DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election filed on April 14th, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1-2, 5-14, and 19-20 being directed to the elected invention.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on April 14th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the dual ground(s) that the Office has failed to provide prima facie showing that there would be a serious burden on the examiner if election is required and the claims do not define independent inventions.
With regard to the first grounds of traversal, that examiner has not made a prima facie showing of search burden, applicant argues that examiner’s statement there would be a serious search burden is insufficient because examiner only states that the inventions fall into different classifications, and applicant states that differences in classification, standing alone, are not a proper basis for restriction.
This is not found persuasive because showing separate classification is in fact a very well recognized method of making such prima facie showing and is sufficient standing alone, because the separate classification is itself a showing that subject matter is significantly different and requires different fields of search, as discussed in the MPEP 808.02 (“(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.”). All that is required is that examiner show that the groups relate to separate classifications, which she has done by matching the groups to classifications.
In regards to the traversal on the grounds that the inventions are not independent, applicant argues that the invention is directed to a single charged particle beam apparatus architecture as shown by the linking claims 1 and 19-20, and are capable of being practiced together, hence they are not mutually exclusive or independent.
Restriction is proper if the claims define independent or distinct inventions. Examiner has not stated that the claims in this case define independent inventions. Examiner instead stated that the claims define related but distinct inventions. The five groupings identified by examiner are examples of distinct inventions useable together in a single apparatus, which are shown to be distinct because they perform distinct functions and, aside for the shared features of the linking claims, do not overlap in claimed scope.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 5 recites “wherein each charged particle emitter of the subset corresponds to, desirably is of, a charged particle-optical column of the charged particle-optical column array.” This appears to be nothing more than a restatement of a limitation of the parent claim, in particular the limitation to “a plurality of charged particle-optical columns in a charged particle array, … wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises: a plurality of charge particle emitters”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the source array comprises a plurality of sources, each source comprising the plurality of the emitters and each source assigned to, desirably each source is of, one of the charged particle-optical columns.” This appears to be nothing more than a restatement of a limitation of the parent claim, in particular the limitation to “wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises: a plurality of charge particle emitters, … the charged particle emitters being comprised in a source array”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 13 recites “wherein the emitters comprise a group of emitters for each column.” This appears to be nothing more than a restatement of a limitation of the parent claim, in particular the limitation to “wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises: a plurality of charge particle emitters”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5, 7-8, and 13 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 5 recites “wherein each charged particle emitter of the subset corresponds to, desirably is of, a charged particle-optical column of the charged particle-optical column array.” It is unclear what, if anything, this adds, since the charged particle emitters are already claimed as being part of the columns in the charged particle-optical column array in the parent claim.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the source array comprises a plurality of sources, each source comprising the plurality of the emitters and each source assigned to, desirably each source is of, one of the charged particle-optical columns.” It is unclear what, if anything, this adds, since the charged particle emitters are already claimed as being part of the columns in the charged particle-optical column array in the parent claim.
Regarding claims 5, 7, & 8, each uses the phrase "desireably" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites “wherein the emitters comprise a group of emitters for each column.” It is unclear what, if anything, this adds, since the charged particle emitters are already claimed as comprising a plurality of emitters, which is synonymous with a group of emitters, for each column in the parent claim.
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) 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0015143 (Yin et al.).
Yin et al. discloses a charged particle beam apparatus configured to project charged particle beams towards a sample, wherein the charged particle beam apparatus comprises:
a plurality of charged particle-optical columns arranged in an charged particle-optical column array, the plurality of charged particle-optical columns configured to project respective charged particle beams towards the sample (“electrostatic electron optical columns,”), wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises:
a plurality of charged particle emitters configured to emit the charged particle beam towards the sample, the charged particle emitters being comprised in a source array (“Each electron optical column is enhanced with an electron gun with redundant field emission sources,”); and
an objective lens configured to direct the charged particle beam towards the sample, the objective lens being an electrostatic objective lens, the objective lenses being comprised in an objective lens array (“all of the focusing lenses and scanning deflectors are electrostatic.”),
wherein the charged particle emitters are configured to be selectable such that a subset of the charged particle emitters can be selected to emit the charged particle beams towards the sample (“each tip has the property to be individually addressable.”).
Regarding claim 2, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the emitters are selectable by selectively operating emitters in the source array (“each tip has the property to be individually addressable.”).
Regarding claim 5, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein each charged particle emitter of the subset corresponds to, desirably is of, a charged particle-optical column of the charged particle-optical column array (“Each electron optical column is enhanced with an electron gun with redundant field emission sources,”).
Regarding claim 6, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of charged particle emitters in the subset is the same as the number of charged particle-optical columns in the charged particle-optical column array (“In the preferred embodiment there is one active electron beam per column.”).
Regarding claim 7, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the source array comprises a plurality of sources, each source comprising the plurality of the emitters and each source assigned to, desirably each source is of, one of the charged particle-optical columns (“Each electron optical column is enhanced with an electron gun with redundant field emission sources,”).
Regarding claim 8, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the source array is dimensioned such that the charged particle emitters extend across at least a part of the sample, desirably a substantial portion of the sample, preferably substantially all of the sample (“In one embodiment of the present invention there are roughly 200 columns distributed over a 300 mm diameter wafer. Each column covers a footprint of 20X20 mm in size over the wafer.” See also fig. 6, showing source plate 620 extending across the entire wafer chuck 640).
Regarding claim 11, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises an extractor configured to increase emission from the charged particle emitter wherein the extractors comprise an extractor electrode common to all of the charged particle-optical columns (“The gate electrodes are individually addressable using an X-Y matrix addressing scheme, and the focus and aperture electrodes are common to all of the sources.”).
Regarding claim 12, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a substrate comprising a planar array of the emitters (“source substrate”).
Regarding claim 13, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the emitters comprise a group of emitters for each column (“Each electron optical column is enhanced with an electron gun with redundant field emission sources,”).
Regarding claim 14, Yin et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 13, wherein the sources are selectable by controlling the operation of the emitters within the group for each column (“There may be as few as one tip or as many as thousands, if an X-Y matrix addressable scheme to individually address a tip is used.”).
Regarding claim 19, Yin et al. discloses a method of operating a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a source array comprising charged particle emitters configured to emit a charged particle beam a plurality in an array of charged particle beams; and an array of charged particle-optical columns comprising a plurality of charged particle-optical columns arranged in an charged particle-optical column array, the plurality of charged particle-optical columns configured to project respective charged particle beams from the source array towards a sample and comprising an objective lens configured to direct the charged particle beam towards the sample, the objective lens being an electrostatic objective lens, the objective lenses being comprised in an objective lens array, wherein the method comprises:
selecting a subset of charged particle emitters from the source array to emit the charged particle beams (“When the I-V characteristics degrade beyond a certain threshold value for a particular source, that particular source can be turned off at the next convenient time (e.g., between inspection of wafers) and another source can be activated as a replacement.”); and
projecting the charged particle beams emitted by the subset of charged particle emitters towards the sample (“In a further embodiment of the present invention, more than one source per column could be emitting simultaneously, resulting in more than one beamlet per column at the wafer.”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 12-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0085360 (Parker et al.).
Parker et al. discloses a charged particle beam apparatus configured to project charged particle beams towards a sample, wherein the charged particle beam apparatus comprises:
a plurality of charged particle-optical columns arranged in an charged particle-optical column array, the plurality of charged particle-optical columns configured to project respective charged particle beams towards the sample (“FIG. 1 shows a schematic of the layout of 201 columns positioned over a 300 mm wafer within the lithography writing head,”), wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises:
a plurality of charged particle emitters configured to emit the charged particle beam towards the sample, the charged particle emitters being comprised in a source array (“The electron gun 250 creates 32 individually controllable, focused electron beams,”); and
an objective lens configured to direct the charged particle beam towards the sample, the objective lens being an electrostatic objective lens (“immersion lens 238”), the objective lenses being comprised in an objective lens array (“Due primarily to the small scale of the column, all of the lenses, rotators, deflectors, blankers, etc. are electrostatic;”),
wherein the charged particle emitters are configured to be selectable such that a subset of the charged particle emitters can be selected to emit the charged particle beams towards the sample (“The electron gun 250 creates 32 individually controllable, focused electron beams, precisely steers each beamlet 220 individually down the column through the blanking aperture 234, and individually blanks each beamlet 220 by slightly deflecting it off the blanking aperture 234 and onto the lens plate 232.”).
