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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitations "the first flat coil" and “the second flat coil” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Amending claim 4 to depend on claim 2 would overcome the rejection.
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).
Regarding claim 4, Adamec teaches that 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 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 (202A and 204A) are arranged asymmetrically with respect to the central axis.
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.
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.
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).
Regarding claim 20, 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).
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 symmetrically 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..
Conclusion
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