DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 6-11, 15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit (US 20220392735 A1).
5. Regarding claim 1:
Kruit discloses a charged particle optical device for a charged particle system, the device being configured to project an array of charged particle beams towards a sample ([0008] teaches a charged particle beam device for irradiating or inspecting the specimen with an array of primary beamlets), the device comprising: a control lens array configured to control a parameter of the array of beams ([0044] teaches the aperture lens array or multi-aperture lens plate, fig. 1 element 122. The aperture lens array, fig. 1 element 122, which corresponds to the control lens array, may operate as electrodes to influence the beamlets); and
an objective lens array configured to project the array of beams onto the sample ([0047] teaches the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, includes a plurality of electrodes having an array of holes. [0048] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, focuses the beamlets, particularly individually, on the specimen, fig. 2 element 80), the objective lens array being down-beam of the control lens (as shown in fig. 1, the objective lens unit, fig. 1 element 170, is down-beam of the aperture lens array, fig. 1 element 122) and comprising: an
upper electrode; and a lower electrode arrangement comprising an up-beam electrode and a down-beam electrode, the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode are sequential electrodes in the device ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, as shown are in sequential order),
wherein the device is configured to apply an upper potential to the upper electrode, an up-beam potential to the up-beam electrode and a down-beam potential to the down-beam electrode ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Each of the electrodes is biased to a potential), and is configured to control the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials) to set a landing energy of the beams on the sample ([0162] teaches the retarding field lens may decelerate the primary charged particle beamlets to a defined (set) landing energy) and to maintain focus of the beams on the sample at different landing energies ([0162] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, maybe configured for focusing the charged particle beamlets onto the specimen under different landing energies).
Kruit does not specifically disclose varying a landing energy of the beams on the sample. However, Kruit discloses that the potentials of the electrodes can be controlled individually (as taught in [0157]), and that a range of landing energies can be achieved (as taught in [0162]).
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 Kruit to include varying a landing energy of the beams on the sample. Such modification would allow gaining more information from various landing energies for enhanced image data.
6. Regarding claim 6:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit further discloses that wherein the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential of different objective lenses across the objective lens array ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, are in sequential order) are configured to be set respectively ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials. [0158] teaches that the capability of providing different potentials for different openings allows to provide a fine adjustment of the lens field for a respective primary beamlet) to correct for focus variations between the different objective lenses in the array ([0162] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, may be configured for focusing the charged particle beamlets onto the specimen).
7. Regarding claim 7:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit further discloses that wherein the potential on the up-beam electrode ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode) is configured to be controllably adjusted across the objective lens array ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials) to correct for focus variations between different objective lenses in the objective lens array ([0158] teaches that the capability of providing different potentials for different openings allows to provide a fine adjustment of the lens field for a respective primary beamlet. [0162] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, maybe configured for focusing the charged particle beamlets onto the specimen).
8. Regarding claim 8:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 6. Kruit further discloses that wherein the setting of the potentials of different objective lenses of the array is by each lens in the array ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials [0158] teaches that the capability of providing different potentials for different openings allows to provide a fine adjustment of the lens field for a respective primary beamlet) or by groups of lenses in the array ([0158] teaches that some of the openings may have a common conductive portion such that some of the openings may be biased to the same potential).
9. Regarding claim 9:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 6. Kruit further discloses that wherein a distance between the objective lens and the sample is configured to be maintained ([0164] teaches that the distance between the specimen and the objective lens unit can be adapted. Can be adapted does not require adaptation, so when the distance isn’t being adapted, Kruit demonstrates maintaining).
10. Regarding claim 10:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 8. Kruit further discloses that wherein the device is configured to control the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential to set the landing energy of the beams on the sample ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials. [0162] teaches the retarding field lens may decelerate the primary charged particle beamlets to a defined (set) landing energy), and
optionally to control the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. [0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials) to
maintain focus of the beams on the sample at different landing energies ([0162] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, maybe configured for focusing the charged particle beamlets onto the specimen under different landing energies).
Kruit does not specifically disclose varying the landing energy of the beams on the sample. However, Kruit discloses that the potentials of the electrodes can be controlled individually (as taught in [0157]), and that a range of landing energies can be achieved (as taught in [0162]).
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 Kruit to include varying a landing energy of the beams on the sample. Such modification would allow gaining more information from various landing energies for enhanced image data.
