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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 6 recite, “the two or more correction lenses are placed inside a lens magnetic field of one of the two or more-stage objective lenses” and “one or no electrostatic correction lens is placed inside a magnetic field of each of the two or more-stage objective lenses.” It is unclear how one is to determine the extent of a lens magnetic field such that they can then determine whether a lens in placed therein. While the specification offers an example of conditions in which a lens is placed inside of a magnetic field, the example being 1/10th of the magnetic field’s maximum value, it does not actually provide a limit. Applicant’s arguments also fail to affirm this 1/10th of the magnetic field’s maximum value as an objective boundary for ascertaining whether a lens is inside or outside of a magnetic field. Terms of degree will fail for indefiniteness unless they “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art” when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 59 (2015). As such, the instant claims, which define the invention by a term of degree, i.e., inside/outside a magnetic field, and fail to provide an objective boundary for said term of degree, are rejected as indefinite.
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 6, 9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/100463 A1 [Nanao] (translation provided by, and citations made to, US 2023/0005711 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Nanao discloses a multi charged particle beam writing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of blankers performing blanking deflection on each of beams in a multi charged particle beam (Fig. 1 (10), para 37);
a limiting aperture member blocking a beam in the multi charged particle beam (Fig. 1 (14)), the beam being deflected by the blanker to achieve a beam-OFF state (para 37);
two or more-stage objective lenses each comprised of a magnetic lens (Fig. 1 (16-18)), and configured to focus the multi charged particle beam on a substrate (para 38), which has passed through the limiting aperture member (see Fig. 1); and
three or more correction lenses correcting an imaging state of the multi charged particle beam on the substrate (Fig. 1 (66-68), para 81),
wherein the three or more correction lenses are comprised of a first magnetic lens and two or more correction lenses (paras 80-81, all are magnetic),
the two or more correction lenses are placed inside a magnetic field of one of the two or more-stage objective lenses (Fig. 1 – all three are placed within the magnetic field of said objective lenses), and
one or no electrostatic correction lens is placed inside a magnetic field of each of the two or more-stage objective lenses (no electrostatic correction lenses are used);
wherein the first magnetic correction lens is placed inside a magnetic field of one of the two or more-stage objective lenses. As shown in Fig. 1 with (68).
Regarding Claim 9:
Nanao discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 6,
wherein the two or more correction lenses include two magnetic correction lenses, and
the two magnetic correction lenses are placed inside magnetic fields of different objective lenses of the two or more-stage objective lenses. paras 80-81, all three lenses are magnetic, and each appears to be associated with the magnetic fields of multiple objective lenses.
Regarding Claim 14:
Nanao discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 6,
wherein a mutual relationship between amounts of excitation of the three or more correction lenses is set, and the imaging state of the multi charged particle beam is corrected. Nanao Paras 55-56, 85-87.
Regarding Claim 18:
Nanao discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first magnetic correction lens is disposed adjacent to one or the two or more correction lenses. As shown in Fig. 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/100463 A1 [Nanao] (translation provided by, and citations made to, US 2023/0005711 A1) in view of US 12,165,831 B2 [Jiang].
Regarding Claim 1:
Nanao discloses a multi charged particle beam writing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of blankers performing blanking deflection on each of beams in a multi charged particle beam (Fig. 1 (10), para 37);
a limiting aperture member blocking a beam in the multi charged particle beam (Fig. 1 (14)), the beam being deflected by the blanker to achieve a beam-OFF state (para 37);
two or more-stage objective lenses each comprised of a magnetic lens (Fig. 1 (16-18)), and configured to focus the multi charged particle beam on a substrate (para 38), which has passed through the limiting aperture member (see Fig. 1); and
three or more correction lenses correcting an imaging state of the multi charged particle beam on the substrate (Fig. 1 (66-68), para 81),
wherein the three or more correction lenses are comprised of two or more correction lenses (paras 80-81, both are magnetic),
the two or more correction lenses are placed inside a magnetic field of one of the two or more-stage objective lenses (Fig. 1 – all three are placed within the magnetic field of said objective lenses), and
one or no electrostatic correction lens is placed inside a magnetic field of each of the two or more-stage objective lenses (no electrostatic correction lenses are used).
However, Nanao fails to teach a first magnetic correction, wherein first magnetic correction lens is placed outside the magnetic field of the two or more-stage objective lenses.
Jiang teaches a multi-electron beam system including a correction lens in the form of a Wien filter (Fig. 2 (110)), wherein said Wien filter is placed outside the magnetic field of the objective lens (as shown in Fig. 2). Wien filters construction includes a magnetic lens. 7:3-7. Jiang explains that Wien filter operates to mitigate coma blur for outer beamlets of the multi-beam. 8:20-28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective time of filing to add the Wien filter of Jiang to upstream of the objective lens of Nanao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate coma blur.
Regarding Claim 5:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the two or more correction lenses include two magnetic correction lenses, and
the two magnetic correction lenses are placed inside lens magnetic fields of different objective lenses of the two or more-stage objective lenses. Nanao paras 80-81, the corrector lenses internal to the objective lens are magnetic.
Regarding Claim 10:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein a mutual relationship between amounts of excitation of the three or more correction lenses is set, and the imaging state of the multi charged particle beam is corrected. Nanao Paras 55-56, 85-87. Jiang 8:20-9:67 demonstrates calculating the relationship between various beamline elements to determine and correct the voltages applied thereto.
Claims 11- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanao in view of Jiang and further in view of US 3,551,734 [O’Keeffe].
Regarding Claim 11:
The modified invention of claim 10 teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 10,
but fails to specify that the correction of the imaging state is capable of being performed by changing an imaging height without changing a magnification and with no rotation. Rather, Nanao discusses adjusting magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation to reach desired values. See e.g., paras 55-59.
O’Keeffe teaches the benefit of controlling magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation in an electron column (1:46-60) and described adjusting magnification, imaging height, and rotation independently (3:37-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the teaching of O’Keeffe in conjunction with Nanao to correct the imaging state such that an imaging height is changed with a magnification unchanged and no rotation. One would have been motivated to do so since O’Keeffe describes adjusting these parameters independently.
Regarding Claim 12:
The modified invention of claim 10 teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 10,
but fails to specify the correction of the imaging state is capable of being performed by changing magnification with no rotation and without changing an imaging height. Rather, Nanao discusses adjusting magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation to reach desired values. See e.g., paras 55-59.
O’Keeffe teaches the benefit of controlling magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation in an electron column (1:46-60) and described adjusting magnification, imaging height, and rotation independently (3:37-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the teaching of O’Keeffe in conjunction with Nanao to correct the imaging such that magnification is changed with no rotation and an imaging height unchanged. One would have been motivated to do so since O’Keeffe describes adjusting these parameters independently.
Regarding Claim 13:
The modified invention of claim 10 teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 10,
but fails to specify that the correction of the imaging state is capable of being performed by changing rotation without changing an imaging height and without changing a magnification. Rather, Nanao discusses adjusting magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation to reach desired values. See e.g., paras 55-59.
O’Keeffe teaches the benefit of controlling magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation in an electron column (1:46-60) and described adjusting magnification, imaging height, and rotation independently (3:37-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the teaching of O’Keeffe in conjunction with Nanao to correct the imaging such that rotation is changed with an imaging height unchanged and a magnification unchanged. One would have been motivated to do so since O’Keeffe describes adjusting these parameters independently.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanao in view of US 3,551,734 [O’Keeffe].
Regarding Claim 15:
Nanao teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 14,
but fails to specify that the correction of the imaging state is capable of being performed by changing an imaging height without changing a magnification and with no rotation. Rather, Nanao discusses adjusting magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation to reach desired values. See e.g., paras 55-59.
O’Keeffe teaches the benefit of controlling magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation in an electron column (1:46-60) and described adjusting magnification, imaging height, and rotation independently (3:37-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the teaching of O’Keeffe in conjunction with Nanao to correct the imaging state such that an imaging height is changed with a magnification unchanged and no rotation. One would have been motivated to do so since O’Keeffe describes adjusting these parameters independently.
Regarding Claim 16:
Nanao teaches discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 14,
but fails to specify the correction of the imaging state is capable of being performed by changing magnification with no rotation and without changing an imaging height. Rather, Nanao discusses adjusting magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation to reach desired values. See e.g., paras 55-59.
O’Keeffe teaches the benefit of controlling magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation in an electron column (1:46-60) and described adjusting magnification, imaging height, and rotation independently (3:37-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the teaching of O’Keeffe in conjunction with Nanao to correct the imaging such that magnification is changed with no rotation and an imaging height unchanged. One would have been motivated to do so since O’Keeffe describes adjusting these parameters independently.
Regarding Claim 17:
Nanao discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 10,
but fails to specify that the correction of the imaging state is capable of being performed by changing rotation without changing an imaging height and without changing a magnification. Rather, Nanao discusses adjusting magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation to reach desired values. See e.g., paras 55-59.
O’Keeffe teaches the benefit of controlling magnification, imaging height (i.e. focus position), and rotation in an electron column (1:46-60) and described adjusting magnification, imaging height, and rotation independently (3:37-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the teaching of O’Keeffe in conjunction with Nanao to correct the imaging such that rotation is changed with an imaging height unchanged and a magnification unchanged. One would have been motivated to do so since O’Keeffe describes adjusting these parameters independently.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanao in view of Jiang and further in view of US 5,912,469 [Okino].
Regarding Claim 3:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 1,
but fails to specify that the two or more correction lenses include two electrostatic correction lenses, and
the two electrostatic correction lenses are placed inside magnetic fields of different objective lenses of the two or more-stage objective lenses. This is because Nanao only describes all electrostatic lenses or all magnetic lenses. However, it is known in the art to use magnetic and electrostatic corrections lenses together. See e.g., Okino 5:45-47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have used a combination of electrostatic and magnetic correction lenses in Nanao such that lenses 66 and 67 were electrostatic, since mixing magnetic and electrostatic lenses is suggested by Okino.
Regarding Claim 4:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 1,
but fails to specify the two or more correction lenses include a first electrostatic correction lens and a second magnetic correction lens, and
the first electrostatic correction lens and the second magnetic correction lens are placed inside magnetic fields of different objective lenses of the two or more-stage objective lenses.
This is because Nanao only describes all electrostatic lenses or all magnetic lenses. However, it is known in the art to use magnetic and electrostatic corrections lenses together. See e.g., Okino 5:45-47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have used a combination of electrostatic and magnetic correction lenses in Nanao such that lenses 66 and 67 were electrostatic and magnetic respectively, since mixing magnetic and electrostatic lenses is suggested by Okino.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanao in view of US 5,912,469 [Okino].
Regarding Claim 7:
Nanao discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 6,
but fails to specify the two or more correction lenses include two electrostatic correction lenses, and the two electrostatic correction lenses are placed inside lens magnetic fields of different objective lenses of the two or more-stage objective lenses.
This is because Nanao only describes all electrostatic lenses or all magnetic lenses. However, it is known in the art to use magnetic and electrostatic corrections lenses together. See e.g., Okino 5:45-47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have used a combination of electrostatic and magnetic correction lenses in Nanao such that lenses 66 and 67 were electrostatic, since mixing magnetic and electrostatic lenses is suggested by Okino.
Regarding Claim 8:
Nanao discloses the multi charged particle beam writing apparatus according to claim 6,
but fails to specify the two or more correction lenses include a first electrostatic correction lens and a second magnetic correction lens, and
the first electrostatic correction lens and the second magnetic correction lens are placed inside lens magnetic fields of different objective lenses of the two or more-stage objective lenses.
This is because Nanao only describes all electrostatic lenses or all magnetic lenses. However, it is known in the art to use magnetic and electrostatic corrections lenses together. See e.g., Okino 5:45-47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have used a combination of electrostatic and magnetic correction lenses in Nanao such that lenses 66 and 67 were electrostatic and magnetic respectively, since mixing magnetic and electrostatic lenses is suggested by Okino.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The double patenting rejections of record are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues that the limitations describing the inside and outside of magnetic fields are definite based on the specification’s descriptions of the same. This is not persuasive. The specification offers examples of inside and outside of magnetic fields, but such examples cannot be considered to be definitions. As such, the determination of the locations of inside and outside of magnetic fields is still one lacking objective boundaries, and the rejection must be maintained.
Applicant’s amendments to remove the phrase “lens magnetic field” have overcome the rejections to the same.
Applicant argues that Nanao does not teach a correction lens placed outside the magnetic field of the objective lenses, as is recited in claim 1. Jiang teaches this limitation. As such, the claim is now rejected under 35 USC 103.
Applicant argues that Nanao also does not teach a correction lens placed inside the magnetic field of the objective lenses, as is recited in claim 1. This is not persuasive. Nanao demonstrates three correction lenses corresponding to three objective lenses. These three correction lenses are within magnetic fields of the objective lenses. As such, they meet the limitations at issue.
Applicant argues that Nanao teaches using two objective lenses, and as such fails to teach the claims. Regardless, Nanao also teaches three objective lenses and three correction lenses, which do teach the claims.
Applicant makes extensive arguments about lenses in Nanao being inside of or outside of claimed magnetic fields. Since the boundaries of these fields are not objectively defined in the instant claims, it is unclear how the applicant can come to that determination. As such, those arguments are not persuasive.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881