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 § 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, 4-7, 9, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adamec (US 20140264062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adamec teaches a deflector (scanning deflector 120, fig. 2A) for a charged particle beam apparatus (SEM, [0002]), the deflector having an axis (z-axis, into page in fig. 2A) and being configured to deflect a charged particle beam in a direction perpendicular to the axis, the deflector comprising:
A plurality of flat coils (202A, 202B, 204A, 204B) comprising two pairs of flat coils (coils may be flat, [0040]), wherein the two pairs of flat coils are arranged on opposite sides about the axis of the deflector (fig. 2A), wherein the two pairs of flat coils are arranged on opposite sides about a central axis of the two pairs of flat coils, and wherein the flat coils of the two pairs of flat coils are arranged asymmetrically with respect to the central axis (204A is closer to the axis than 202A, fig. 2A, i.e. at least some of the flat coils are asymmetric with respect to the axis).
Regarding claim 4, Adamec teaches that each pair of the two pairs of flat coils comprises a first flat coil and a second flat coil, and the first and second flat coil are arranged adjacent to each other (e.g. touching each other, fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Adamec teaches that the deflector is a one-dimensional deflector (deflecting in one direction, [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Adamec teaches that the magnetic axes of the flat coils of the two pairs of flat coils are arranged in an at least substantially radial direction with respect to the axis (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, Adamec teaches that in an image plane perpendicular to the axis, the flat coils are arranged in a point-asymmetric manner with respect to the point of intersection of the image plane and the axis (204A is closer to the axis than 202A, fig. 2A, i.e. at least some of the flat coils are asymmetric with respect to the central point).
Regarding claim 9, Adamec teaches a deflecting system (deflector arrangement with two magnetic deflectors, [0025]) for a charged particle beam apparatus (SEM, [0002]), the deflecting system configured for deflecting a charged particle beam of the charged particle beam apparatus relative to an optical axis (z-axis, fig. 1), the deflecting system comprising a plurality of deflectors, each deflector of the plurality of deflectors having an axis and being configured to deflect the charged particle beam in a direction perpendicular to the axis (separate deflectors for x and y direction, [0025]), each deflector comprising:
A plurality of flat coils comprising two pairs of flat coils (pair of coil units each formed by two coils, [0026]; four coils, fig. 2A), wherein the two pairs of flat coils are arranged on opposite sides about the axis of the deflector (fig. 2A), wherein the two pairs of flat coils of at least one deflector of the plurality of deflectors are arranged on opposite sides about a central axis of the two pairs of flat coils, and wherein the flat coils of the two pairs of flat coils are arranged asymmetrically with respect to the central axis (204A is closer to the axis than 202A, fig. 2A, i.e. at least some of the flat coils are asymmetric with respect to the axis).
Regarding claim 15, Adamec teaches arranging the four flat coils asymmetrically about the axis (fig. 2A, one pair of coils is further from the axis than the other pair).
Regarding claim 16, Adamec teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (SEM, [0002]) comprising a deflecting system (deflector arrangement with two magnetic deflectors, [0025]) configured for deflecting a charged particle beam of the charged particle beam apparatus relative to an optical axis (z-axis, fig. 1), the deflecting system comprising a plurality of deflectors for the charged particle beam axis, each deflector of the plurality of deflectors having an axis and being configured to deflect the charged particle beam in a direction perpendicular to the axis (separate deflectors for x and y direction, [0025]), each deflector comprising:
A plurality of flat coils comprising to pairs of flat coils (pair of coil units each formed by two coils, [0026]; four coils, fig. 2A), wherein the two pairs of flat coils are arranged on opposite sides about the axis of the deflector, wherein the two pairs of flat coils of at least one deflector of the plurality of deflectors are arranged on opposite sides about a central axis of the two pairs of flat coils, and wherein the flat coils of the two pairs of flat coils are arranged asymmetrically with respect to the central axis (204A is closer to the axis than 202A, fig. 2A, i.e. at least some of the flat coils are asymmetric with respect to the axis)..
Regarding claim 19, Adamec teaches a method of fabricating a deflector (120) for a charged particle beam apparatus (SEM, [0002]), comprising:
Arranging four flat coils (202A-B, 204A-B) as two pairs of flat coils ([0040]) of the deflector around an axis of the deflector, wherein the two pairs of flat coils are arranged on opposite sides about the axis (fig. 2A). wherein arranging the four flat coils comprises arranging the four flat coils asymmetrically about the axis (204A is closer to the axis than 202A, fig. 2A, i.e. at least some of the flat coils are asymmetric with respect to the axis)...
Regarding claim 20, Adamec teaches arranging the four flat coils such that, in an image plane perpendicular to the axis, the flat coils are arranged in a point-asymmetric manner with respect to the point of intersection of the image plane and the axis (204A is closer to the axis than 202A, fig. 2A, i.e. at least some of the flat coils are asymmetric with respect to the axis)..
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 2-3, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Zach (US 7,786,450 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Adamec teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Adamec teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Adamec teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as described above.
Adamec teaches that each pair of the two pairs of flat coils comprises a first flat coil and a second flat coil.
Adamec does not teach that the central positions of the first flat coil and the second flat coil are arranged at an angular distance of at least one of at least 45 degrees (or at least 30 degrees) in a circumferential direction about the axis, and a maximum 75 degrees in the circumferential direction about the axis.
Zach teaches a deflector system having coils arranged about an axis so that first and second plates are arranged at an angular distance of 60 degrees (hexapole arrangement, col. 7 lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrange the flat coils of Adamec by having six deflectors surrounding the axis in a hexapole configuration as taught by Zach (so that the angular distance between coils is 60 degrees) in order to provide aberration correction using a multipole deflector in a known manner with no unexpected result.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec.
Regarding claim 8, Adamec teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Adamec does not state that a distance of each flat coil of the two pairs of flat coils from the axis is more than 18mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Adamec by adjusting the distance of each coil from the axis to be more than 18mm, as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable (as the distance of the coil from the axis affects the strength of the deflection field) by simply adjusting the coil position with no unexpected result (MPEP 2144.05 II A [R-01. 2024]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamec in view of Winkler (US 20070075262 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Adamec teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Adamec does not teach that the plurality of deflectors comprises a first deflector, a second deflector, a third deflector, and a fourth deflector arranged in this order along the optical axis, wherein the first deflector is configured to be arranged closes to a charged particle beam source configured to generate a primary charged particle beam of the charged particle beam apparatus, and the fourth deflector is configured to be arranged closes to a sample stage of the charged particle beam apparatus.
Winkler teaches an electron beam column having four deflectors arranged in order along the optical axis, the first deflector being closer to a charged particle source and the fourth deflector being closer to a sample stage (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Adamec to have a four-stage deflector as taught by Winkler, as Winkler teaches that that four stage deflector systems provide flexibility and high mechanical tolerance and allow deflection to a desired point on an objective lens ([0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a deflection comprising flat coils with four sequential deflectors and the third deflector is arranged such that the axis of the third direction is offset in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis with respect to at least one other deflector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the coils of Adamec are arranged symmetrically with respect to the central axis, the coils 202 and 204 are at slightly different distances from the central axis, which is sufficient to meet the claim limitation as understood by the examiner.
Applicant argues that, in fig. 2A of Adamec “for any point A on any of the coils 202A-202B and 204A-204B there is a corresponding point B along a line through point A and through the central axis”. This is true but does not prove that there is no way to interpret the coils of Adamec as asymmetric about the central axis. The system of Adamec is not rotationally symmetric when rotated ninety degrees about the central axis, therefore in the broadest reasonable interpretation it can be considered asymmetric about this axis.
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 DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights