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 .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 30 July 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 30 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found references. Knipplemeyer is not relied upon for any teachings, and the applicant’s argument regarding Knipplemeyer is rendered moot.
4. Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
5. Applicant argues on pg. 12-13 that Kruit and Bhattacharjee fail to disclose 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. The labeled drawing of Fig. 20A in the Office Action dated June 4, 2026, does not specifically point out the distance relationship between the electrodes that would clearly teach the claim limitation. However, upon further consideration, as taught by Kruit, deflection electrode 178 is interpreted as the up-beam electrode, and the fourth electrode 172 is interpreted as the down-beam electrode (as shown in the newly labeled Fig. 20A). Therefore, the distance relationship is anticipated by Kruit, as shown in more detail in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 1, 3-19 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.
8. Regarding claims 1 and 19:
Claims 1 and 19 recite “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.”
The above limitations are functional limitations. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. Id at 213. For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The functional limitation at issue describes the claimed device as a whole. However, no voltage source, power supply, controller, processor, or other structure capable of performing the recited applying and controlling functions is positively recited in the claims, and the claims do not otherwise indicate how or by what the recited functions are performed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
10. Claims 3-18 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruit (US 20220392735).
13. Regarding claim 19:
Kruit teaches 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A elements 172 and 178, 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes), 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 ([0156] teaches that insulator plates 174 are provided between two electrodes of the three or more electrodes. See labeled fig. 20A, the distance defined by one insulator plate 174 between deflection electrode 178 and the fourth electrode 172 is less than the distance defined by four insulator plates 174 between the upper electrode and deflection electrode 178).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of McCord (US 7446320).
17. Regarding claim 1:
Kruit teaches 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A elements 172 and 178, as shown are in sequential order),
PNG
media_image1.png
461
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes), 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes) to vary and/or 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 note that 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 such that 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, and is configured to control the difference between the up-beam potential and the upper potential and the difference between the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential
McCord teaches focusing an incident electron beam 102 onto the surface of a substrate 108 with a first voltage, Vtop, supplied by a first voltage controller or supply 110 to the top electrode 104 (col 2 lines 13-24). McCord then teaches an upper bottom electrode 206 supplied with an upper voltage, Vupper, by a voltage controller 212, and a lower bottom electrode 207 supplied with a lower voltage, Vlower, by voltage controller 213 (col 2 lines 64-67, col 3 lines 1-7). McCord further teaches that by electronically varying the ratio of the voltages on the two bottom electrodes (206 and 207), the electron-optical effect of the electrostatic immersion lens may be optimized to suit a variety of operating conditions (without need for mechanical changes to the lens). The configuration of fig. 2 allows an electron beam column to operate across a wider range of conditions (landing energies and fields of view) (col 3 lines 8-25). Since McCord teaches applying separate voltages Vtop, Vupper, and Vlower to three distinct electrodes, the differences between the electrodes 104, 206, and 207 are controlled.
PNG
media_image2.png
599
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, McCord teaches controlling voltage applied to three electrodes (top electrode 104, upper bottom electrode 206, and lower bottom electrode 207) to adjust the landing energy of the electron beam. As such, McCord identifies voltage applied to an electrode as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., achieving a variety of operating conditions and 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet that 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 such that 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, and is configured to control the difference between the up-beam potential and the upper potential and the difference between the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
18. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches 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 ([0156] teaches that insulator plates 174 are provided between two electrodes of the three or more electrodes. See labeled fig. 20A, the distance defined by one insulator plate 174 between deflection electrode 178 and the fourth electrode 172 is less than the distance defined by four insulator plates 174 between the upper electrode and deflection electrode 178).
19. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 3. Kruit further teaches that wherein the distance between the up-beam electrode and the upper electrode is approximately 2 to 6 times larger than the distance between the up-beam electrode and the down-beam electrode ([0156] teaches that insulator plates 174 are provided between two electrodes of the three or more electrodes. See labeled fig. 20A, the distance defined by one insulator plate 174 between deflection electrode 178 and the fourth electrode 172 is less than the distance defined by four insulator plates 174 between the upper electrode and deflection electrode 178).
20. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A elements 172 and 178, as shown 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes) 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).
21. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches that wherein the potential on the up-beam electrode ([0160] teaches a first electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the upper electrode, a deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes) 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).
22. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 6. Kruit further teaches 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes) 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).
23. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 6. Kruit further teaches 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).
24. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 8. Kruit further teaches that wherein the device is configured to control the up-beam potential and the down-beam potential to vary and/or 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes. [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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth 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, may be configured for focusing the charged particle beamlets onto the specimen under different landing energies).
25. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 8. Kruit further teaches 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).
26. Regarding claim 15:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches that wherein the device further comprises a detector ([0137] teaches that the charged particle beam device can include a detection unit with detectors).
27. Regarding claim 17:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches 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).
28. Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A elements 172 and 178, as shown are in sequential order).
29. Regarding claim 20:
Kruit teaches 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, corresponding to the up-beam electrode, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, corresponding to the down-beam electrode. The electrodes, fig. 20A elements 172 and 178, 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes); and controlling the upper potential, 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. [0159] teaches that the electrode having the individual deflection electrodes can be connected to a power supply 179 allowing for individual biasing of the deflection electrodes) so as to vary and/or 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 note controlling the upper potential, up-beam potential and the down-beam potential such that 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.
McCord teaches focusing an incident electron beam 102 onto the surface of a substrate 108 with a first voltage, Vtop, supplied by a first voltage controller or supply 110 to the top electrode 104 (col 2 lines 13-24). McCord then teaches an upper bottom electrode 206 supplied with an upper voltage, Vupper, by a voltage controller 212, and a lower bottom electrode 207 supplied with a lower voltage, Vlower, by voltage controller 213 (col 2 lines 64-67, col 3 lines 1-7). McCord further teaches that by electronically varying the ratio of the voltages on the two bottom electrodes (206 and 207), the electron-optical effect of the electrostatic immersion lens may be optimized to suit a variety of operating conditions (without need for mechanical changes to the lens). The configuration of fig. 2 allows an electron beam column to operate across a wider range of conditions (landing energies and fields of view) (col 3 lines 8-25). Since McCord teaches applying separate voltages Vtop, Vupper, and Vlower to three distinct electrodes, the differences between the electrodes 104, 206, and 207 are controlled.
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, McCord teaches controlling voltage applied to three electrodes (top electrode 104, upper bottom electrode 206, and lower bottom electrode 207) to adjust the landing energy of the electron beam. As such, McCord identifies voltage applied to an electrode as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., achieving a variety of operating conditions and 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, and a fourth electrode, fig. 20A element 172, in Kruit to meet controlling the upper potential, up-beam potential and the down-beam potential such that 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.
30. Claims 5, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of McCord, further in view of Bhattacharjee (US 20160093463 A1).
31. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit further teaches 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 in view of McCord does not specifically note 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 teaches 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 deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, and a fourth 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.
32. Regarding claim 12:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit in view of McCord does not specifically note 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 teaches 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, deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, and a fourth 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.
33. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit in view of McCord does not specifically note 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 teaches 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, deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, and a fourth 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.
34. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 1. Kruit in view of McCord does not specifically note 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 teaches 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, deflection electrode, fig. 20A element 178, and a fourth 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.
35. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kruit in view of McCord, further in view of Liu, W. Electron Specimen Interaction in Low Voltage Electron Beam Lithography, Monthly Progress Reports, July 1995–October 1995 (hereinafter Liu). [Note: reference was supplied in previous correspondence dated 02/02/2026].
36. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the device of claim 15. Kruit further teaches 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 in view of McCord fails to disclose that wherein the detector is positioned between the upper electrode and the lower electrode arrangement.
However, Liu teaches 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 McCord, further 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
Prosecution Insights