DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 08 May 2026, with respect to the claims and the specification have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings and the specification, and the rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, that Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose the functional and structural distinction between the two electric fields as claimed; and that the trajectory of secondary electrons is actively modified by a guiding electric field generated by the second objective lens, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In particular, the claims do not require that the two electric fields are “generated in two different regions” – the only positional requirements of the two electric fields are that (i) the intake electric field is generated in a space between the first objective lens and the sample, and (ii) the guiding electric field is generated in a space between the second objective lens and the sample (claims 1, 10).
Ogawa (2012) discloses that an asymmetric electric field is generated by the first objective lens (paragraph 0064, “the electric field formed by the objective lens for electron beam”) when the electron beam column is tilted with respect to the sample (paragraph 0064, “when the electron beam column 41 is arranged in an inclined manner with respect to the sample 13, an electric field asymmetric…is formed”), wherein the asymmetric electric field deflects the trajectory of the secondary electrons away from the secondary electron detector (paragraph 0064, “the trajectory of the secondary electrons is deflected due to the influence from the asymmetric electric field”). Ogawa (2012) further discloses that the asymmetry of the electric field generated by the first objective lens is reduced by the second objective lens (paragraph 0065, “by using the second objective lens electrode 9, it is possible to reduce the electric field asymmetric”) and its associated electric field (paragraph 0049), which improves the detection efficiency of the secondary electrons at the secondary electron detector 34. Therefore, the trajectory of the electrons is different due to the presence of the second objective lens than the trajectory would be without the second objective lens, i.e., the second objective lens (and its associated electric field 72 – see paragraph 0049) modifies the trajectory of the secondary electrons.
Furthermore, an electric field exerts a force on charged particles by definition. Helicon (Ed.) (The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide, “electric field”), hereinafter Helicon, defines “electric field” as “a region in which a particle possessing electric charge experiences a force owing to the presence of another electric charge.” Helicon further provides an example of an electric field formed between two parallel plates, wherein “[a]n electron beam moving through these plates will be deflected.” Therefore, the presence of an electric field inherently modifies the trajectory of charged particles such as secondary electrons.
Still further, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Ogawa (2012) teaches the structural limitations of the charged particle beam apparatus (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 below). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-22, that Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a fails to disclose that the trajectory of secondary electrons is actively modified by a guiding electric field generated by the second objective lens to guide the secondary electrons to the second upper detector, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the case at hand, Ogawa (2012) discloses every limitation of claim 10, except for the presence of a second detector (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below). Sed’a discloses the use of electric fields to modify the trajectory of electrons (“lenses and deflection unit may use electric fields to manipulate the electron beam”, paragraph 0038), and two detectors for detecting secondary electrons (FIG. 1, first detector 140; and FIG. 2, second detector 141), wherein an electric field influences the trajectory of the secondary electrons towards the “in-column” detector 141 (paragraph 0057, “low energy SE’s are parallelized along the electron beam axis due to the immersion field”). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the system of Ogawa (2012) to include a second detector, based on the teachings of Sed’a.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0001086 A1), hereinafter Ogawa (2012).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa (2012) discloses a charged particle beam apparatus comprising:
a stage (FIG. 4, element 12) on which a sample (FIG. 4, element 13) is placed;
a first charged particle beam unit (FIG. 4, element 41) comprising a charged particle source (FIG. 4, element 42), a detector (FIG. 4, element 34), and a first objective lens (FIG. 4, element 43) configured to irradiate a sample with a charged particle beam of charged particles generated by the charged particle source and induce secondary electrons generated from the sample to the detector (paragraphs 0064-0065); and
a second charged particle beam unit (FIG. 4, element 10) comprising a second objective lens (FIG. 4, elements 6, 7, 8),
wherein the first objective lens is configured to generate an intake electric field in a space between the first objective lens and the sample (paragraph 0064, lines 4-6), the intake electric field pulling the secondary electrons into the first objective lens (paragraph 0064, lines 4-10: the electric field generated by the first objective lens pulls the secondary electrons to the secondary electron detector 34; FIG. 4 shows that objective lens 43 is between the sample 13 and detector 34, i.e., secondary electrons drawn from the sample to detector 34 are pulled into the first objective lens 43), and
wherein the second objective lens is configured to generate a guiding electric field in a space between the second objective lens and the sample (paragraph 0065, lines 1-4), the guiding electric field modifying a trajectory of the secondary electrons such that the secondary electrons are guided to the detector (paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses that the guiding electric field is generated when the sample is tilted with respect to the first charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0064, line 10 through paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses that the first charged particle beam unit comprises a scanning electron microscope (paragraph 0058), and
the second charged particle beam unit comprises one of a spectrometer and a focused ion beam system (paragraph 0002).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sato (U.S. Patent No. 5,670,782 A), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses a control processing part (FIG. 1, element 21) configured to control the stage and the second charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0041).
Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit, wherein the control processing part controls the strength of the guiding electric field depending on a tilt angle of the sample with respect to the first charged particle beam unit.
However, Sato discloses a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit (column 2, lines 50-55),
wherein the control processing part controls the strength of the guiding electric field depending on a tilt angle of the sample with respect to the first charged particle beam unit (column 2, lines 30-40).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) to include a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit, wherein the control processing part controls the strength of the guiding electric field depending on a tilt angle of the sample with respect to the first charged particle beam unit, based on the teachings of Sato that this minimizes the effects of astigmatism and aberrations (Sato, column 2, lines 25-40).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sed’a et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0361165 A1), hereinafter Sed’a.
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose that the intake electric field is generated by providing the sample with potential lower than potential applied to the first objective lens, and the guiding electric field is generated by providing the second objective lens with potential lower than the potential of the sample.
However, Sed’a discloses that the intake electric field is generated by providing the sample with potential (paragraph 0063, 234 V) lower than potential applied to the first objective lens (paragraph 0065, 8 kV applied to electrode 202 of first objective lens 116), and
the guiding electric field is generated by providing the second objective lens with potential (paragraph 0056, ground) lower than the potential of the sample (paragraph 0063, 234 V).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) to include that the intake electric field is generated by providing the sample with potential lower than potential applied to the first objective lens, and the guiding electric field is generated by providing the second objective lens with potential lower than the potential of the sample, based on the teachings of Sed’a that this arrangement optimizes electric symmetry and minimizes transverse chromatic aberration (Sed’a, paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 4 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 4.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses that the second objective lens comprises a second upper electrode (FIG. 4, element 6) and a second lower electrode (FIG. 4, element 8).
In addition, Sed’a discloses that the guiding electric field is generated by providing one or more of the second upper electrode (FIG. 2, element 208) and the second lower electrode (FIG. 2, element 212) with potential (paragraph 0056, ground) lower than the potential of the sample (paragraph 0063, 234 V).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a to include that the guiding electric field is generated by providing one or more of the second upper electrode and the second lower electrode with potential lower than the potential of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Sed’a that this arrangement optimizes electric symmetry and minimizes transverse chromatic aberration (Sed’a, abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose that the stage, the first objective lens, and the second objective lens are located in a single vacuum chamber.
However, Sed’a discloses that the stage (FIG. 1, element 105), the first objective lens (FIG. 1, element 116), and the second objective lens (FIG. 1, element 126) are located in a single vacuum chamber (FIG. 1, element 103).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) to include that the stage, the first objective lens, and the second objective lens are located in a single vacuum chamber, based on the teachings of Sed’a that locating components within a single vacuum chamber advantageously reduces the cost and complexity of the apparatus by enabling operation with only a single pump controlled to achieve a singular evacuated pressure (Sed’a, paragraphs 0037, 0046, 0051).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Erel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0330919 A1), hereinafter Erel.
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses a control processing part (FIG. 1, element 21) configured to control the second charged particle beam unit and to process detected signals (paragraph 0041); and
a user terminal configured to receive commands from a user (paragraph 0041, input unit 23).
Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose a drive power source configured to drive the first charged particle beam unit and the second charged particle beam unit; and a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit.
However, Erel discloses a drive power source configured to drive the first charged particle beam unit and the second charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0027, lines 1-8); and
a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0027, lines 1-8).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) to include a drive power source configured to drive the first charged particle beam unit and the second charged particle beam unit; and a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit, based on the teachings of Erel that a shared drive power source and a shared control processing part for the first and second charged particle beam units reduces the costs and complexity of the system (Erel, paragraph 0027).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ogawa et al. (JP Patent No. 2005135611 A), hereinafter Ogawa (2005) (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa (2012) as applied to claim 1 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1.
Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose that the guiding electric field is controlled according to the intensity of a signal detected by the detector.
However, Ogawa (2005) discloses that the guiding electric field is controlled according to the intensity of a signal detected by the detector (page 5, paragraph 1).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) to include that the guiding electric field is controlled according to the intensity of a signal detected by the detector, based on the teachings of Ogawa (2005) that this ensures secondary particles reach their respective detectors in order to maintain an accurate detection signal (Ogawa (2005), page 4, last paragraph to page 5, first paragraph).
Claims 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a.
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa (2012) discloses a charged particle beam apparatus comprising:
a stage (FIG. 4, element 12) on which a sample (FIG. 4, element 13) is placed;
a first charged particle beam unit comprising a charged particle source (FIG. 4, element 41) comprising a charged particle source (FIG. 4, element 42), a first upper detector (FIG. 4, element 34), and a first objective lens (FIG. 4, element 43) configured to provide a sample with a charged particle beam of charged particles generated by the charged particle source and induce secondary electrons generated from the sample to the first upper detector (paragraphs 0064-0065); and
a second charged particle beam unit (FIG. 4, element 10) comprising a second objective lens (FIG. 4, elements 6, 7, 8),
wherein the first objective lens is configured to generate an intake electric field in a space between the first objective lens and the sample (paragraph 0064, lines 4-6), the intake electric field pulling the secondary electrons into the first objective lens (paragraph 0064, lines 4-10: the electric field generated by the first objective lens pulls the secondary electrons to the secondary electron detector 34; FIG. 4 shows that objective lens 43 is between the sample 13 and detector 34, i.e., secondary electrons drawn from the sample to detector 34 are pulled into the first objective lens 43), and
wherein the second objective lens is configured to generate a guiding electric field in a space between the second objective lens and the sample (paragraph 0065, lines 1-4), the guiding electric field modifying a trajectory of the secondary electrons such that the secondary electrons are guided to a detector (paragraph 0065).
Ogawa (2012) fails to disclose a second upper detector, wherein the guiding electric field guides the secondary electrons to the second upper detector.
However, Sed’a discloses a second upper detector, wherein the guiding electric field guides the secondary electrons to the second upper detector (paragraph 0057).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) to include a second upper detector, wherein the guiding electric field guides the secondary electrons to the second upper detector, based on the teachings of Sed’a that this advantageously enables separate detection of secondary electrons with different energy levels (Sed’a, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses that the guiding electric field is generated when the sample is tilted with respect to the first charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0064, line 10 through paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Sed’a discloses that the intake electric field is generated by providing the sample with potential (paragraph 0063, 234 V) lower than potential applied to the first objective lens (paragraph 0065, 8 kV applied to electrode 202 of first objective lens 116), and
the guiding electric field is generated by providing the second objective lens with a potential (paragraph 0056).
Optimizing voltages creating an electric field 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, Sed’a teaches that “objective lens 126 [is] formed by electrodes 208, 210 and 212…electrode 210 typically at a voltage decelerating the ion beam…it is known to use an accelerating voltage when using low-energy ions” (Sed’a, paragraph 0056). As such, Sed’a identifies electrode voltages as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., accelerating or decelerating charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting electrode voltages and identifies said voltages as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the potential of the second objective lens with respect to the sample to meet the claimed potential since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses that the second objective lens comprises a second upper electrode (FIG. 4, element 6) and a second lower electrode (FIG. 4, element 8).
In addition, Sed’a discloses that the guiding electric field is generated by providing one or more of the second upper electrode (FIG. 2, element 208) and the second lower electrode (FIG. 2, element 212) with potential (paragraph 0056).
Optimizing voltages creating an electric field 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, Sed’a teaches that “objective lens 126 [is] formed by electrodes 208, 210 and 212…electrode 210 typically at a voltage decelerating the ion beam…it is known to use an accelerating voltage when using low-energy ions” (Sed’a, paragraph 0056). As such, Sed’a identifies electrode voltages as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., accelerating or decelerating charged particles. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting electrode voltages and identifies said voltages as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the potential of the second objective lens with respect to the sample to meet the claimed potential since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Sed’a discloses that the stage (FIG. 1, element 105), the first objective lens (FIG. 1, element 116), and the second objective lens (FIG. 1, element 126) are located in a single vacuum chamber (FIG. 1, element 103).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a to include that the stage, the first objective lens, and the second objective lens are located in a single vacuum chamber, based on the additional teachings of Sed’a that locating components within a single vacuum chamber advantageously reduces the cost and complexity of the apparatus by enabling operation with only a single pump controlled to achieve a singular evacuated pressure (Sed’a, paragraphs 0037, 0046, 0051).
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses that the first charged particle beam unit comprises a scanning electron microscope (paragraph 0058), and
the second charged particle beam unit comprises one of a spectrometer and a focused ion beam system (paragraph 0002).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sato.
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses a control processing part (FIG. 1, element 21) configured to control the stage and the second charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0041).
Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a fails to disclose a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit, wherein the control processing part controls the strength of the guiding electric field depending on a tilt angle of the sample with respect to the first charged particle beam unit.
However, Sato discloses a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit (column 2, lines 50-55),
wherein the control processing part controls the strength of the guiding electric field depending on a tilt angle of the sample with respect to the first charged particle beam unit (column 2, lines 30-40).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a to include a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit, wherein the control processing part controls the strength of the guiding electric field depending on a tilt angle of the sample with respect to the first charged particle beam unit, based on the teachings of Sato that this minimizes the effects of astigmatism and aberrations (Sato, column 2, lines 25-40).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Erel.
Regarding claim 17, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
In addition, Ogawa (2012) discloses a control processing part (FIG. 1, element 21) configured to control the second charged particle beam unit and to process detected signals (paragraph 0041); and
a user terminal configured to receive commands from a user (paragraph 0041, input unit 23).
Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a fails to disclose a drive power source configured to drive the first charged particle beam unit and the second charged particle beam unit; and a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit.
However, Erel discloses a drive power source configured to drive the first charged particle beam unit and the second charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0027, lines 1-8); and
a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit (paragraph 0027, lines 1-8).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a to include a drive power source configured to drive the first charged particle beam unit and the second charged particle beam unit; and a control processing part configured to control the first charged particle beam unit, based on the teachings of Erel that a shared drive power source and a shared control processing part for the first and second charged particle beam units reduces the costs and complexity of the system (Erel, paragraph 0027).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ogawa (2005).
Regarding claim 18, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a fails to disclose that the guiding electric field is controlled according to the intensity of a signal detected by one or more of the first upper detector and the second upper detector.
However, Ogawa (2005) discloses that the guiding electric field is controlled according to the intensity of a signal detected by one or more of the first upper detector and the second upper detector (page 5, paragraph 1, first and second upper detectors 1 and 2).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a to include that the guiding electric field is controlled according to the intensity of a signal detected by one or more of the first upper detector and the second upper detector, based on the teachings of Ogawa (2005) that this ensures secondary particles reach their respective detectors in order to maintain an accurate detection signal (Ogawa (2005), page 4, last paragraph to page 5, first paragraph).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0213371 A1), hereinafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 19, Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a as applied to claim 10 discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 10.
Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a fails to disclose that an image of the sample is formed by summing data regarding the secondary electrons detected by the first upper detector and data regarding the secondary electrons detected by the second upper detector.
However, Yamaguchi discloses that an image of the sample is formed by summing data regarding the secondary electrons detected by the first upper detector and data regarding the secondary electrons detected by the second upper detector (paragraphs 0038-0039).
Therefore, 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 Ogawa (2012) in view of Sed’a to include that an image of the sample is formed by summing data regarding the secondary electrons detected by the first upper detector and data regarding the secondary electrons detected by the second upper detector, based on the teachings of Yamaguchi that this addition improves the contrast in the final image (Yamaguchi, paragraph 0040).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights