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 § 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) 1-8, 10-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0415604 (Preikszas et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Preikszas et al. discloses an optical system configured to focus a plurality of primary beamlets of a multi-beam apparatus, comprising:
a first optical component, comprising: a first multipole arrangement with a plurality of first multipoles of an order of four or more, each first multipole of the plurality of first multipoles is configured to provide a first astigmatism; and a second multipole arrangement with a plurality of second multipoles of an order of four or more, each second multipole of the plurality of second multipoles is configured to provide a second astigmatism, wherein the first astigmatism and the second astigmatism compensate each other (Fig. 11, element 601 & 602, also fig. 4-5);
the optical system further comprising:
a second optical component, comprising: electrodes forming a plurality of lenses for the plurality of primary beamlets, each electrode comprising: an electrode body and a plurality of openings in the electrode body for guiding one primary beamlet through one opening of the plurality of opening (fig. 11, element 385)
wherein a first multipole of the plurality of first multipoles and a second multipole of the plurality of second multipoles form a pair of corresponding multipoles configured for individual focus adjustment of a primary beamlet of the plurality of primary beamlets (“The imaging generated with the aid of the two quadrupole fields Q1 and Q2 thus allows focussing of beams 3a, 3b that are parallel to the axis; … possible to individually set the focal length for each individual particle beam 3.” P 94).
The second optical component of Preikzas does not comprise three or more electrodes. However, Preizszas et al. does disclose that round lens arrays comprising three or more electrodes are known (fig. 2 and associated text). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the three electrode round lens array of figure 2 for the immersion round lens array of 385 so that the beamlets could be focused independently of energy.
Regarding claim 2, Preikszas et al. discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein each first multipole of the plurality of first multipoles and each second multipole of the plurality of second multipoles form pairs of corresponding multipoles configured for individual focus adjustment of each primary beamlet of the plurality of primary beamlets (“The imaging generated with the aid of the two quadrupole fields Q1 and Q2 thus allows focussing of beams 3a, 3b that are parallel to the axis; … possible to individually set the focal length for each individual particle beam 3.” P 94).
Regarding claim 3, Preikszas et al. discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein the first multipole arrangement and the second multipole arrangement comprise: a plurality of electrical connections to allow for individual adjustment of potentials per multipole (“Here, it is possible to connect most of these multi-poles in the form of quadrupoles, with opposing electrodes optionally being coupled.” P 118).
Regarding claim 4, Preikszas et al. discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein each of the first multipoles and the second multipoles are respective first quadrupoles and second quadrupoles (“two quadrupole fields Q1 and Q2”).
Regarding claim 5, Preikszas et al. discloses the optical system of claim 4, wherein poles of the first quadrupoles and poles of the second quadrupoles are offset by an angle of 90° or 0° (“In the example shown, the quadrupole Q1 of the first quadrupole field and the quadrupole Q2 of the second quadrupole field have an orientation substantially rotated through 90° with respect to one another and substantially have the same amplitude.” P 93).
Regarding claim 6, Preikszas et al. discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein each of the first multipoles and the second multipoles are octupoles (“However, it is also possible for the generating multi-pole lens to be an octupole, for example, which is controlled accordingly.” P 23).
Regarding claim 7, Preikszas et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of openings in the electrode body have a pitch of 0.5 mm or above. However, particle lenses with pitches of 0.5 mm or above are common in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to do so if such a pitch were desired.
Regarding claim 8, Preikszas et al. discloses a charged particle multi-beam apparatus having a plurality of primary beamlets focused on a specimen, comprising:
a charged particle emitter for a primary charged particle beam (fig. 1 or fig. 11, element 301);
an aperture lens array for generating a plurality of primary beamlets from the primary charged particle beam (fig. 11, element 380, note fig. 1, element 305 also includes this); and
an optical system configured to focus a plurality of primary beamlets of a multi- beam apparatus, the optical system comprising:
a first optical component, comprising: a first multipole arrangement with a plurality of first multipoles of an order of four or more, each first multipole of the plurality of first multipoles is configured to provide a first astigmatism; and a second multipole arrangement with a plurality of second multipoles of an order of four or more, each second multipole of the plurality of second multipoles is configured to provide a second astigmatism, wherein the first astigmatism and the second astigmatism compensate each other (fig. 11, element 601 & 602, note fig. 1, element 305 also includes this, see also fig. 4-5)
the optical system further comprising:
a second optical component, comprising: electrodes forming a plurality of electrostatic lenses for the plurality of primary beamlets, each electrode comprising: an electrode body and a plurality of openings in the electrode body for guiding one primary beamlet of the plurality of primary beamlets through one opening of the plurality of openings; and an electrical connection to provide a potential to the electrode body at the plurality of openings (fig. 11, element 385, note fig. 1, element 305 also includes this);
wherein a first multipole of the plurality of first multipoles and a second multipole of the plurality of second multipoles form a pair of corresponding multipoles configured for individual focus adjustment of a primary beamlet of the plurality of primary beamlets (“The imaging generated with the aid of the two quadrupole fields Q1 and Q2 thus allows focussing of beams 3a, 3b that are parallel to the axis; … possible to individually set the focal length for each individual particle beam 3.” P 94).
