DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose the electrostatic lens has a function of accelerating the beam. Examiner disagrees as Nanao discloses an electrostatic lens 66, 67, and 68 which accelerate the beam within the lens field generated by the electrostatic lens 66, 67, and 68 to reduce rotation and demagnification of a beam image (see paragraph [0042] of Nanao). As noted by the remarks (on page 8 filed 3/6/2026), applicant agrees that the beam is temporarily accelerated/decelerated (that is, an acceleration does occur).
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record (specifically the combination of Nano in view of Ogasawara) does not teach or disclose the second correction lens is a magnetic field correction lens. Examiner disagrees as the electromagnetic lens (electrostatic lens 212 placed inside of a magnetic field lens 205) is separate from the objective lens 207 as claimed. Ogasawara teaches the electrostatic lens 212 produces the correction of the beam (see col. 8, lines 22-31).
The claim amendments to claims 11-13 have been accepted and overcome the rejections of 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the rejection of claims 11-13 over 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanao et al. (WO 2021/100463, provided in the IDS dated 10/6/2023, translation and citations made to 2023/0005711, hereinafter Nanao).
Regarding claim 1, Nanao discloses a multi charged particle beam writing apparatus (multi beam is being developed as an electron beam writing apparatus, see paragraph [0003]) comprising:
a plurality of blankers performing blanking deflection on each of beams in a multi charged particle beam (a blanking plate 10 wherein a pair of two electrodes is disposed at each through hole, blanking deflection is performed by the blanking plate 10 on all beams in the multi-beam which have passed through the multiple openings, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0035]);
an acceleration lens comprised of an electrostatic lens including a plurality of electrodes and configured to accelerate the multi charged particle beam (electrostatic lens 66 applies a voltage deflect a beam (e.g. accelerate in a direction) to affect the rotation and demagnification of a beam image, see paragraph [0042])
a limiting aperture member blocking beams in the multi charged particle beam, the beams being deflected by the blankers to achieve a beam-off state (an electron beam deflected by the blanker of the blanking plate 10 is deviated from its trajectory, displaced in position from the central opening of the limiting aperture member 14, and is blocked by the limiting aperture member 14, see paragraph [0036]);
two or more-stage objective lenses each comprised of a magnetic lens, and configured to focus the multi charged particle beam on a substrate, which has passed through the limiting aperture member (objective lenses in three stages 16, 17, and 18 to focus multi-beam 30a-30e which have passed through the limiting aperture member 14, see paragraph [0038]; objective lens 16-18 may be provided as magnetic lenses, see paragraph [0080]); and
three or more correction lenses including a first correction lens, a second correction lens and a third correction lens, and configured to correct an imaging state of the multi charged particle beam on the substrate (three correction lenses 66, 67, and 68 to correct an image of the multi-beam to the substrate 24, see paragraph [0070]),
wherein one electrostatic correction lens is placed in a magnetic field of each of the two or more stage objective lenses (correction lens 66 is located in a magnetic field of the objective lens 16, see Fig. 1), and
the first correction lens is an electrostatic correction lens that also serves as at least one of the plurality of electrodes of the acceleration lens (electrostatic lens 66 corrects and accelerates the multi-beam 30a-30e, see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0042] and [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Nanao discloses the second correction lens is an electrostatic correction lens placed in a lens magnetic field of a first objective lens that is one stage objective lens of the two or more stage objective lens (electrostatic lens 67 corrects an image to the substrate 24, see paragraph [0070]; located in a stage of the magnetic field of objective lens 17, see Fig. 1), and
the third correction lens is an electrostatic correction lens placed in a lens magnetic field of an objective lens other than the first objective lens of the two or more stage objective lenses (electrostatic lens 68 corrects an image to the substrate 24, see paragraph [0070]; located in a stage of the magnetic field of objective lens 18, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Nanao discloses the second correction lens is a magnetic correction lens placed in a lens magnetic field of one of the two or more stage objective lenses (second correction lens 67 may be magnetic field lenses instead of electrostatic lenses, see paragraph [0080]; placed in a lens magnetic field of the objective lens 17, see Fig. 1), and
the third correction lens is an electrostatic correction lens placed in a lens magnetic field of one of the two or more stage objective lenses (third corrective lens 68 is an electrostatic lens, see paragraph [0080]; placed in a lens magnetic field of the objective lens 18, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nanao discloses the second correction lens is a magnetic correction lens placed in a lens magnetic field of one of the two or more stage objective lenses (second correction lens 67 may be a magnetic field lens instead of electrostatic lenses, see paragraph [0080]; placed in a lens magnetic field of the objective lens 17, see Fig. 1), and
the third correction lens is a magnetic correction lens placed in a lens magnetic field of one of the two or more stage objective lenses (third corrective lens 68 may be a magnetic field lens instead of electrostatic lenses, see paragraph [0080]; placed in a lens magnetic field of the objective lens 18, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Nanao discloses 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 (correction can be made in real time by each voltage applied to the lenses 66-68 using proportionality coefficients, see paragraph [0070]).
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 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanao in view of Ogasawara et al. (US Pat. 9,343,266, hereinafter Ogasawara).
Regarding claim 3, Nanao discloses the third correction lens is placed in a lens magnetic field of one of the two or more stage objective lens (electrostatic lens 68 corrects image of the beam to the substrate 24, see paragraph [0070]; electrostatic lens 68 may be a magnetic field lens, see paragraph [0080]; placed in the objective lens 18, see Fig. 1).
Nanao fails to disclose the second correction lens is placed outside a lens magnetic field of the two or more stage objective lenes.
Ogasawara discloses an electrostatic lens 212 is used to correct multiple beams 20 (see col. 8, lines 22-31) which is placed outside an objective lens 207 (see Fig. 1).
Ogasawara modifies Nanao by suggesting the magnetic correction lens is placed outside a lens magnetic field of the objective lens.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Nanao by providing a magnetic correction lens outside a lens magnetic field of the objective lens for the purpose of dynamically correcting the image during pattern writing as taught by Ogasawara (see col. 9, lines 32-44).
Regarding claim 4, Nanao discloses the electrostatic correction lenses are magnetic lenses (electrostatic lenses may be magnetic field correction lenses, see paragraphs [0080-0081]).
Nanao fails to disclose the second correction lens is placed upstream of the two or more stage objective lenses, outside a lens magnetic field.
Ogasawara discloses an electrostatic lens 212 is used to correct multiple beams 20 (see col. 8, lines 22-31) which is placed outside an objective lens 207 (see Fig. 1).
Ogasawara modifies Nanao by suggesting the magnetic correction lens is placed outside a lens magnetic field of the objective lens.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Nanao by providing a magnetic correction lens outside a lens magnetic field of the objective lens for the purpose of dynamically correcting the image during pattern writing as taught by Ogasawara (see col. 9, lines 32-44).
Regarding claim 5, Nanao fails to disclose the second correction lens is placed upstream of the two or more stage objective lenses, outside a lens magnetic field.
Ogasawara discloses an electrostatic lens 212 is used to correct multiple beams 20 (see col. 8, lines 22-31) which is placed upstream and outside an objective lens 207 (see Fig. 1).
Ogasawara modifies Nanao by suggesting the magnetic correction lens is placed upstream and outside a lens magnetic field of the objective lens.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Nanao by providing a magnetic correction lens upstream and outside a lens magnetic field of the objective lens for the purpose of dynamically correcting the image during pattern writing as taught by Ogasawara (see col. 9, lines 32-44).
Regarding claim 6, Nanao discloses the third correction lens is an electrostatic correction lens (third correction lens 68 is an electrostatic lens, see paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, Nanao discloses the third correction lens is a magnetic correction lens (third correction lens 68 may be magnetic field lenses instead of electrostatic lenses, see paragraph [0080]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanao in view of Vine et al. (US Pat. 3,551,734, hereinafter Vine).
Regarding claim 11, Nanao discloses correcting the image state of an image with the electrostatic lenses 66-68 (see paragraph [0055]), involving focus (e.g. height), demagnification (e.g. magnification), and rotation (see paragraphs [0055-0059]).
Nanao fails to explicitly disclose correction of the imaging state includes changing an imaging height without changing a magnification and with no rotation.
Vine discloses control of the current of magnetic coils to alter the focus, magnification, and rotation of a projected pattern (see col. 1, lines 46-60). Vine further discloses applications of the coils can independently control the focus, magnification, and rotation of an image (see col. 3, lines 37-54).
Vine modifies Nanao by suggesting control of the coils to alter a projected image’s properties independent from one another.
Since both inventions are drawn to projection image manipulation by a coil, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Nanao by applying the control of the coils as taught by Vine to independently control the projected image’s properties for the purpose of having greater control over the projected image to achieve the desired image.
Regarding claim 12, Nanao discloses correcting the image state of an image with the electrostatic lenses 66-68 (see paragraph [0055]), involving focus (e.g. height), demagnification (e.g. magnification), and rotation (see paragraphs [0055-0059]).
Nanao fails to explicitly disclose correction of the imaging state includes changing a magnification no rotation and without changing an imaging height.
Vine discloses control of the current of magnetic coils to alter the focus, magnification, and rotation of a projected pattern (see col. 1, lines 46-60). Vine further discloses applications of the coils can independently control the focus, magnification, and rotation of an image (see col. 3, lines 37-54).
Vine modifies Nanao by suggesting control of the coils to alter a projected image’s properties independent from one another.
Since both inventions are drawn to projection image manipulation by a coil, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Nanao by applying the control of the coils as taught by Vine to independently control the projected image’s properties for the purpose of having greater control over the projected image to achieve the desired image.
Regarding claim 13, Nanao discloses correcting the image state of an image with the electrostatic lenses 66-68 (see paragraph [0055]), involving focus (e.g. height), demagnification (e.g. magnification), and rotation (see paragraphs [0055-0059]).
Nanao fails to explicitly disclose correction of the imaging state includes changing rotation without changing an imaging height and a magnification.
Vine discloses control of the current of magnetic coils to alter the focus, magnification, and rotation of a projected pattern (see col. 1, lines 46-60). Vine further discloses applications of the coils can independently control the focus, magnification, and rotation of an image (see col. 3, lines 37-54).
Vine modifies Nanao by suggesting control of the coils to alter a projected image’s properties independent from one another.
Since both inventions are drawn to projection image manipulation by a coil, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Nanao by applying the control of the coils as taught by Vine to independently control the projected image’s properties for the purpose of having greater control over the projected image to achieve the desired image.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights