. 14, l. 12-16; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the method of claim 12.
Sarov further teaches wherein individually controlling the individual voltages adjusts the [axial ]focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets on the curved intermediate image surface with a tilt component (See p. 13, l. 5-20; p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the method of claim 12.
Sarov further teaches further comprising:
providing a first multi-stigmator plate (See Fig. 2, items 73.2; See p. 14, l. 3-16) comprising a plurality of apertures and a plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes upstream of the terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, items 73.2, having electrodes, upstream of items 73.3; Examiner notes that 73.2 and 73.3 are both disclosed as comprising a set of electrostatic elements, with the given example being with ring electrodes for 73.3 and multi-pole electrodes for 73.2, however, the disclosure does not limit to this arrangement, see p. 41; Thus, under the BRI, Sarov’s item 73.2 embodied as a stigmator plate reads on the limitation; See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2; See p. 13, lines 23-30; p. 14, l. 3-16);
using the control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2) to provide a plurality of individual voltages to each individually addressable multi-pole electrode (See Fig. 2, items 73.2 (and item 73.3 for diagrammatic example of disposal of multi-pole electrodes); See p. 14, l. 3-16); and
individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the multi-pole electrodes to influence [a] shape and/or lateral position of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets (See p. 13, l. 5-20; p. 14, l. 12-16; p. 15, l. 6-9) before passing the plurality of terminating apertures of the terminating multi-aperture plate (Examiner notes that in the arrangement of Sarov the multi-pole electrodes will inherently influence the beamlets before they pass to the plurality of terminating apertures in operation in the embodiment of 73.2 being a stigmator/deflector/multi-pole plate).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the method of claim 12.
Sarov further teaches further comprising:
providing a lens-let plate comprising a plurality of apertures and a plurality of individually addressable ring electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 73.2 having apertures 75 and electrodes 79; See p. 14, l. 8-12; See also Figs. 11-12, item 102.2);
using the control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2) to provide a plurality of individual voltages[, each individual voltage provided to a respective] individually addressable ring electrode[ of the plurality of individually addressable ring electrodes] (See Fig. 2, items 73.2 and electrodes 79; See p. 14, l. 8-12; p. 15, l. 6-9); and
individually controlling the plurality of individual voltages of the ring electrodes (See Fig. 2, items 73.2 and electrodes 79; See p. 14, l. 8-12; p. 15, l. 6-9) to influence [a] focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets (See p. 14, l. 8-12; p. 15, l. 6-9) before passing the plurality of terminating apertures [o]f the terminating multi-aperture plate (Examiner notes that in the arrangement of Sarov the multi-pole electrodes will inherently influence the beamlets before they pass to the plurality of terminating apertures in operation in the embodiment of 73.2 being a lens-let plate with ring electrodes).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the method of claim 16.
Sarov further teaches further comprising individually controlling the individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes and the ring electrodes to jointly influence the axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets (See p. 14, l. 8-12; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the method of claim 12.
Sarov further teaches further comprising individually controlling the individual voltages of the individually addressable terminating electrodes to influence the axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets (See p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 19, Sarov teaches a multi-beam generation unit (See Fig. 2), comprising:
a filter plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.1; See p. 13, l. 22-30) comprising a plurality of first apertures (See Fig. 2, item 75.1, ; See p. 13, l. 22-30) configured to generate a plurality of primary charge[d] particle beamlets from an incident primary charged particle beamlet (See Fig. 2, items 77.1-77.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30);
a first multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.2; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-16) comprising an electrode layer (See Fig. 2, items 79 in apertures of 73.2, or alternatively 81.1, 81.2 can be formed in 73.2, see p. 41; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-16);
a terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2, item 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-16) comprising a plurality of terminating apertures (See Fig. 2, apertures of 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-16);
a condenser lens comprising a condenser electrode (See Fig. 2, items 84 and 82; See p. 14, l. 21-29); and
a control unit (See Fig. 1, items 45, 47.1, 47.2) configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages to at least [the] first multi-aperture plate, the terminating multi-aperture plate[,] and the condenser electrode (See p. 15, l. 6-9),
wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust an axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets (See p. 13, l. 5-20; p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9) with a focus range DF of more than 3mm (Examiner notes that the BRI of such a limitation requires structure capable of performing such functionality; While not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the device of Sarov to be capable of adjusting a focus in a range of more than 3 mm).
Alternatively, were one to interpret Sarov as not explicitly disclosing wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust an axial focus position of each of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets with a focus range DF of more than 3mm, such a limitation would be obvious by a mere application of routine experimentation to determine the necessary voltages and relative positioning of the plates to achieve the particular focus range of ‘more than 3mm’, as such a range is arbitrary and can be adjusted directly by adjusting the aforementioned factors. It has been found that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, finding an optimal range of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 19.
Sarov further teaches wherein the terminating multi-aperture plate comprises a plurality of individually addressable electrodes in [respective] circumference[s] of each one of the plurality of terminating apertures (See Fig. 2, items 81.1, 81.2 in respective circumferences of the apertures of 73.3; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, l. 3-8, 12-16), and the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages[, each individual voltage provided] to [a respective] individually addressable electrode[ of the plurality of individually addressable electrodes] (See p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9).
Regarding claim 21, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 19.
Sarov further teaches wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to focus each primary charged particle beamlet on a curved intermediate surface (See p. 13, l. 5-12).
Regarding claim 22, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 21.
Sarov further teaches wherein the curved intermediate surface has a tilt component (Examiner notes that the BRI of such a functional limitation requires only a structure capable of such functionality; Examiner notes that the disclosed functionality in p. 14, lines 8-16 discloses sufficient structure/functionality to include a tilt component in the curved intermediate surface).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 19.
Sarov further teaches wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust a focus position of each primary charged particle beamlet (See p. 13, l. 5-20; p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9) with an accuracy below 20nm (Examiner notes that the BRI of such a limitation requires structure capable of performing such functionality; While not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the device of Sarov to be capable of adjusting a focus with an accuracy below 20 nm).
Alternatively, were one to interpret Sarov as not explicitly disclosing wherein the multi-beam generation unit is configured to individually adjust a focus position of each primary charged particle beamlet with an accuracy below 20nm, such a limitation would be obvious by a mere application of routine experimentation to determine the necessary voltages and relative positioning of the plates to achieve the focus adjustment accuracy of ‘below than 20nm’, as such a range is arbitrary and can be adjusted directly by adjusting the aforementioned factors. It has been found that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, finding an optimal range of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, further examination of the claim is forgone until the metes and bounds of the claim can be sufficiently clarified to enable examination.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the multi-beam generation unit of claim 19.
Sarov further teaches further comprising a first multi-stigmator plate comprising a plurality of apertures and a plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes (See Fig. 2, item 73.2; See p. 13, l. 22-30; p. 14, lines 3-16; Examiner notes that 73.2 and 73.3 are both disclosed as comprising a set of electrostatic elements, with the given example being with ring electrodes for 73.3 and multi-pole electrodes for 73.2, however, the disclosure does not limit to this arrangement, see p. 41; Thus, under the BRI, Sarov’s item 73.2 embodied as a stigmator reads on the limitation), wherein the control unit is configured to provide a plurality of individual voltages[, each individual voltage provided] to [a respective] individually addressable multi-pole electrode[ of the plurality of individually addressable multi-pole electrodes], and the control unit is configured to individually control the plurality of individual voltages of the multi-pole electrodes (See p. 15, l. 6-9) to influence a shape and/or a lateral position of each primary charge[d] particle beamlet (See p. 14, l. 8-16; p. 15, l. 6-9) before passing the plurality of terminating apertures of the terminating multi-aperture plate (See Fig. 2; Examiner notes that in the arrangement of Sarov the multi-pole electrodes will inherently influence the beamlets before they pass to the plurality of terminating apertures in operation in the embodiment of 73.2 being a stigmator/deflector/multi-pole plate).
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 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarov (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2021/180365 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches wherein the terminating multi-aperture plate comprises:
a first, terminating electrode layer comprising the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes (See Figs. 11-12, item 102.1, having electrodes 79.2); and
a second electrode layer isolated from the first plurality of individually addressable electrodes (See Figs. 11-12, items 102.2 or 102.3, isolated from item 102.1 by 305/313),
(See p. 29, l. 25-31).
Sarov does not explicitly teach wherein the second electrode layer is upstream of the first, terminating electrode layer, and rather discloses the ground electrode layer downstream of the first, terminating electrode layer equivalent. However, in several embodiments, a separate grounded electrode layer is immediately upstream of the first, terminating electrode layer (See, e.g., Figs. 4-7). In other words, Sarov achieves similar functionality, with the orientation of the pieces merely rearranged.
As such, Sarov discloses the claimed invention, except for the specific disposal of the ground layer of the terminating multi-aperture plate equivalent downstream of the electrode layer having the individually addressable electrodes, rather than upstream.
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 Sarov to achieve wherein the second electrode layer is upstream of the first, terminating electrode layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950).
Doing so would allow one to control the formation of the fields in a similar manner, using the same working parts via a mere rearrangement of parts.
Furthermore, it is Examiner’s opinion that such a limitation would be obvious to try.
First, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the precise control of the beam control fields is a recognized problem in the art that would lead one of ordinary skill to attempt to achieve arrangements that solve this problem. Second, the relative arrangement of such constituent layers a multi-aperture plate having a split layer arrangement with ground and manipulation electrode layers upstream/downstream of one another is finite, and limited to two options. Either the ground layer is upstream or downstream of the manipulation layer. It is clearly within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to form such a plate with the opposite arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success, and one would be motivated to seek such an alternative arrangement via routine experimentation to optimize the field control.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarov to achieve wherein the second electrode layer is upstream of the first, terminating electrode layer.
Doing so would have been obvious to try to an ordinarily skilled artisan for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 1.
Sarov further teaches wherein the condenser electrode comprises a segmented electrode (See Fig. 2, item 82; See p. 14, l. 23-26) to facilitate focusing of the plurality of primary charged particle beamlets in the intermediate image surface (See p. 13, lines 6-12; p. 15, lines 6-9; Examiner notes the BRI of the claim requires only structure capable of providing an asymmetric voltage distribution).
Sarov does not explicitly teach forming the condenser electrode from four electrode segments, however, it does teach ‘a set of electrodes arranged around an opening’, which Examiner reads as sufficiently disclosing a plurality, but not specifically four. However, the number does not appear to be critical, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of quadrupole electrodes, and would be readily capable of controlling the fields of such electrodes in a similar manner to the disclosed stigmators/deflectors of Sarov.
Accordingly, it is Examiner’s opinion that 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 Sarov to explicitly include wherein the condenser electrode comprises a segmented electrode comprising at least four electrode segments, and the control unit is configured to provide an asymmetric voltage distribution to the at least four electrode segments (Emphasis added by Examiner), since Sarov discloses the necessary functionality and general structure, and merely lacks the specific number of electrodes, which could be determined via routine experimentation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarov (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2021/180365 A1) in view of Zeidler (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200211810 A1).
Examiner notes that Zeidler is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/26/2024.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Sarov teaches the multi-beam generation unit of claim 9.
Sarov further teaches wherein at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate is mounted on a manipulator configured to adjust [multi-]aperture plate (See p. 23, lines 4-6).
However, Sarov does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate is mounted on a manipulator configured to adjust a tilt angle or rotation of at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate (Emphasis added by Examiner), as Sarov does not explicitly disclose angular control.
However, generic actuators capable of mine control of such plates are well represented in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonable apprised thereof.
Nevertheless, Zeidler teaches wherein at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate is mounted on a manipulator configured to adjust a tilt angle or rotation of at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate ([0013]; [0059]).
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 Sarov to include wherein at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate is mounted on a manipulator configured to adjust a tilt angle or rotation of at least one of the condenser lens with the condenser electrode or the terminating [multi-]aperture plate (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Doing so would allow one to physically control the relative positioning of the plates using typical prior art actuation technology to achieve additional degrees of freedom and more control over the beams generated and modified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Frosien (US 9922796 B1);
Rauwolf (US 20220246388 A1).
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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights