DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendment, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the specification has been entered. Therefore, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, claims 1, 8, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 15-16 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro (US 2003/0085365) in view of Tyminski (US 2022/0293390), further in view of McCoy (US 5838450).
7. Regarding claim 1:
Yahiro discloses a beam detector (fig. 3), comprising: a first aperture plate including a first passage hole (paragraph 0037 teaches a first beam-limiting aperture plate, fig. 3, element 4b, with limiting apertures including a first passage hole, fig 5, element 4);
a second aperture plate including a second passage hole (paragraph 0037 teaches a second beam-limiting-aperture plate, fig. 3, element 5b, with multiple beam-limiting apertures including a second passage hole, fig 5, element 5) that allows a single detection target beam passing through the first passage hole to pass therethrough (paragraph 0037 teaches that the second aperture plate is situated downstream of the first aperture plate, corresponding to the target beam passing through the first passage hole can pass through the second passage hole); and
a sensor detecting a beam current of the detection target beam passing through the second passage hole (paragraph 0038 teaches a sensor, fig.3 element 6, situated downstream of the second aperture plate, fig. 3 element 5b, detecting the beam passing through the second passage hole), wherein the second aperture plate includes an electrically conductive material (paragraph 0037 teaches that the second aperture plate is a conductive-metal plate, which is an electrically conductive material), a plurality of third passage holes are formed around the second passage hole (paragraph 0041 teaches multiple beam-limiting apertures in each plate, fig. 5, element 5 and 5b, where the second passage hole can be any individual passage hole, and the surrounding passage holes are third passage holes)
Yahiro fails to disclose that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular, have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole.
However, Tyminski discloses that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular (paragraph 0058 teaches that a representative aperture has an outer circular aperture), have predetermined dimensions (paragraph 0058 teaches that each aperture can be the same), and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole (paragraph 0058 teaches that a plurality of apertures that are situated at a common radius from a central aperture, fig. 1D element 162, and are distributed azimuthally).
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 Yahiro in view of Tyminski to include that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular, have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole. The modification would allow for symmetric arrangements of apertures for spatial tracking and alignment.
Yahiro in view of Tyminski fails to disclose that the plurality of third passage holes allow observation light to pass therethrough.
However, McCoy discloses that the plurality of third passage holes allow observation light to pass therethrough (column 5 lines 53-62 teaches that wafer light, which corresponds to the observation light, will pass through the apertures 64 in figs. 6a, 6b. As shown in fig. 6b there is a center aperture, corresponding to the second passage hole. The other four apertures surrounding the center aperture corresponds to the plurality of third passage holes).
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 Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include that the plurality of third passage holes allow observation light to pass therethrough. Such modification would allow for imaging and collection of observation light (as taught in McCoy column 5 lines 53-62).
8. Regarding Claim 3:
Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the beam detector according to Claim 1. Yahiro further discloses a scattered-electron cover (paragraph 0010 teaches that at least one beam-limiting-aperture plate can comprise disposing multiple beam-limiting-aperture plates, which corresponds to a scattered-electron cover blocking scattered electrons) disposed between the second aperture plate and the sensor (paragraph 0010 teaches that the multiple beam-limiting-aperture plates are disposed in tandem, which in this case is between the second aperture plate and the sensor), the scattered-electron cover blocking scattered electrons passing through the plurality of third passage holes (paragraph 0011 teaches that the aperture plates are configured to pass substantially only non-scattered charged particles).
9. Regarding Claim 5:
Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the beam detector according to Claim 1. Yahiro fails to disclose that wherein the plurality of third passage holes have the same dimensions, and centers of the plurality of third passage holes are located at regular intervals on a same circumference centered on the second passage hole.
However, Tyminski discloses that wherein the plurality of third passage holes have the same dimensions (paragraph 0058 teaches that each aperture can be the same), and centers of the plurality of third passage holes are located at regular intervals on a same circumference centered on the second passage hole (paragraph 0058 teaches that a plurality of apertures that are situated at a common radius from a central aperture, fig. 1D element 162, and are distributed azimuthally).
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 Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include that wherein the plurality of third passage holes have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole. The modification would allow for symmetric arrangements of apertures for spatial tracking and alignment.
10. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2018/0040455) in view of Yahiro, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy.
11. Regarding claim 1:
Yamashita discloses a beam detector (fig. 3), comprising: a first aperture plate (fig. 3 element 40) including a first passage hole (fig. 3 element 42);
a second aperture plate including a second passage hole that allows a single detection target beam passing through the first passage hole to pass therethrough ([0054] teaches a limiting aperture, fig. 8 element 60, under the inspection aperture, fig. 3 element 40); and
a sensor detecting a beam current of the detection target beam passing through the second passage hole ([0054] teaches a current detector, fig. 8 element 50, is placed under the limit aperture, fig. 8 element 60, to detect beam current).
Yamashita fails to disclose that wherein the second aperture plate includes an electrically conductive material, a plurality of third passage holes are formed around the second passage hole.
However, Yahiro discloses that wherein the second aperture plate includes an electrically conductive material (paragraph 0037 teaches that the second aperture plate is a conductive-metal plate, which is an electrically conductive material), a plurality of third passage holes are formed around the second passage hole (paragraph 0041 teaches multiple beam-limiting apertures in each plate, fig. 5, element 5 and 5b, where the second passage hole can be any individual passage hole, and the surrounding passage holes are third passage holes).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards measuring sharpness or blur ([0052] of Yamashita teaches that the beam sharpness can be measured, and focus adjustment and the like can be performed, [0050] of Yahiro teaches that beam-blur measurements are made at high accuracy). 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 Yamashita in view of Yahiro to include that wherein the second aperture plate includes an electrically conductive material, a plurality of third passage holes are formed around the second passage hole. Such modification would allow for further increasing the accuracy of beam measurement ([0044] of Yahiro teaches that as a result of multiple limitations from the aperture plates, the detector detects, almost exclusively, the non-scattered electrons, thereby producing a very high-contrast signal).
Yamashita in view of Yahiro fails to disclose that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular, have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole.
However, Tyminski discloses that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular (paragraph 0058 teaches that a representative aperture has an outer circular aperture), have predetermined dimensions (paragraph 0058 teaches that each aperture can be the same), and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole (paragraph 0058 teaches that a plurality of apertures that are situated at a common radius from a central aperture, fig. 1D element 162, and are distributed azimuthally).
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 Yamashita in view of Yahiro, further in view of Tyminski to include that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular, have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole. The modification would allow for symmetric arrangements of apertures for spatial tracking and alignment.
Yamashita in view of Yahiro, further in view of Tyminski fails to disclose that the plurality of third passage holes allow observation light to pass therethrough.
However, McCoy discloses that the plurality of third passage holes allow observation light to pass therethrough (column 5 lines 53-62 teaches that wafer light, which corresponds to the observation light, will pass through the apertures 64 in figs. 6a, 6b. As shown in fig. 6b there is a center aperture, corresponding to the second passage hole. The other four apertures surrounding the center aperture corresponds to the plurality of third passage holes).
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 Yamashita in view of Yahiro, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include that the plurality of third passage holes allow observation light to pass therethrough. Such modification would allow for imaging and collection of observation light (as taught in McCoy column 5 lines 53-62).
12. Regarding claim 2:
Yamashita in view of Yahiro, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the beam detector according to Claim 1. Yamashita further teaches that wherein the first passage hole has a size that is larger than a beam diameter of each individual beam of multiple charged particle beams and that is smaller than a beam pitch (paragraph 0043 and 0044 teaches that the diameter of the through-hole is greater than the size of one beam and smaller than the beam pitch of the multi-beams so that the entire one electron beam can pass through, and the passage hole can allow only one beam to pass therethrough, and the signal/noise ratio can be improved).
13. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Gu (US 2022/0319797 A1).
14. Regarding claim 4:
Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the beam detector according to Claim 1. Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy fails to disclose that wherein each of the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole.
However, Gu teaches that each of the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole (paragraph 0090 teaches that the secondary beam-limit aperture plate, fig. 10 element 165-2, may comprise apertures of different sizes, corresponding the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole).
The inventions are analogous because they are both directed towards beam detection (Gu abstract teaches systems and methods of enhancing imaging resolution). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Gu to include that the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole (Gu paragraph 0088 teaches that having apertures of different sizes allows for letting overlapping beam pass through, which in this case corresponds to the third passage hole serving as the observation light passage hole allowing more light to pass through).
15. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Yamashita.
16. Regarding claim 6:
Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the beam detector according to Claim 1. Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy fails to disclose that the second passage hole has a diameter greater than or equal to 2 ×α× L, where α [radian] is a landing angle of the detection target beam imaged and L is a distance between a lower surface of the first aperture plate and an upper surface of the second aperture plate.
Although Yamashita does not disclose the exact mathematical formula, Yamashita discloses that the diameter of the limiting aperture can be adjusted (paragraph 0054 teaches that the opening diameter of the limiting aperture, fig. 8 element 60 is determined by considering the electron scattering angle, contrast, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Yamashita to include that the second passage hole has a diameter greater than or equal to 2 ×α× L, where α ~ 0. Yahiro discloses a scattering angle of zero (fig. 6 teaches a incident beam with scattering angle of zero). According to the formula 2 ×α× L , scattering angle of zero would correspond to a second passage hole with diameter greater than or equal to zero to allow light to pass through. Then, in light of Yamashita, as scattering angle increases, the opening diameter of the passage hole can be adjusted according to the scattering angle, contrast, and the like (paragraph 0054 teaches adjusting the diameter of aperture). Such design would allow the passage of a detection target beam, while preventing scattered electrons from being incident on the detector, and the signal/noise ratio can be improved (as taught in paragraph 0054).
17. Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Casares (US 2009/0114818 A1).
18. Regarding claim 7:
Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the beam detector according to Claim 1. Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy fails to disclose that the second aperture plate includes a titanium alloy, a ceramic material covered with an electrically conductive coating, or an electrically conductive ceramic.
However, Casares teaches that the second aperture plate includes a titanium alloy, a ceramic material covered with an electrically conductive coating, or an electrically conductive ceramic (paragraph 0068 teaches that the second multi-aperture plate may be provided with a thin film of titanium, or other precious metal).
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 Yahiro in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Casares to substitute the second aperture plate with one that includes an electrically conductive ceramic. The substitution would be advantageous for protecting the aperture plate from contamination, and may assist in decreasing charge accumulation or avoiding oxidation (as taught in paragraph 0068).
19. Claims 8-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy.
20. Regarding claim 8:
Yahiro discloses a charged-particle-beam irradiation apparatus (fig. 2), comprising:
a stage on which a writing target substrate is placed (paragraph 0017 teaches a wafer stage configured to hold the substrate);
an emitter emitting a charged particle beam (paragraph 0034 teaches that the illumination beam, fig. 2 element 12, is emitted from an electron gun); and
a beam detector disposed on the stage (paragraph 0036 teaches a substrate stage 16, and that the upstream-facing surface of the wafer stage 16 includes a mark having a longitudinal knife-edge 1. Paragraph 0037 teaches an electron detector 6. Because the knife-edge 1 serves as the entrance aperture to the electron detector 6, the entire beam detection assembly is physically on the wafer stage), and that the beam detector (fig. 3) comprising a first aperture plate including a first passage hole (paragraph 0037 teaches a first beam-limiting aperture plate, fig. 3, element 4b, with limiting apertures including a first passage hole, fig 5, element 4), a second aperture plate including a second passage hole (paragraph 0037 teaches a second beam-limiting-aperture plate, fig. 3, element 5b, with multiple beam-limiting apertures including a second passage hole, fig 5, element 5) that allows a single detection target beam passing through the first passage hole to pass therethrough (paragraph 0037 teaches that the second aperture plate is situated downstream of the first aperture plate, corresponding to the target beam passing through the first passage hole can pass through the second passage hole), and
a sensor detecting a beam current of the detection target beam passing through the second passage hole (paragraph 0038 teaches a sensor, fig.3 element 6, situated downstream of the second aperture plate, fig. 3 element 5b, detecting the beam passing through the second passage hole),
wherein the second aperture plate includes an electrically conductive material (paragraph 0037 teaches that the second aperture plate is a conductive-metal plate, which is an electrically conductive material), a plurality of third passage holes are formed around the second passage hole (paragraph 0041 teaches multiple beam-limiting apertures in each plate, fig. 5, element 5 and 5b, where the second passage hole can be any individual passage hole, and the surrounding passage holes are third passage holes).
Yahiro fails to disclose a shaping aperture array plate forming multiple beams by being irradiated with the charged particle beam and causing the charged particle beam to pass therethrough; an optical system applying the multiple beams to the writing target substrate; the beam detector individually detecting the multiple beams, and wherein the beam detector is disposed such that an upper surface of the beam detector is substantially at a same level as a surface of the writing target substrate.
However, Yamashita discloses a shaping aperture array plate forming multiple beams by being irradiated with the charged particle beam and causing the charged particle beam to pass therethrough (paragraph 0029 teaches that the electron beam, fig 1 element 30, passes through the holes, fig. 2 element 80, thereby forming multi-beams, fig. 1 element 30a to 30e); an optical system applying the multiple beams to the writing target substrate (paragraph 0004 teaches the optical system where the beams are applied to a substrate); the beam detector individually detecting the multiple beams (paragraph 0050 teaches that one beam B1 passes through the through hole 42, and beam current is detected by the current detector 50), and wherein the beam detector is disposed such that an upper surface of the beam detector is substantially at a same level as a surface of the writing target substrate (paragraph 0027 teaches an inspection aperture 40 and a current detector 50 is disposed on the XY stage 22. The inspection aperture 40 has a height adjustment mechanism so as to be at the same height as the substrate 24. The ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings Yahiro in view of Yamashita to incorporate a multi-charged-particle-beam irradiation apparatus, a shaping aperture array plate forming multiple beams by being irradiated with the charged particle beam and causing the charged particle beam to pass therethrough; an optical system applying the multiple beams to the writing target substrate; the beam detector individually detecting the multiple beams, and wherein the beam detector is disposed such that an upper surface of the beam detector is substantially at a same level as a surface of the writing target substrate. Such modification would allow for an apparatus with increased throughput and speed of the single-beam system (Yamashita paragraph 0004 explains that the throughput can be significantly improved by using a multi-beam) and to place the beam detector as a position different from a position at which the substrate is placed (as taught in Yamashita paragraph 0027).
Yahiro in view of Yamashita fails to disclose that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular, have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole
However, Tyminski discloses that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular (paragraph 0058 teaches that a representative aperture has an outer circular aperture), have predetermined dimensions (paragraph 0058 teaches that each aperture can be the same), and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole (paragraph 0058 teaches that a plurality of apertures that are situated at a common radius from a central aperture, fig. 1D element 162, and are distributed azimuthally).
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 Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski to include that wherein the plurality of third passage holes are circular, have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole. The modification would allow for symmetric arrangements of apertures for spatial tracking and alignment.
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski fails to disclose the plurality of third passage holes allowing observation light to pass therethrough.
However, McCoy discloses the plurality of third passage holes allowing observation light to pass therethrough (column 5 lines 53-62 teaches that wafer light, which corresponds to the observation light, will pass through the apertures 64 in figs. 6a, 6b. As shown in fig. 6b there is a center aperture, corresponding to the second passage hole. The other four apertures surrounding the center aperture corresponds to the plurality of third passage holes).
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 Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include the plurality of third passage holes allowing observation light to pass therethrough. Such modification would allow for imaging and collection of observation light (as taught in McCoy column 5 lines 53-62).
21. Regarding claim 9:
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the apparatus according to Claim 8. Yahiro fails to disclose that wherein the first passage hole has a size that is larger than a beam diameter of each individual beam of multiple charged particle beams and that is smaller than a beam pitch.
However, Yamashita discloses that wherein the first passage hole has a size that is larger than a beam diameter of each individual beam of multiple charged particle beams and that is smaller than a beam pitch (paragraph 0043 and 0044 teaches that the diameter of the through-hole is greater than the size of one beam and smaller than the beam pitch of the multi-beams so that the entire one electron beam can pass through, and the passage hole can allow only one beam to pass therethrough, and the signal/noise ratio can be improved).
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 Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include that wherein the first passage hole has a size that is larger than a beam diameter of each individual beam of multiple charged particle beams and that is smaller than a beam pitch. Such modification would allow for through-hole that allow the entire one electron beam to pass through, and the passage hole can allow only one beam to pass therethrough, and the signal/noise ratio can be improved (as taught in Yamashita [0043]-[0044]).
22. Regarding claim 10:
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the apparatus according to Claim 8. Yahiro further discloses a scattered-electron cover (paragraph 0010 teaches that at least one beam-limiting-aperture plate can comprise disposing multiple beam-limiting-aperture plates, which corresponds to a scattered-electron cover blocking scattered electrons) disposed between the second aperture plate and the sensor (paragraph 0010 teaches that the multiple beam-limiting-aperture plates are disposed in tandem, which in this case is between the second aperture plate and the sensor), the scattered-electron cover blocking scattered electrons passing through the plurality of third passage holes (paragraph 0011 teaches that the aperture plates are configured to pass substantially only non-scattered charged particles).
23. Regarding claim 12:
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the apparatus according to Claim 8. Yahiro in view of Yamashita fails to disclose that wherein the plurality of third passage holes have the same dimensions, and centers of the plurality of third passage holes are located at regular intervals on a same circumference centered on the second passage hole.
However, Tyminski discloses that wherein the plurality of third passage holes have the same dimensions (paragraph 0058 teaches that each aperture can be the same), and centers of the plurality of third passage holes are located at regular intervals on a same circumference centered on the second passage hole (paragraph 0058 teaches that a plurality of apertures that are situated at a common radius from a central aperture, fig. 1D element 162, and are distributed azimuthally).
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 Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include that wherein the plurality of third passage holes have predetermined dimensions, and are located at predetermined intervals on a common circumference centered on the second passage hole. The modification would allow for symmetric arrangements of apertures for spatial tracking and alignment.
24. Regarding claim 13:
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the apparatus according to Claim 8. Yahiro fails to disclose that the second passage hole has a diameter greater than or equal to 2 ×α× L, where α [radian] is a landing angle of the detection target beam imaged and L is a distance between a lower surface of the first aperture plate and an upper surface of the second aperture plate.
Although Yamashita does not disclose the exact mathematical formula, Yamashita discloses that the diameter of the limiting aperture can be adjusted (paragraph 0054 teaches that the opening diameter of the limiting aperture, fig. 8 element 60 is determined by considering the electron scattering angle, contrast, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy to include that the second passage hole has a diameter greater than or equal to 2 ×α× L, where α ~ 0. Yahiro discloses a scattering angle of zero (fig. 6 teaches an incident beam with scattering angle of zero). According to the formula 2 ×α× L , scattering angle of zero would correspond to a second passage hole with diameter greater than or equal to zero to allow light to pass through. Then, in light of Yamashita, as scattering angle increases, the opening diameter of the passage hole can be adjusted according to the scattering angle, contrast, and the like (paragraph 0054 teaches adjusting the diameter of aperture). Such design would allow the passage of a detection target beam, while preventing scattered electrons from being incident on the detector, and the signal/noise ratio can be improved (as taught in paragraph 0054).
25. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Gu.
26. Regarding claim 11:
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the apparatus according to Claim 8. Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy fails to disclose that wherein each of the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole.
However, Gu teaches that each of the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole (paragraph 0090 teaches that the secondary beam-limit aperture plate, fig. 10 element 165-2, may comprise apertures of different sizes, corresponding the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Gu to include that the plurality of third passage holes is larger than the second passage hole (Gu paragraph 0088 teaches that having apertures of different sizes allows for letting overlapping beam pass through, which in this case corresponds to the third passage hole serving as the observation light passage hole allowing more light to pass through).
27. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Casares.
28. Regarding claim 14:
Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy discloses the apparatus according to Claim 8. Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy fails to disclose that the second aperture plate includes a titanium alloy, a ceramic material covered with an electrically conductive coating, or an electrically conductive ceramic.
However, Casares teaches that the second aperture plate includes a titanium alloy, a ceramic material covered with an electrically conductive coating, or an electrically conductive ceramic (paragraph 0068 teaches that the second multi-aperture plate may be provided with a thin film of titanium, or other precious metal).
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 Yahiro in view of Yamashita, further in view of Tyminski, further in view of McCoy, further in view of Casares to substitute the second aperture plate with one that includes an electrically conductive ceramic. The substitution would be advantageous for protecting the aperture plate from contamination, and may assist in decreasing charge accumulation or avoiding oxidation (as taught in paragraph 0068).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881