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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 08/29/2024 have been entered. The amendments only pertain to the specification. Accordingly, claims 1-23 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "152" and "116" have both been used to designate the central exemplary component of the spectral spread of the second CPB. It appears that this may be an error in the positioning of the arrow for item 116, which points generally to the dispersed second CPB in Fig. 1A. 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)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 1A shows elements labeled ‘C’ and ‘D’, however, these are not referenced in the specification. Fig. 1B shows elements labeled ‘E’, however, this is not referenced in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 1B appears to have some portion of the drawing with shading, however, it is unclear whether this is intended to indicate anything about the system, as no such shading is discussed in the specification. Fig. 1B also has the label for item 111B pointing to an arrow, which appears to point to the element labeled elsewhere in the figure as axis 101 (and also as described in the specification). Regarding Fig. 1F, the specification describes item 178 being an alternative to item 118, however the figure also labels a portion of the figure with the label 118. 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:
p. 1, lines 17-19 has some grammatical error and does not make sense as written;
p. 2, lines 5-8 has some grammatical error and does not make sense as written;
p. 4, line 6 recites “reach”, which it appears should read ‘reaches’;
p. 7, lines 1-4 (the first sentence) has some grammatical error and does not make sense as written;
p. 7, lines 1-4 (the first sentence) indicates that item 122 is located between items 112 and 106, however, this disagrees with previous and subsequent description and the figures; It appears that this is a typographical error, as this portion refers to “the filter aperture plate 106”, however, previously ‘a/the filter aperture plate’ was referenced using item number 118, which would agree with the figures;
p. 7, lines 18 recites “show in FIG. 1A”, which should read ‘shown in FIG. 1A’;
p. 8, lines 20-22 refer to “the first CPB 114”, however, there is no item 114 in the associated figure(s), and the specification previously referred to ‘axial’ and ‘off-axis’ CPB beams, previously labeled as 111A and 111B, respectively; Examiner believes this is a typographical error and should refer to ‘the axial CPB 111A’;
p. 9, line 12 refers to “the beam filter aperture plate 168”, however, the associated figure has no item 168, and this subsection (i.e., ‘Example 2’) previously refers to the beam filter aperture plate with item number 178;
p. 9, lines 19-21 has some grammatical error and does not make sense as written;
p. 9, lines 23 and 24 recite “a standard spectral or energy spread (STD)” and “a limited energy spread (LTD)”, however, the specification later uses the terminology ‘STD energy spread’ and ‘LTD energy spread’, which would appear to indicate the above labeling is erroneous and should read ‘a standard (STD) spectral or energy spread’ and ‘a limited (LTD) energy spread’, respectively;
p. 9, line 28 – p. 10, line 1 has some grammatical error and does not make sense as written;
p. 11, lines 16-17 refer to “the blanking aperture 320”, however, the blanking aperture was previously indicated as item 323;
p. 11, line 23 refers to item 352 as an optical imager, however, the figure indicates this item as a display; Imaging and displaying are different functions and would provide differing ranges of support;
p. 17, lines 13-14 refers refer to “the beam acceptance aperture plate 722”, however, the beam acceptance aperture plate was previously indicated as item 714;
p. 16-17 has ‘Example 8’, which is followed by another subsection with the heading ‘Example 8’ on Fig. 17, the latter of which Examiner believes should read ‘Example 9’ .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “wherein the spectral disperser is operable direct the first CPB…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘wherein the spectral disperser is operable to direct the first CPB…’;
Claim 9 recites “such that at least the second CPB has an associated spectral spread...”; It is unclear what is intended by ‘at least’, which appears to indicate that another element beyond the second CPB could have an associated spectral spread, however, Applicant’s disclosure only discusses the second CPB as being dispersed to have an associated spectral spread to be selected from;
Claim 18 recites “the spectral component” twice; While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis, as the claims previously refer to ‘a selected spectral component’ out of ‘spectral components’, and as such ‘the spectral component’ should read ‘the selected spectral component’ to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a spectral disperser situated to…spectrally disperse…” in claim 9, which Examiner views as a nonce term/generic placeholder modified by functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure is found in the ‘General Terminology’ subsection, and in particular, p. 4, lines 25-26: “As used herein, a CPB spectral disperser includes one or more CPB lenses and/or other spectrally dispersive CPB optics.” Accordingly, the corresponding structure is ‘one or more CPB lenses and/or other spectrally dispersive CPB optics’.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 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 “a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first acceptance aperture and at least one second acceptance aperture” and “a first CPB is transmitted by the first acceptance aperture and a second CPB is transmitted by the at least one second acceptance aperture”. However, ‘at least one second acceptance aperture’ allows for a plurality of ‘second’ acceptance apertures, and in such a case, it would be unclear which would be considered ‘the’ at least one second acceptance aperture, and accordingly which aperture would form ‘the’ second CPB, as the claim recites forming only ‘a’ second CPB, which would appear to indicate a singular CPB. Furthermore, if there is a plurality of such apertures, it is unclear how each can be a ‘second’ acceptance aperture, it is unclear whether each ‘second’ acceptance aperture would be required/situated to transmit a CPB, and it is unclear how beams resulting therefrom would be referred to (i.e., which is ‘the’ second CPB? Each? One of?). 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 beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first acceptance aperture and a second acceptance aperture” and “a first CPB is transmitted by the first acceptance aperture and a second CPB is transmitted by the second acceptance aperture’. For consistency, the term “a selected second acceptance aperture” in claim 2 is accordingly interpreted as reciting ‘the second acceptance aperture’.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, and 14 each recite “the second CPB”, which is indefinite for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. However, were the interpretation adopted for claim 1, these issues would be ameliorated, and as such, these recitations are interpreted as presented in view of the interpretation adopted for claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the second acceptance aperture”, however, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, the claim allows for a plurality of second acceptance apertures, and in such a case, it is unclear which aperture would be ‘the’ second acceptance aperture. 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 written, as the interpretation adopted for claim 1 would ameliorate this issue in claim 4.
Claims 5-7 also refer to “the second acceptance aperture”, which is indefinite for similar reasons, and is interpreted the same, as the interpretation adopted for claim 1 would ameliorate the issue in claims 5 and 6.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a beam current associated with the second acceptance aperture is larger than a beam current associated with the first acceptance aperture”. The language ‘associated with’ does not indicate a functional/structural relationship, and the claim is directed toward a system. An aperture is merely a hole/opening, so it is unclear what this claim does and does not require and what would and/or would not read on such a limitation. An aperture cannot be deterministic of the current of a CPB alone, and accordingly, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of such a limitation is, as this claim pertains to a system, and no structural or functional limitations to achieve such a difference in beam current is presently claimed. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it appears this may be intended to limit the diameter/size of the apertures, which are capable of decreasing/limiting a current of a CPB passing therethrough via their relative extent, as the specification is generally directed to a CPB source that is incident on the beam acceptance aperture plate. However, it is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims, and 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 second acceptance aperture is formed to be physically different than the first acceptance aperture such that a beam current associated with the second CPB is larger than a beam current associated with the first CPB’.
Claim 7 refers to a third acceptance aperture, which is unclear because of the issues discussed above regarding the potential plurality of second acceptance apertures. Were such a plurality required, it would be unclear which apertures would be considered ‘the’ second acceptance aperture and ‘a’ third acceptance aperture. This would also result in a similar clarity issue regarding the second and third CPBs. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. However, as discussed previously, were the issue of claim 1 ameliorated with the above adopted interpretation, this issue would also be ameliorated, and thus for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as written, in view of the above adopted interpretation for claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “further comprising a CPB emitter”, however, the claims previously require ‘a CPB source’, which would be understood in light of Applicant’s disclosure to refer to the same item (or at least the same item type; see General Terminology subsection). As such, it is unclear whether this recitation is intended to require an additional source in the form of a CPB emitter, or whether this recitation is intended to further limit the CPB source by requiring the aforementioned CPB source be specifically a CPB emitter (such as an electron or ion emitter as disclosed). 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 further limiting the previously required ‘CPB source’, namely, ‘wherein the CPB source comprises a CPB emitter’.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated to pass the selected portion of the second CPB”. It is unclear how an edge of a filter aperture plate can pass a portion of a CPB, as an edge would be understood as part of the plate (i.e., not the aperture itself), and would thus block a portion of the CPB incident thereon. 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 ‘further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated to pass the selected portion of the second CPB through the filter aperture’.
Claim 15 recites “producing at least a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘at least’ in this context, which appears to indicate either additional first CPB(s) or potentially additional CPB(s) in general (i.e., either first or second), however, it is unclear how the CPBs would correspond to the two axes if this limitation were to allow for additional CPB(s), when the first and second CPBs are required to propagate along first and second axes, respectively. It is not clear whether such additional CPB(s) would propagate along additional respective axes, or along one of the first and second axes. 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 ‘producing a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis’.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: ‘directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture to produce a first CPB and a second CPB”. The specification provides no other means by which the axial and off-axis CPBs (i.e., the first and second CPBs, respectively) are formed, and this step of ‘directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture’ is necessary in order to perform the step ‘producing a first CPB and a second CPB’ in claim 15. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, claim 15 is interpreted as ‘A method, comprising: directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture to produce a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis…’. Examiner notes that this would also result in an issue with claim 21, and thus, claim 21 is accordingly interpreted as ‘wherein the first aperture is situated on an optical axis’.
Claim 15 recites “directing the second CPB towards the first axis and towards a filter aperture so that spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture”. It is unclear how the method can function as claimed if spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture. If each of the spectral components is distributed at the aperture, each would pass therethrough, rendering the method unsuitable for its intended purpose of selecting such spectral components (i.e., the following limitation of “at the filter aperture, selectively transmitting at least a selected spectral component of the second CPB” would not be possible if each spectral component is distributed at the filter aperture itself). Furthermore, it appears such a limitation could potentially lead to 112(a) issues, as the specification discloses only arrangements in which one or more spectral components are disposed at the filter aperture, while the remaining spectral components are disposed at the filter aperture plate (i.e., spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture plate, such that some are disposed at the aperture itself, and others are attenuated by the plate). Based on Applicant’s disclosure, this appears to be an error in the claim language, however, reading limitations from the specification into the claims is not permitted, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim as presently claimed, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘directing the second CPB towards the first axis and towards a filter aperture of a filter aperture plate so that spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture plate’.
Claim 17 similarly recites “wherein the distribution of spectral components of the second CPB at the filter aperture is…”, which is indefinite for similar reasons. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the distribution of spectral components of the second CPB at the filter aperture plate is…’.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the distribution of spectral components of the second CPB at the filter aperture is based on chromatic aberration of a CPB lens”. It is unclear whether/how this limitation further limits the claim. First, the claim refers to ‘a CPB lens’, however, claim 15 already recites ‘a charged-particle-beam lens’ that distributes spectral components of the second CPB, and accordingly, it is unclear whether the recitation in claim 17 is intended to refer to the same CPB lens, or an arbitrary additional CPB lens (Examiner notes the current claim language appears to indicate an arbitrary additional CPB lens under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), which would include essentially any additional potential CPB lens, whether or not the lens is required to be used in the claimed method, hence why it is unclear whether this limitation actually further limits the claim; However, it is also unclear whether Applicant’s disclosure supports such an additional lens). Additionally, the claim states that the distribution is ‘based on’ chromatic aberration, but does not recite a functional or structural relationship between the chromatic aberration of the lens and the distribution, wherein the distribution is formed with the ‘charged-particle-beam lens’ required by claim 15. Accordingly, it is unclear how the distribution can be ‘based on’ chromatic aberration of a different CPB lens (as is presently claimed, under the BRI), when the distribution is formed by the lens required to be used by claim 15. The claim does not require the lens of claim 17 to be the same as was used in claim 15. For these reasons, 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 distribution of spectral components of the second CPB at the filter aperture plate is formed via spectral dispersion of the second CPB due to chromatic aberration of the CPB lens’.
Claim 19 recites “further comprising situating an edge of the blanking aperture so that the selected spectral component of the second CPB is transmitted through the blanking aperture and unselected spectral components are attenuated”, however, claim 18 allows for selectively attenuating the spectral component of the second CPB at a blanking aperture plate and transmitting the first CPB through a blanking aperture. In such a case, it is unclear how the selected spectral component can be transmitted through the blanking aperture if the spectral component of the second CPB is attenuated at the blanking aperture plate. 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 first CPB is selectively attenuated at the blanking aperture, and the selected spectral component of the second CPB is transmitted through the blanking aperture by situating an edge of the blanking aperture so that the selected spectral component of the second CPB is transmitted through the blanking aperture and unselected spectral components are attenuated at the blanking aperture plate’.
Claim 22, similar to claim 15, recites “producing at least a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘at least’ in this context, which appears to indicate either additional first CPB(s) or potentially additional CPB(s) in general (i.e., either first or second), however, it is unclear how the CPBs would correspond to the two axes if this limitation were to allow for additional CPB(s), when the first and second CPBs are required to propagate along first and second axes, respectively. It is not clear whether such additional CPB(s) would propagate along additional respective axes, or along one of the first and second axes. 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 ‘producing a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis’.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Similar to claim 15, the omitted steps are: ‘directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture to produce a first CPB and a second CPB”. The specification provides no other means by which the axial and off-axis CPBs (i.e., the first and second CPBs, respectively) are formed, and this step of ‘directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture’ is necessary in order to perform the step ‘producing a first CPB and a second CPB’ in claim 22. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, claim 22 is interpreted as ‘A method, comprising: directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture to produce a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis…’.
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 1-6, 8-11, 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henstra (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110284763 A1).
Examiner notes that Henstra is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 06/24/2025.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches a charged-particle beam (CPB) optical system (Abstract; [0002]), comprising:
a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first acceptance aperture and at least one second acceptance aperture (See Fig. 1, item 104, having two apertures, either of which could be considered ‘first’ and ‘second’ apertures) and situated with respect to a CPB source (See Fig. 1, item 102) so that a first CPB is transmitted by the first acceptance aperture and a second CPB is transmitted by the at least one second acceptance aperture (See Fig. 1, items 105 and 106, either of which could be ‘first’ and ‘second’ CPBs, corresponding to their respective aperture);
a blanking aperture plate defining a blanking aperture (See Fig. 1, items 108, and either item 109 or item 110); and
a beam selector operable to selectively direct the first CPB or the second CPB to a workpiece through the blanking aperture (See Fig. 1, items 111 and 112; [0048]-[0052]; [0057]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches further comprising an optical column situated to receive the first CPB and the second CPB (See Fig. 1, all optical elements downstream of item 104), wherein the first acceptance aperture or a selected second acceptance aperture is situated on an optical axis of the optical column (See Fig. 1, either aperture in 104, each of which is situated on ‘an’ optical axis of the optical column).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches wherein the beam selector includes a first beam deflector and a second beam deflector (See Fig. 1, items 111 and 112), the first beam deflector operable to deflect the second CPB toward an optical axis (See Fig. 1, item 111, directing 106 toward an optical axis; [0057]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’) and the second beam deflector operable to direct the second CPB received from the first beam deflector to a workpiece through the blanking aperture (See Fig. 1, item 112, wherein beam 106 is deflected to a workpiece, and passes through the blanking aperture; [0048]-[0052]; [0057]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 3.
Henstra further teaches wherein the first acceptance aperture and the second acceptance aperture are off-axis apertures (See Fig. 4, showing two apertures which are positioned off axis 101).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 3.
Henstra further teaches where the first acceptance aperture is an on-axis aperture and the second acceptance aperture is an off-axis aperture (See Fig. 1, with one aperture positioned on axis 101 and one aperture positioned off of axis 101).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 5.
Henstra further teaches wherein a beam current associated with the second acceptance aperture is larger than a beam current associated with the first acceptance aperture (See Fig. 1, beams 105 and 106; [0012]; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches wherein the beam selector includes at least one beam deflector or at least one CPB lens (See Fig. 1, items 107, 111, and/or 112).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches further comprising:
a spectral disperser situated to receive the first CPB and the second CPB from the beam acceptance aperture plate and spectrally disperse at least one of the first CPB and the second CPB (See Fig. 1, item 107; Abstract; [0005]-[0009]; [0012]); and
a filter aperture plate that defines a filter aperture (See Fig. 1, item 108 having apertures 109 and 110; Examiner notes that plate 108 performs both filtering and blanking, and because there is nothing in the claims that requires these be separate elements, the plate 108 satisfies both requirements), wherein the spectral disperser is operable direct the first CPB and a selected portion of the second CPB through the filter aperture (See Fig. 1, beams 105 and 106 are directed by lens 107 through item plate 108; [0057]; [0068]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’) such that at least the second CPB has an associated spectral spread proximate the filter aperture plate ([0012]; [0057]), wherein the beam selector is operable to deflect the first CPB or the selected portion of the second CPB transmitted by the filter aperture to a workpiece (See Fig. 1, items 111 and 112; [0057]-[0058]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 9.
Henstra further teaches wherein the spectral disperser includes a CPB lens operable to spectrally disperse at least one of the first CPB and the second CPB based on chromatic aberration (See Fig. 1, item 107; Abstract; [0008]-[0009]; [0012]; [0040]; [0057]; [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 10.
Henstra further teaches further comprising a CPB emitter (See Fig. 1, item 102), wherein the first acceptance aperture of the beam acceptance aperture plate, the CPB lens, and the CPB emitter are situated on an optical axis (See Fig. 1, showing 102, the central aperture of 104, and lens 107 all on an optical axis, i.e., axis 101).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches a method, comprising:
[directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture to produce] propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis (See Fig. 1, showing CPB source, i.e., charged particle emitting surface 102, generating a CPB, i.e., beam of charged particles 103, being directed to a beam acceptance aperture plate, i.e., beam limiting diaphragm 104, defining first and second apertures, i.e., apertures in 104 which are on and off axis 101, to produce first and second CPBs, i.e., axial beam 105, off-axis beam 106, directed along respective axes, i.e., 105 is on axis 101 while 106 is not; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5);
with a charged-particle-beam lens (See Fig. 1, particle-optical lens 107), directing the second CPB towards the first axis (See Fig. 1, off-axis beam 106 being directed by lens 107, toward axis 101; equivalently See Fig. 4, either of off-axis beams 106a or 106b being directed toward axis 101 by lens 107; See also Fig. 5; [0057]-[0058]; [0068]) and towards a filter aperture (See Fig. 1, diaphragm 108) so that spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture [plate] (Abstract; [0008]-[0009]; [0012]; [0040]; [0057]-[0058]);
at the filter aperture, selectively transmitting at least a selected spectral component of the second CPB (See Fig. 1, energy selected beam 113; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5); and
directing either the first CPB or the selected spectral component of the second CPB along the first axis (See Fig. 1, directing beam 106 along axis 101 after passing through aperture and forming energy selected beam 113; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches further comprising directing the selected spectral component of the second CPB along the first axis with a beam selecting deflector (See Fig. 1, directing beam 106 to diaphragm 108 to form energy selected beam 113, which is subsequently directed along axis 101 with deflector 112; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches wherein the distribution of spectral components of the second CPB at the filter aperture [plate] is [formed via spectral dispersion of the second CPB due to] chromatic aberration of [the] CPB lens (Abstract; [0005]-[0009]; [0012]; [0055]; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches further comprising selectively attenuating either the first CPB or the spectral component of the second CPB at a blanking aperture plate (See Fig. 1, showing axial beam 105 attenuated at diaphragm 108; [0057]-[0058]; Examiner notes that plate 108 performs both filtering and blanking, and because there is nothing in the claims that requires these be separate elements, the plate 108 satisfies both requirements) and transmitting either the spectral component of the second CPB or the first CPB through a blanking aperture defined in the blanking aperture plate (See Fig. 1, showing axial beam 106 incident on diaphragm 108, wherein the energy selected beam 113 is transmitted via aperture 109, which transmits only the selected energy; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 18.
Henstra further teaches [wherein the first CPB is selectively attenuated at the blanking aperture, and the selected spectral component of the second CPB is transmitted through the blanking aperture by] situating an edge of the blanking aperture so that the selected spectral component of the second CPB is transmitted through the blanking aperture and unselected spectral components are attenuated [at the blanking aperture plate] (See Fig. 1, showing axial beam 106 incident on diaphragm 108, wherein the energy selected beam 113 is transmitted via aperture 109, which transmits only the selected energy; Abstract; [0002]; [0005]-[0009]; [0012]-[0013]; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches wherein the first axis is an optical axis (See Fig. 1, axis 101, which is interpreted as reading on ‘an optical axis’ because it has optical elements thereon).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches (See Fig. 1, showing apertures in 104 each on their own respective axis, each of the respective axes being interpreted as reading on ‘an optical axis’, because they each have optical elements thereon).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches a method, comprising:
[directing a CPB from a CPB source to a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first aperture and a second aperture to produce] (See Fig. 1, showing CPB source, i.e., charged particle emitting surface 102, generating a CPB, i.e., beam of charged particles 103, being directed to a beam acceptance aperture plate, i.e., beam limiting diaphragm 104, defining first and second apertures, i.e., apertures in 104 which are on and off axis 101, to produce first and second CPBs, i.e., axial beam 105, off-axis beam 106, directed along respective axes, i.e., 105 is on axis 101 while 106 is not; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5);
selectively directing the second CPB towards the first axis (See Fig. 1, off-axis beam 106 being directed by lens 107, toward axis 101; equivalently See Fig. 4, either of off-axis beams 106a or 106b being directed toward axis 101 by lens 107; See also Fig. 5; [0057]-[0058]; [0068]); and
at a blanking aperture plate (See Fig. 1, diaphragm 108; See also Figs. 3-5), transmitting the second CPB towards a workpiece (See Fig. 1, energy selected beam 113; [0048]-[0052]; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5) and attenuating the first CPB (See Fig. 1, axial beam 105 being attenuated at diaphragm 108; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the method of claim 22.
Henstra further teaches wherein the second CPB is selectively directed towards the first axis by a first beam selector (See Fig. 1, item 111, which directs off-axis beam 106 toward axis 101; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5) and directed along the first axis by a second beam selector (See Fig. 1, item 112, which directs off-axis beam 106/energy selected beam 113 along axis 101; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henstra (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110284763 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches wherein the beam acceptance aperture plate defines the first acceptance aperture, the second acceptance aperture, and a third acceptance aperture (See Fig. 4, item 104, having three apertures therein), the third acceptance aperture transmitting a third CPB (See Fig. 4, items 105, 106a, and 106b, each of which could be considered a ‘third’ CPB), wherein the beam selector is operable to selectively direct the second CPB (See Fig. 4, items 105, 106a, 106b; [0066]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Henstra does not explicitly teach wherein the beam selector is operable to selectively direct the second CPB and the third CPB to the workpiece through the blanking aperture (Emphasis added by Examiner), and instead discloses selectively directing only one beam through the blanking aperture.
However, Examiner first notes that the beam selector, under the BRI, need only be capable of directing both the second and third CPBs through the blanking aperture. Such functionality need not be explicitly disclosed so long as the disclosed structure is physically capable of performing the limitation and has sufficient disclosed functionality to achieve it, as the claim is directed toward a system.
In [0066], Henstra discusses the capability of forming plural off-axis beams, and selecting such beams to pass through the equivalent of the blanking aperture. Henstra further states “Preferably only a single beam leaves the source”, however, this is indicated as preferable, and not exclusory. Nevertheless, the deflector(s) are capable of arbitrarily deflecting the beams ([0057]-[0058]; [0064]-[0066]).
In [0068], Henstra also discusses energizing the lens 107 to choose which beams are focused at the equivalent of the blanking aperture, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of techniques to control the focus and position of CPB beams traversing a CPB lens by appropriate current/voltage control thereof.
Henstra discloses in [0005]-[0008] that beams traversing particle optical components (i.e., such as lens 107) will have an energy spread, and that the width of the energy spread can be determined by the width of the aperture in the plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the beams which traverse such a lens with a chromatic aberration would have a continuous range of selectable energy values and how many of such selectable energy values that pass through an aperture in the downstream blanking plate would depend on the width of the aperture as discussed in Henstra. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the relative spacing of the beam acceptance apertures would determine the relative spacing of the resultant CPBs, and could readily adjust such spacing to achieve the desired beam spacing downstream thereof. Henstra also discusses using additional apertures in the blanking plate in order to select additional energy values in reference to Fig. 5.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that the combination of the above disclosures, in view of the ordinary knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, is sufficient to disclose the limitation, as the deflector is capable of deflecting two beams through an aperture in the blanking aperture plate for an appropriately chosen blanking aperture size and aperture spacing for the acceptance aperture plate.
Accordingly, while Henstra does not explicitly teach wherein the beam selector is operable to selectively direct the second CPB and the third CPB to the workpiece through the blanking aperture (Emphasis added by Examiner), it discloses sufficient structure having sufficient functionality to achieve the limitation without structural modification or inventive activity, and thus, at the very least, 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 Henstra to explicitly include the capability of the beam selector to direct two beams through the blanking aperture.
Doing so would allow one additional flexibility to modify the beam characteristics (i.e., the resultant energy) at the workpiece.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henstra (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110284763 A1) in view of Tanimoto (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050072941 A1).
Examiner notes that Tanimoto is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 06/24/2025.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 11.
Henstra does not teach further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated to pass the selected portion of the second CPB.
However, Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as meaning ‘capable of’, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that one can equivalently move a beam on an aperture plate or move the aperture plate relative to a beam to achieve a desired relative