The second optical component of Preikzas does not comprise three or more electrodes. However, Preizszas et al. does disclose that round lens arrays comprising three or more electrodes are known (fig. 2 and associated text). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the three electrode round lens array of figure 2 for the immersion round lens array of 385 so that the beamlets could be focused independently of energy.
Regarding claim 10, Preikszas et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a common pre-scan-deflector array configured to scan the primary beamlets; and a common scan-deflector array configured to scan the primary beamlets over the specimen. Deflectors for scanning and pre-scanning are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus to include deflectors for scanning and pre-scanning so that the beamlets could be scanning over the surface of the specimen.
Regarding claim 11, Preikszas et al. discloses the charged particle multi-beam apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the common pre-scan-deflector array and the common scan-deflector array are synchronized such that the scanning of the primary beamlets is generated by a combined action of the common pre-scan-deflector array and the common scan-deflector array (inherent in the such scanning and pre-scanning array).
Regarding claim 12, Preikszas et al. discloses the charged particle multi-beam apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising: a detector array configured to detected signal beamlets, generated upon impingement of the primary beamlets on the specimen (fig. 1, element 209).
Preikszas et al. does not disclose detector array being positioned position between the plurality of electrostatic lenses and the aperture lens array, however, detector arrays at such positions are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Preikszas et al. to position the detector array at such a location if desired.
Regarding claim 14, Preikszas et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the distance of the first multipole arrangement and the second multipole arrangement being 5 mm or above, particularly wherein a distance of the first multipole arrangement and the second multipole arrangement is 5 mm to 50 mm. These particular distances present no particular difficultly in engineering, and appear to be a matter of routine optimization or experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Preikszas et al. discloses a method of focusing a plurality of primary beamlets of charged particles on a specimen, comprising:
focusing the plurality of primary beamlets with a plurality of electrostatic lenses with electrodes and a plurality of openings in each of the three or more electrodes (“After passing through the multi-pole lens sequence 600, the individual particle beams 3 pass through a round lens array 385.” P 102); and
adjusting a focal length individually for each of the plurality primary beamlets by introducing a first astigmatism to a primary beamlet of the plurality of primary beamlets and a second astigmatism to the primary beamlet of the plurality of primary beamlets, the first astigmatism and the second astigmatism compensate each other and provide an individual focus adjustment of the primary beamlet (“The imaging generated with the aid of the two quadrupole fields Q1 and Q2 thus allows focussing of beams 3a, 3b that are parallel to the axis; … possible to individually set the focal length for each individual particle beam 3.” P 94).
The second optical component of Preikzas does not comprise three or more electrodes. However, Preizszas et al. does disclose that round lens arrays comprising three or more electrodes are known (fig. 2 and associated text). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the three electrode round lens array of figure 2 for the immersion round lens array of 385 so that the beamlets could be focused independently of energy.
Regarding claim 16, Preizszas et al. discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjusting of the focal length further comprises: providing two or more first voltages to each first multipole of a plurality of first multipoles to generate the first astigmatism and providing two or more second voltages to each second multipole of a plurality of second multipoles to generate the second astigmatism (“Since two electrodes, for example from a structural point of view, should respectively have exactly the same voltage in a quadrupole, it is possible, for example, to supply electrodes with the same polarity or voltage with the aid of the same voltage source.” P 30).
Regarding claim 17, Preizszas et al. discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the focus adjustment is at least 0.3 micron per volt for at least one of the two or more first voltages and one of the two or more second voltages (intended result of already addressed voltages application step and therefore non-limiting, also “In the example shown, a focussing voltage of ±50 V is used to obtain focussing of a 10 keV particle beam at a distance of 100 mm from the centre of the first quadrupole Q1.” P 93).
Regarding claim 18, Preizszas et al. discloses the method of claim 16, wherein each of the two or more first voltages and two or more second voltages are below 100 V for correcting the focus position of all of the plurality of primary beamlets in a plane of the specimen (“In the example shown, a focussing voltage of ±50 V is used to obtain focussing of a 10 keV particle beam at a distance of 100 mm from the centre of the first quadrupole Q1.” P 93).
Regarding claim 19, Preizszas et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the distance of the first multipole arrangement and the second multipole arrangement being 5 mm or above, particularly wherein a distance of the first multipole arrangement and the second multipole arrangement is 5 mm to 50 mm. These particular distances present no particular difficultly in engineering, and appear to be a matter of routine optimization or experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Preizszas et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: scanning the plurality of primary beamlets (“The particle beam system 1 is of the scanning electron microscope (SEM) type,” P 76).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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 9, the prior art of record does not disclose charged particle multi-beam apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the optical system is configured to act as an objective lens to focus a plurality of primary beamlets on the specimen. The optical system comprising two multipoles with compensating astigmatism and three electrodes of Preikszas et al. is specifically designed to individually focus each beamlet to correct field curvature, which is not an issue at the objective lens stage. Hence, there is no motivation to use the optical system as the objective lens.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose charged particle multi-beam apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising: a collimator downstream of the aperture lens array and configured to deflect the plurality of primary beamlets with respect to each other; and an alignment system between the aperture lens array and the collimator, the alignment system being configured to provide at least one of a rotation, a deflection and a pitch adjustment of an array of primary beamlets provided by the plurality of primary beamlets.
Collimators and alignment systems are well-known in the art, but there is no obvious reason to collimate the beamlets downstream of the aperture lens array, since they must already be collimated prior to this, and are focused, rather than collimated, after this point.
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