Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/519,865

OBJECTIVE LENS AND CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM APPARATUS INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 27, 2023
Examiner
MCCORMACK, JASON L
Art Unit
2881
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Korea Research Institute Of Standards And Science
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
856 granted / 1016 resolved
+16.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1059
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1016 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 9-14 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. Claim 9 recites that “the charged particle beam is provided to the sample through the through-hole in response to a voltage applied”. However, it is unclear to what element or elements the voltage is applied (whether the voltage is applied to all of the electrodes, the sample, some subset of the electrodes, or to some unclaimed element). Claims 10-14 inherit the limitations of claim 9. 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. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Essers U.S. Patent No. 6,590,210. Regarding claim 1, Essers discloses an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample (as illustrated in figure 1), the objective lens comprising: a first electrode 18 exposed to face a sample 11; a second electrode 55 configured to focus a charged particle beam to the sample 11 (“The primary electron beam is focused with the help of the electrostatic lens formed by electrodes 44, 50 and 55 and the magnetic field generated by the magnetic lens 62 and/or the single-pole magnetic lens 64” [col. 5; lines 53-56]); a third electrode 50 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1); and a fourth electrode 44 located in the body of the third electrode, wherein each of the first electrode 18, the second electrode 55, the third electrode 50, and the fourth electrode 44 has a through-hole (since figure 1 illustrates that optical axis 79 passes through the central apertures of each of electrodes 18, 55, 50, and 44), and the charged particle beam is provided to the sample 11 through the through- hole in response to a voltage applied (“The primary electron beam is focused with the help of the electrostatic lens formed by electrodes 44, 50 and 55 and the magnetic field generated by the magnetic lens 62 and/or the single-pole magnetic lens 64” [col. 5; lines 53-56]). Regarding claim 4, Essers discloses that the third electrode 50 further comprises a flange (the body of the lens, as illustrated in figure 1) extending from the body of the third electrode, the first electrode 18 further comprises a first electrode insulator 60 connected to the flange (since insulator 60 is part of the overall body of the lens), and the second electrode further comprises a second electrode insulator connected to the flange (since the second electrode 55 is insulated by an air gap illustrated in figure 1). Regarding claim 5, Essers discloses that the second electrode 55 is provided with a voltage corresponding to one of a distance between the first electrode and the sample and the energy of the charged particle beam (“The secondary electrons are further accelerated by the electric field between the electrodes 44 and 55 and fly with a high kinetic energy to the detector 74” [col. 10; lines 39-41]). Regarding claim 6, Essers discloses that a voltage difference of 50 V or less is formed between the third electrode 50 and the fourth electrode 44 (“the electrodes 18, 25, 44 (or 39 and 43 in FIGS. 3 and 5), 50 and 55 are all at the same potential” [col. 22; lines 53-56]). Regarding claim 7, Essers discloses that a voltage provided to the second electrode 55 is independent of a voltage provided to the third electrode 50 (“The electrode 55 is at a highly positive potential with respect to electrodes 44 and 50. The potential difference is preferably 1 to 15 kV and may be 7 keV, for example” [col. 5; lines 62-65]). Regarding claim 8, Essers discloses that the objective lens comprises an objective lens of a scanning electron microscope ([Abstract]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 2, Essers U.S. Patent No. 6,590,210 discloses an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample, the objective lens comprising: a first electrode 18 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), the first electrode 18 being exposed to face a sample 11; a second electrode 50 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), exposed in the first electrode (second electrode 50 is confined, radially, within the enclosure of first electrode 18), and configured to focus a charged particle beam to the sample (“The primary electron beam is focused with the help of the electrostatic lens formed by electrodes 44, 50 and 55 and the magnetic field generated by the magnetic lens 62 and/or the single-pole magnetic lens 64” [col. 5; lines 53-56]); a third electrode 55 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), the third electrode 55 being located in the second electrode (third electrode 55 is confined, radially, within the enclosure of second electrode 50). However, there is no explicit disclosure of a fourth electrode located in the body of the third electrode, as claimed. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample, the objective lens comprising: a fourth electrode located in the body of a third electrode, comprising a conical tip, that is located in a second electrode, comprising a conical tip, that is located in a first electrode, comprising a conical tip, that is exposed to face the sample. Regarding claim 3, Essers U.S. Patent No. 6,590,210 discloses an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample, the objective lens comprising: a first electrode 18 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), the first electrode 18 being exposed to face a sample 11; a second electrode 50 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), exposed in the first electrode (second electrode 50 is confined, radially, within the enclosure of first electrode 18), and configured to focus a charged particle beam to the sample (“The primary electron beam is focused with the help of the electrostatic lens formed by electrodes 44, 50 and 55 and the magnetic field generated by the magnetic lens 62 and/or the single-pole magnetic lens 64” [col. 5; lines 53-56]); a third electrode 55 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), the third electrode 55 being located in the second electrode (third electrode 55 is confined, radially, within the enclosure of second electrode 50). Essers discloses that the fourth electrode 44 is mounted with a detector 91 configured to detect secondary electrons and backscattered electrons formed by providing the charged particle beam to the sample (“the secondary electrons 85 (and backscatter electrons with low energy losses) which fly along the optical axis through the orifice 77 of the lower detector, deflected from the optical axis by magnetic fields 80 and 83 and guided to the upper detector 91” [col. 21; lines 50-54]). However, there is no explicit disclosure that the fourth electrode is disposed at a position having highest detection efficiency of the secondary electrons and the backscattered electrons irrespective of shapes of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample, the objective lens comprising: first, second, third, and fourth electrodes, wherein the fourth electrode is disposed at a position having highest detection efficiency of secondary electrons and backscattered electrons by a detector irrespective of shapes of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode. Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding independent claim 9; Essers U.S. Patent No. 6,590,210 discloses an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample, the objective lens comprising: a first electrode 18 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), the first electrode 18 being exposed to face a sample 11; a second electrode 50 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), exposed in the first electrode (second electrode 50 is confined, radially, within the enclosure of first electrode 18), and configured to focus a charged particle beam to the sample (“The primary electron beam is focused with the help of the electrostatic lens formed by electrodes 44, 50 and 55 and the magnetic field generated by the magnetic lens 62 and/or the single-pole magnetic lens 64” [col. 5; lines 53-56]); a third electrode 55 comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1), the third electrode 55 being located in the second electrode (third electrode 55 is confined, radially, within the enclosure of second electrode 50). However, there is no explicit disclosure of a fourth electrode located in the body of the third electrode, as claimed. Essers illustrates a different configuration in figure 3 including the conical electrodes 39 and 43. However, since Essers does not explicitly identify that either of these electrodes performs focusing of the primary electron beam on the sample (claim 9 requires that the second electrode is “exposed in the first electrode” and focuses “a charged particle beam to the sample”). Additionally, although it is implied that this embodiment may be combined with other embodiments, it does not explicitly described the interaction between four electrodes, in the manner claimed. Petrov U.S. PGPUB No. 2004/0211913 discloses an objective lens 200 for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample S, the objective lens comprising: a first electrode 16C comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1C), the first electrode 16C being exposed to face a sample S; a second electrode 26’ comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1C), exposed in the first electrode (as illustrated in figure 1C), and configured to focus a charged particle beam to the sample (“the primary beam that can be focused onto the sample with the lens arrangement of FIG. 2” [0045]); a first pole piece 14C comprising a conical tip and a body extending from the tip (as illustrated in figure 1C), the first pole piece 14C being located in the second electrode 26’ (as illustrated in figure 1C); and second pole piece 14B located in the body of the first pole piece 14C (as illustrated in figure 1C), wherein each of the first electrode, the second electrode, the first pole piece, and the second pole piece has a through-hole, and the charged particle beam is provided to the sample through the through- hole in response to a voltage applied (as illustrated in figure 1C). However, Petrov does not identify that the pole pieces 14C and 14B function as electrodes, and therefore, Petrov does not disclose the claimed third and fourth electrodes, as claimed. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an objective lens for a charged particle beam apparatus that provides a charged particle beam to a sample, the objective lens comprising: a fourth electrode located in the body of a third electrode, comprising a conical tip, that is located in a second electrode, comprising a conical tip, that is located in a first electrode, comprising a conical tip, that is exposed to face the sample. Regarding dependent claims 10-14; these claims would be allowable at least for their dependence upon independent claim 9. Claims 15-22 are allowed. Regarding independent claim 15; claim 15 includes substantially similar limitations to those of independent claim 9 and is allowable at least for the reasons indicated with respect to independent claim 9. Regarding dependent claims 16-20; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 15. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-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. /JASON L MCCORMACK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603246
DETECTOR AND METHOD FOR OBTAINING KIKUCHI IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597714
TERAHERTZ DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597583
FIB AND SEM RESOLUTION ENHANCEMENT USING ASYMMETRIC PROBE DECONVOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592356
SAMPLE HOLDER AND IMPEDANCE MICROSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586753
IMAGE ENHANCEMENT BASED ON CHARGE ACCUMULATION REDUCTION IN CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM INSPECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1016 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month