11. Regarding claim 11:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 8. Kruit further discloses a control lens ([0044] teaches the aperture lens array or multi-aperture lens plate, fig. 1 element 122. The aperture lens array, fig. 1 element 122, which corresponds to the control lens array, may operate as electrodes to influence the beamlets), wherein the objective lens array ([0047] teaches the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, includes a plurality of electrodes having an array of holes) is down-beam of the control lens array (as shown in fig. 1, the objective lens unit, fig. 1 element 170, is down-beam of the aperture lens array, fig. 1 element 122).
12. Regarding claim 15:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit further discloses that wherein the device further comprises a detector ([0137] teaches that the charged particle beam device can include a detection unit with detectors).
13. Regarding claim 17:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit further discloses that wherein the objective lens array provides a most down beam surface of the device (fig. 2 shows that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, containing the objective lens array, is the most down beam surface of the device).
14. Regarding claim 18:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit further discloses that wherein the upper electrode, up-beam electrode, and the down-beam electrode are proximate each other, and are sequential electrodes in the device ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, are in sequential order).
15. Regarding claim 20:
Kruit discloses a method of projecting an array of charged particle beams towards a sample ([0009] teaches a method of projecting multiple charged beamlets towards a specimen) in a charged particle optical device ([0008] teaches a charged particle beam device for irradiating or inspecting the specimen with an array of primary beamlets), the device comprising: a control lens array configured to control a parameter of the array of beams ([0044] teaches the aperture lens array or multi-aperture lens plate, fig. 1 element 122. The aperture lens array, fig. 1 element 122, which corresponds to the control lens array, may operate as electrodes to influence the beamlets); and an
objective lens array configured to project the array of beams onto the sample ([0047] teaches the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, includes a plurality of electrodes having an array of holes. [0048] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, focuses the beamlets, particularly individually, on the specimen, fig. 2 element 80), the objective lens being down-beam of the control lens (as shown in fig. 1, the objective lens unit, fig. 1 element 170, is down-beam of the aperture lens array, fig. 1 element 122) and comprising
an upper electrode and a lower electrode arrangement comprising an up-beam electrode and a down-beam electrode, the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode are sequential electrodes in the device ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, as shown are in sequential order),
the method comprising: providing the array of beams; applying an upper potential to the upper electrode, an up-beam potential to the up-beam electrode and a down-beam potential to the down-beam electrode ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Each of the electrodes is biased to a potential); and controlling the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Neighboring electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, can be biased to different potentials) so as to set a landing energy of the beams on the sample ([0162] teaches the retarding field lens may decelerate the primary charged particle beamlets to a defined (set) landing energy) and to maintain focus of the beams on the sample at different landing energies ([0162] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, maybe configured for focusing the charged particle beamlets onto the specimen under different landing energies).
Kruit does not specifically disclose varying a landing energy of the beams on the sample. However, Kruit discloses that the potentials of the electrodes can be controlled individually (as taught in [0157]), and that a range of landing energies can be achieved (as taught in [0162]).
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 Kruit to include varying a landing energy of the beams on the sample. Such modification would allow gaining more information from various landing energies for enhanced image data.
16. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Knippelmeyer (US 20170287674 A1).
17. Regarding claim 2:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit fails to disclose that wherein a difference between the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential is less than a difference between the up-beam potential and the upper potential.
Knippelmeyer does not specifically disclose that wherein a difference between the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential is less than a difference between the up-beam potential and the upper potential. However, Knippelmeyer discloses that voltage supplied to an electrode can be changed to adjust the landing energy (as taught in [0220])
Optimizing potential applied to electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Knippelmeyer teaches changing voltage applied to an electrode to adjust the landing energy of the electron beam. As such, Knippelmeyer identifies voltage applied to an electrode as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting the landing energy. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize potentials applied to a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein a difference between the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential is less than a difference between the up-beam potential and the upper potential since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
18. Claims 3-5, 12-14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Bhattacharjee (US 20160093463 A1).
19. Regarding claim 3:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit fails to disclose that wherein a distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode is smaller than a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that wherein a distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode is smaller than a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as inter-electrode separation were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing distances between electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that inter-electrode separation can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies inter-electrode separation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein a distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode is smaller than a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
20. Regarding claim 4:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 3. Kruit fails to disclose that wherein the distance between the up-beam electrode and the upper electrode is approximately 2 to 6 times bigger than the distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that wherein the distance between the up-beam electrode and the upper electrode is approximately 2 to 6 times bigger than the distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as inter-electrode separation were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing distances between electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that inter-electrode separation can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies inter-electrode separation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein the distance between the up-beam electrode and the upper electrode is approximately 2 to 6 times bigger than the distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
21. Regarding claim 5:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit further discloses that wherein the charged particle beams are projected along beam paths ([0126] teaches that the beam path of the primary beamlets before and after the beam separation unit is substantially parallel. For any particle beam to be projected, it inherently follows along a beam path).
Kruit fails to disclose that a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement and a dimension of the lower electrode arrangement along the beam paths are substantially the same.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement and a dimension of the lower electrode arrangement along the beam paths are substantially the same. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as inter-electrode separation were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing distances between electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that inter-electrode separation can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies inter-electrode separation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement and a dimension of the lower electrode arrangement along the beam paths are substantially the same since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
22. Regarding claim 12:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit fails to disclose that wherein a thickness of the up-beam electrode is less than a thickness of the upper electrode and/or a thickness of the down-beam electrode is less than a thickness of the upper electrode.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that wherein a thickness of the up-beam electrode is less than a thickness of the upper electrode and/or a thickness of the down-beam electrode is less than a thickness of the upper electrode. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as thickness were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing thickness of electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that thickness of electrodes can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies thickness of electrodes as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the thickness of a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein a thickness of the up-beam electrode is less than a thickness of the upper electrode and/or a thickness of the down-beam electrode is less than a thickness of the upper electrode since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
23. Regarding claim 13:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1.Kruit fails to disclose that wherein the thickness of the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode are substantially the same.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that wherein the thickness of the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode are substantially the same. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as thickness were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing thickness of electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that thickness of electrodes can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies thickness of electrodes as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the thickness of a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein the thickness of the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode are substantially the same since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
24. Regarding claim 14:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 1. Kruit fails to disclose that wherein a thickness of the lower electrode arrangement is substantially the same as a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that wherein a thickness of the lower electrode arrangement is substantially the same as a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as thickness and inter-electrode separation were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing thickness of electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that thickness of electrodes can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies thickness of electrodes as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the thickness of a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein a thickness of the lower electrode arrangement is substantially the same as a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
27. Regarding claim 19:
Kruit discloses a charged particle optical device for a charged particle system, the device being configured to project an array of charged particle beams towards a sample ([0008] teaches a charged particle beam device for irradiating or inspecting the specimen with an array of primary beamlets), the device comprising: an objective lens array configured to project the array of beams onto the sample ([0047] teaches the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, includes a plurality of electrodes having an array of holes. [0048] teaches that the objective lens unit, fig. 2 element 170, focuses the beamlets, particularly individually, on the specimen, fig. 2 element 80), the objective lens being proximate to the sample (fig. 2 teaches that the objective lens unit, containing the objective lens, is proximate to the specimen, fig. 2 element 80) and comprising:
an upper electrode; and a lower electrode arrangement comprising an up-beam electrode and a down-beam electrode ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A element 172, as shown are in sequential order), the device being configured to apply an upper potential to the upper electrode, an up-beam potential to the up-beam electrode and a down-beam potential to the down-beam electrode ([0157] teaches that the electrode, fig. 20A element 172, can be connected to a power supply or a controller. Each of the electrodes is biased to a potential).
Kruit fails to disclose that wherein a distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode is smaller than a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement.
Bhattacharjee does not specifically disclose that wherein a distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode is smaller than a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement. However, Bhattacharjee discloses that various electrode design parameters such as inter-electrode separation were optimized to obtain a focused beam (as taught in [0051]).
Optimizing distances between electrodes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Bhattacharjee teaches that inter-electrode separation can be optimized to obtain a focused beam. As such, Bhattacharjee identifies inter-electrode separation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a focused beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, a second electrode, fig. 20A element 172, and a third electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that wherein a distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode is smaller than a distance between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
25. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of Liu, W. Electron Specimen Interaction in Low Voltage Electron Beam Lithography, Monthly Progress Reports, July 1995–October 1995 (hereinafter Liu).
26. Regarding claim 16:
Kruit discloses the device of claim 15. Kruit further discloses that the detector is facing the sample (fig. 12 teaches that the detection unit, fig. 12 element 150, is facing the specimen, fig. 12 element 80).
Kruit fails to disclose that wherein the detector is positioned between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement.
However, Liu discloses that wherein the detector is positioned between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement (as shown in fig. 4, the detector is placed between the retarding aperture and the Einzel lens. The retarding aperture corresponds to the lower electrode, and the Einzel lens above the detector correspond to the upper electrode)
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 Kruit in view of Liu to include that wherein the detector is positioned between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement. One of ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for a compact secondary electron detector to be incorporated inside the micro-column for microscopy applications (as taught in Liu pg. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881