Regarding claim 2, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the emitters are selectable by selectively operating emitters in the source array (“In one embodiment, each individual emitter has its own independently addressable gate 206 and focus electrodes 208.”).
Regarding claim 5, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein each charged particle emitter of the subset corresponds to, desirably is of, a charged particle-optical column of the charged particle-optical column array (“Referring to FIG. 2, each electron optical column can be broken into 3 main sections: (1) the electron gun 250, consisting of a field emission source 202, focusing optics, alignment deflector optics and blankers 218;”).
Regarding claim 6, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of charged particle emitters in the subset is the same as the number of charged particle-optical columns in the charged particle-optical column array (“The electron gun 250 creates 32 individually controllable, focused electron beams, precisely steers each beamlet 220 individually down the column through the blanking aperture 234, and individually blanks each beamlet 220 by slightly deflecting it off the blanking aperture 234 and onto the lens plate 232.”, note that if every beamlet is individually controllable any subset can be chosen).
Regarding claim 7, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the source array comprises a plurality of sources, each source comprising the plurality of the emitters and each source assigned to, desirably each source is of, one of the charged particle-optical columns (“Referring to FIG. 2, each electron optical column can be broken into 3 main sections: (1) the electron gun 250, consisting of a field emission source 202, focusing optics, alignment deflector optics and blankers 218;”).
Regarding claim 8, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the source array is dimensioned such that the charged particle emitters extend across at least a part of the sample, desirably a substantial portion of the sample, preferably substantially all of the sample (“FIG. 1 shows a schematic of the layout of 201 columns positioned over a 300 mm wafer within the lithography writing head,”).
Regarding claim 12, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a substrate comprising a planar array of the emitters (element 204).
Regarding claim 13, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 1, wherein the emitters comprise a group of emitters for each column (“Referring to FIG. 2, each electron optical column can be broken into 3 main sections: (1) the electron gun 250, consisting of a field emission source 202, focusing optics, alignment deflector optics and blankers 218;”).
Regarding claim 14, Parker et al. discloses the charged particle beam apparatus of claim 13, wherein the sources are selectable by controlling the operation of the emitters within the group for each column (“In one embodiment, each individual emitter has its own independently addressable gate 206 and focus electrodes 208.”).
Regarding claim 19, Parker et al. discloses a method of operating a charged particle beam apparatus comprising: a source array comprising charged particle emitters configured to emit a charged particle beam a plurality in an array of charged particle beams; and an array of charged particle-optical columns comprising a plurality of charged particle-optical columns arranged in an charged particle-optical column array, the plurality of charged particle-optical columns configured to project respective charged particle beams from the source array towards a sample and comprising an objective lens configured to direct the charged particle beam towards the sample, the objective lens being an electrostatic objective lens, the objective lenses being comprised in an objective lens array, wherein the method comprises:
selecting a subset of charged particle emitters from the source array to emit the charged particle beams (“The electron gun 250 creates 32 individually controllable, focused electron beams, precisely steers each beamlet 220 individually down the column through the blanking aperture 234, and individually blanks each beamlet 220 by slightly deflecting it off the blanking aperture 234 and onto the lens plate 232.”); and
projecting the charged particle beams emitted by the subset of charged particle emitters towards the sample (“The immersion lens 238 and BSE detectors 236 provide the primary focusing for all 32 beamlets onto the wafer 242”).
Regarding claim 20, Parker et al. disclose a charged particle beam apparatus configured to project charged particle beams towards a sample, wherein the charged particle beam apparatus comprises:
a plurality of charged particle-optical columns configured to project respective charged particle beams towards the sample (“FIG. 1 shows a schematic of the layout of 201 columns positioned over a 300 mm wafer within the lithography writing head,”), wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises:
a charged particle emitter configured to emit the charged particle beam towards the sample, the charged particle emitters being comprised in a source array (“Thus, the linear array of tips forms a linear array of spots on the wafer.”);
an objective lens comprising an electrostatic electrode configured to direct the charged particle beam towards the sample (“Due primarily to the small scale of the column, all of the lenses, rotators, deflectors, blankers, etc. are electrostatic;”), the objective lenses being comprised in an objective lens array, the electrostatic electrode being common to a plurality of the charged particle-optical columns (“However, the shield electrode 226 and lens plate 232 are common to all of the columns.”); and
a detector associated with the objective lens array, configured to detect signal charged particles emitted from the sample (element 236) wherein the objective lens is the most down-beam element of the charged particle-optical column configured to affect the charged particle beam directed towards the sample (multiple figures, element 238).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0015143 (Yin et al.).
Regarding claim 20, Yin et al. disclose a charged particle beam apparatus configured to project charged particle beams towards a sample, wherein the charged particle beam apparatus comprises:
a plurality of charged particle-optical columns configured to project respective charged particle beams towards the sample (“electrostatic electron optical columns,”), wherein each charged particle-optical column comprises:
a charged particle emitter configured to emit the charged particle beam towards the sample, the charged particle emitters being comprised in a source array (“The electron gun is composed of an array of such field emission tips.”);
an objective lens comprising an electrostatic electrode configured to direct the charged particle beam towards the sample (“There are no magnetic components in any of the columns--all of the focusing lenses and scanning deflectors are electrostatic.”), the objective lenses being comprised in an objective lens array, the electrostatic electrode being common to a plurality of the charged particle-optical columns (“The accelerating column, focus lens 1, focus lens 2, and voltage contrast plate are common for all columns.”); and
a detector associated with the objective lens array, configured to detect signal charged particles emitted from the sample (“Each column will have the following: … a detector for collecting the secondary electron signal.”).
Yin et al. does not disclose the objective lens being the most down-beam element of the charged particle-optical column configured to affect the charged particle beam directed towards the sample, since Yin et al. includes a field free tube and voltage contrast plate downstream of the objective lens. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Yin et al. to remove these elements if their function was not desired, that is, if voltage contrast imaging and secondary electron energy filtering is not desired.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. or Parker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2001/0007787 (Sato et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Yin et al. or Parker et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the charged particle emitters comprising avalanche diode structures. Sato et al. discloses a charged particle beam apparatus comprising avalanche diode structures as charged particle emitters (“As shown in FIG. 1, a semiconductor substrate 10 is composed of a P+ type silicon substrate 11 and a p-type epitaxial layer 12 formed thereon. A P+ area 13 is formed in the p-type epitaxial layer 12 so as to have a proper density condition and a proper junction depth enabling discharge of electrons with the avalanche effect. An n++ area 14 is formed on the P+ area 13 whereby forming a pn junction 15.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the avalanche diode structures of Sato et al. for the field emitter tip arrays of Yin et al. or Parker et al. because field emitting tips are high aspect ratio features which are difficult to manufacture and easily damaged, and the planar diode structures of Sato et al. are both easier to fabricate and more robust.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. or Parker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,334,853 (Yoder).
Regarding claim 10, Yin et al. or Parker et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the charged particle emitters comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of silicon carbide, gallium nitride, aluminium nitride and boron nitride. Yoder discloses a charged particle emitter comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of silicon carbide, gallium nitride, aluminium nitride and boron nitride (“By using aluminum nitride (AlN) and silicon carbide (SiC) in semiconductor compositions, a Type I heterojuntion can be formed which overcomes disadvantages of the prior art.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the charged particle emitters of Yoder for the field emitter tip arrays of Yin et al. or Parker et al. because field emitting tips are high aspect ratio features which are difficult to manufacture and easily damaged, and the planar structures of Yoder are both easier to fabricate and more robust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights