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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dowsett (US 2020/0058480).
Regarding claim 1, Dowsett teaches a signal electron beam deflector (Fig. 2) comprising:
a first electrode (sector 42) extending in a curved manner; and
a second electrode (sector 44) extending in a curved manner and having at least one electron transparent portion (opening into channel 62, allowing electron beam to go off the path of gap 46);
the first electrode (42) and the second electrode (44) are arranged adjacent to each other to form a space (deflecting gap 46) between the first electrode and the second electrode, such that:
the space (46) has an entrance opening (53) and an exit opening (47);
a first optical path is provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening (curved path from 53 to 47); and
a second optical path is provided between the entrance opening and the at least one electron transparent portion of the second electrode (straight path from 53 to 52).
Regarding claim 4, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, wherein the at least one electron transparent portion comprises a beam opening (opening into channel 62) in the second electrode, particularly wherein the beam opening is a slit (narrow opening under channel 62) in the second electrode extending between a first end of the second electrode at the entrance opening and a second end of the second electrode at the exit opening (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Dowsett teaches an electron beam apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a sample stage (inherent with sample 14); a deflector system (Fig. 1); an electron source (6) adapted to generate a primary electron beam (12); and a signal electron beam deflector (18) of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowsett (US 2020/0058480) in view of Johnson (US 4,350,919).
Regarding claim 2, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the at least one electron transparent portion comprises an electron transparent grid.
Johnson teaches a beam deflector (Fig. 2) comprising a pair of electrode plates having a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening and an exit opening, an optical path provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening, and an electron transparent mesh G1, which is configured to accelerate electrons in their path (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s electron transparent mesh in Dowsett’s electron transparent portion, so that electrons in Dowsett’s second optical path may be accelerated or further manipulated per design.
Regarding claim 3, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the at least one electron transparent portion comprises an electron transparent foil.
Johnson teaches a beam deflector (Fig. 2) comprising a pair of electrode plates having a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening and an exit opening, an optical path provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening, and an electron transparent mesh G1 (also conducting film in Col. 4 line 68), which is configured to accelerate electrons in their path (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s electron transparent mesh in Dowsett’s electron transparent portion, so that electrons in Dowsett’s second optical path may be accelerated or further manipulated per design.
Regarding claim 5, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the second electrode is provided as an electron transparent grid or an electron transparent foil such that the at least one electron transparent portion extends substantially over the entire surface of the second electrode that is provided as an electron transparent grid or an electron transparent foil.
Johnson teaches a beam deflector (Fig. 2) comprising a pair of electrode plates having a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening and an exit opening, an optical path provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening, and an electron transparent mesh G1, which is configured to accelerate electrons in their path (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s electron transparent mesh in Dowsett’s electron transparent portion, so that electrons in Dowsett’s second optical path may be accelerated or further manipulated per design. One of ordinary skill would also be motivated to extend the electron transparent mesh to be substantially over the entire surface of the second electrode, because then the electrons may be further accelerated or manipulate along the second optical path.
Regarding claim 13, Dowsett teaches a method of deflecting a signal electron beam (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
guiding a signal electron beam from a sample (14) to a signal electron beam deflector (18), the signal electron beam deflector (18) having a first electrode (42) and a second electrode (44);
guiding electrons of the signal electron beam along a first optical path (curved path from 53 to 47), the first optical path being provided between an entrance opening and an exit opening of the signal electron beam deflector; and
guiding electrons of the signal electron beam along a second optical path (straight path from 53 to 52), the second optical path being provided between the entrance opening and a at least one electron transparent portion (opening into channel 62, allowing electron beam to go off the path of gap 46) provided in the second electrode of the signal electron beam deflector.
Dowsett fails to explicitly teach that the electrons along the first optical path are slow, nor that the electrons along the second optical path are fast.
Johnson teaches a beam deflector (Fig. 2) comprising a pair of electrode plates having a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening and an exit opening, an optical path provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening, and an electron transparent mesh G1, which is configured to accelerate electrons in their path (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s electron transparent mesh in Dowsett’s electron transparent portion, so that electrons in Dowsett’s first and second optical paths may be accelerated to be slow or fast per design.
Regarding claim 16, Dowsett in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first electrode (42) and the second electrode (44) are arranged adjacent to each other to form a space (gap 46) between the first electrode and the second electrode, such that the space has the entrance opening and the exit opening.
Regarding claim 17, Dowsett in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: providing a first voltage to the first electrode of the signal electron beam deflector to generate a first electrical field (¶ 0046); providing a second voltage to the second electrode of the signal electron beam deflector to generate a second electrical field (reduced electric field; ¶ 0050); deflecting the slow electrons by the first electrical field and by the second electrical field; and deflecting the fast electrons by the first electrical field and by the second electrical field.
Regarding claim 18, Dowsett in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: applying the second voltage to an electron transparent grid or an electron transparent foil provided as the at least one electron transparent portion (Johnson Col. 2 lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 19, Dowsett in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the guiding the slow electrons along the first optical path comprises deflecting the slow electrons by a first angle α, the first angle α being between 30° and 90° (Dowsett Fig. 2), and the guiding the fast electrons along the second optical path comprises deflecting the fast electrons by a second angle β, the second angle β being between substantially 10° and 80° (Dowsett Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Dowsett in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the signal electron beam deflector comprises: a first electrode extending in a curved manner (Dowsett Fig. 2); and a second electrode extending in a curved manner and having at least one electron transparent portion (Dowsett Fig. 2); the first electrode and the second electrode are arranged adjacent to each other to form a space (gap 46) between the first electrode (42) and the second electrode (44), such that: the space has an entrance opening (53) and an exit opening (47); a first optical path (curved path from 53 to 47) is provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening; and a second optical path (straight path from 53 to 52) is provided between the entrance opening and the at least one electron transparent portion of the second electrode.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowsett (US 2020/0058480).
Regarding claim 6, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the first electrode has a first cross section in a plane perpendicular to the first optical path, and the second electrode has a second cross section in the plane perpendicular to the first optical path; and a first part of the first cross section is defined by an elliptical arc, and a second part of the second cross section is defined by an elliptical arc.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate an elliptical arc shape for the first and second electrode cross sections, because it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of elliptical arc for the purpose of conforming to the beam shape to conserve space in the device.
Regarding claim 7, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the first electrode is extending in an elliptical manner and the second electrode is extending in an elliptical manner.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate an elliptical shape for the first and second electrode cross sections, because it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of elliptical arc for the purpose of conforming to the beam shape to conserve space in the device.
Regarding claim 8, Dowsett teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the first electrode has a first cross section in a plane perpendicular to the first optical path, and the second electrode has a second cross section in the plane perpendicular to the first optical path; and a first part of the first cross section and a second part of the second cross section provide the first optical path therebetween, and wherein the first part of the first cross section is defined by a polynomial and the second part of the second cross section is defined by an exponential function.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate an polynomial shape for the first and second electrode cross sections, because it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a polynomial for the purpose of conforming to the beam shape to conserve space in the device.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowsett (US 2020/0058480) in view of Welkie (US 2012/0223244).
Regarding claim 9, Dowsett teaches an electron beam deflector comprising:
a first electrode (42) and a second electrode (44) providing a first optical path therebetween (gap 46); and
at least one electron transparent portion (opening into channel 62, allowing electron beam to go off of the first path) provided in the second electrode; wherein:
a second optical path (straight path from 53 to 52) is provided, the second optical path passing through the at least one electron transparent portion.
Dowsett fails to further teach that the signal electron beam deflector is configured to guide electrons of a signal electron beam along the first optical path and along the second optical path dependent on an energy of the electrons of the signal electron beam.
Welkie teaches an electron beam deflector (Fig. 2A) comprising a first electrode (top portion of 232) and a second electrode (lower portion of 232) arranged adjacent to each other to form a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening (by aperture 202) and an exit opening (by aperture 203), and a first curved optical path is provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening. Welkie also teach that the deflector is configured to provide energy filtering, which prevents system degradation (¶ 0004-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate energy filtering in Dowsett’s system, so that beam path is dependent on an energy of the electrons of the beams, since energy filtering would prevent system degradation, as taught by Welkie.
Regarding claim 11, Dowsett in view of Welkie teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 9, wherein the signal electron beam deflector is configured to guide slow electrons of the signal electron beam having an energy of less than 500 eV upon emission or release from a sample along the first optical path and to guide fast electrons of the signal electron beam having an energy of more than 1 keV upon emission or release from the sample along the second optical path (¶ 0111-0112).
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowsett (US 2020/0058480) in view of Welkie (US 2012/0223244), in further view of Johnson (US 4,350,919).
Regarding claim 10, Dowsett in view of Welkie teaches the signal electron beam deflector of claim 9, but fails to further teach the at least one electron transparent portion comprises an electron transparent grid or an electron transparent foil.
Johnson teaches a beam deflector (Fig. 2) comprising a pair of electrode plates having a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening and an exit opening, an optical path provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening, and an electron transparent mesh G1, which is configured to accelerate electrons in their path (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Johnson’s electron transparent mesh in Dowsett’s electron transparent portion, so that electrons in Dowsett’s second optical path may be accelerated or further manipulated per design.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowsett (US 2020/0058480) in view of Johnson (US 4,350,919), in further view of Welkie (US 2012/0223244).
Regarding claim 14, Dowsett in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 13, but fails to further teach that slow electrons have an energy of less than 100 eV, upon emission or release from the sample, and that fast electrons have an energy of more than 1 keV upon emission or release from the sample.
Welkie teaches an electron beam deflector (Fig. 2A) comprising a first electrode (top portion of 232) and a second electrode (lower portion of 232) arranged adjacent to each other to form a space between them, such that the space has an entrance opening (by aperture 202) and an exit opening (by aperture 203), and a first curved optical path is provided between the entrance opening and the exit opening. Welkie also teach that the deflector is configured to provide energy filtering, which prevents system degradation (¶ 0004-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate energy filtering in Dowsett’s system, so that beam path is dependent on an energy of the electrons of the beams, since energy filtering would prevent system degradation, as taught by Welkie. One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate slow electrons to have an energy of less than 100 eV and fast electrons to have an energy of more than 1 keV because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 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.
Regarding claim 15, Dowsett in view of Johnson and Welkie teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the guiding the signal electron beam from the sample to the signal electron beam deflector comprises accelerating the signal electron beam (Johnson Claim 1) with the acceleration voltage between the sample and the signal electron beam deflector, the acceleration voltage being between 10 kV and 30 kV.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday (8-5).
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.
/HSIEN C TSAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881