Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/568,628

CHARGED PARTICLE DETECTOR ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, DAVID E
Art Unit
2881
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
ASML Netherlands B.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
889 granted / 1049 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1084
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1049 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 1-15, 17 and 19-20 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 1 recites “a charge based element configured to detect charged particles below a second energy threshold”. It is not clear based on the claim what the term “charge based” means in this context (e.g. whether the element is itself charged, detects charge directly or indirectly, etc.) and the specification does not clearly define the term. Based on the specification the term is interpreted to mean a metal film (such as the film 620 in the current specification) communicating with a detector for charged particles. Claims 8-12, 17 and 20 also recite the term “charge based element” and so are rejected on the same basis. Claims 2-7 and 13-15 are rejected only for their dependence on claim 1. 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. Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Todokoro (US 5,939,720 A). Regarding claim 1, Todokoro teaches a detector assembly (detectors 150, 151) for use in a charged particle device for an assessment tool (scanning electron microscope, Abstract) to detect charged signal particles emitted by a sample (9) in response to a charged particle beam (electron beam 19), the detector assembly comprising: A scintillator element (39) configured to generate photons on interaction with charged signal particles above a first energy threshold (i.e. with energy high enough to pass through metallic layer 123, col. 7 lines 13-20), and A charge based element (metallic layer 123; detects low-energy electrons in cooperation with second detector 151, col. 7 lines 20-29) configured to detect charged signal particles below a second energy threshold (detects electrons that do not have energy to pass through metallic layer, col. 7 lines 49-66), Wherein the charge based element is positioned so that at least some of the charged signal particles above a first energy threshold pass through the charged based element to the scintillator element (electrons with large energy pass through metallic layer to light emitting layer 122, col. 7 lines 13-20). Regarding claim 2, Todokoro teaches a photon detector (light guide 40 and photomultiplier 41) configured to detect photons generated by the scintillator element. Regarding claim 3, Todokoro teaches that the photon detector is directly connected to the scintillator element (fig. 11). Regarding claim 4, Todokoro teaches that the photon detector is positioned up beam of at least part of a surface of the scintillator element to receive the generated photons (light guide is above scintillator element 39, fig. 11). Regarding claim 5, Todokoro teaches that the photon detector is connected to detector circuitry (image controller, col. 5 lines 47-52). Regarding claim 7, Todokoro teaches that an aperture (48, fig. 11) is defined in the photon detector for the passage therethrough of the charged particle beam. Regarding claim 8, Todokoro teaches that an aperture is defined in the scintillator element (part of aperture 48 passing through layer 39, fig. 11) for the passage therethrough of the charged particle beams. Regarding claim 9, Todokoro teaches that the charge based element and the scintillator element are each at least part of layers (layers 39 and 54) that are substantially co-planar with a major surface of the detector assembly (bottom surface, fig. 11) and the layers are stacked in a thickness direction of the detection assembly. Regarding claim 10, Todokoro teaches that the charge based element is positioned down beam of the scintillator element (layer 54 below layer 39, fig. 11). Regarding claim 11, Todokoro teaches that the charge based element is close to a detection surface (bottom surface of assembly 150) than the scintillator. Regarding claim 12, Todokoro teaches that a detection surface of the detection assembly is configured to face the sample and wherein the charge based element provides at least part of the detection surface (fig. 11). Regarding claim 13, Todokoro teaches that the second energy threshold corresponds to a secondary electron threshold energy (detecting secondary and reflected electrons separately, col. 16 lines 26-33). Regarding claim 14, Todokoro teaches that the first energy threshold and the second energy threshold are the same (i.e. the energy that allows electrons to pass through the metal film and be detected by the photodetector; electrons below this energy will be detected by the charge based elements). Regarding claim 19, Todokoro teaches a charged particle beam device for an assessment tool (scanning electron microscope, Abstract) to detect signal particles emitted by a sample (9) in response to a charged particle beam (electron beam 19), the device comprising: An objective lens (3) configured to project the charged particle beam onto a sample, wherein an aperture is defined in the objective lens for the charged particle beam (fig. 3); and A detection assembly comprising a scintillator element (39) configured to generate photons on interaction with signal particles and a photon detector (light guide 40 and photomultiplier 41) configured to detect photons generated by the scintillator element, wherein an aperture (48, fig. 11) is defined in the detector assembly for the charged particle beam. Regarding claim 20, Todokoro teaches a charge based element (metallic layer 54 detects low-energy electrons in cooperation with second detector 151, col. 7 lines 20-29) configured to detect signal particles below a first energy threshold, wherein the charge based element is positioned so that signal particles above a second energy threshold pass through the charge based element to the scintillator element (electrons with large energy pass through metallic layer to light emitting layer 122, col. 7 lines 13-20). 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todokoro in view of Aoki (US 20080191135 A1). Regarding claim 6, Todokoro teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Todokoro does not teach that the photon detector comprises zoned portions, comprising an inner photon portion and an outer photon portion. Aoki teaches a photon detector for a scanning electron microscope (fig. 7) wherein the photon detector comprises zoned portions (inner scintillator 19a and outer scintillator 19b) comprising an inner portion and an outer portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to divide the detector of Todokoro into inner and outer portions as taught by Aoki in order to separately measure secondary and backscattered electrons based on their incident angle to the detector (Aoki, [0082]). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todokoro in view of Almogy (WO 2008101713 A2). Regarding claim 15, Todokoro teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Todokoro does not teach that the detector is for use in a multi-beam charged particle tool to detect charged signal particles emitted by a sample in response to a plurality of charged particle beams, the detector arrangement comprising an array of detector assemblies, each according to claim 1, wherein each detector assembly corresponds to a respective charged particle beam. Almogy teaches a multi-beam charged particle tool detecting charged signal particles emitted by a sample in response to a plurality of charged particle beams, a detector comprising an array of detector assemblies ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Todokoro to have multiple beams and multiple scintillator detectors as taught by Almogy in order to perform high-throughput imaging by scanning multiple areas of the substrate at once with the plurality of beams. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann (WO 2021156198 A1) in view of Wang (WO 2019201544 A1). Regarding claim 16, Kaufmann teaches a detector arrangement (sensor 207, fig. 1) for use in a multi-beam charged particle device for an assessment tool (object irradiation unit 100) to detect charged particles emitted by a sample (wafer 7) in response to a plurality of charged particle beams (primary beamlets 3) on the sample, the detector arrangement comprising: An array of scintillator elements (p. 24 line 26) configured to generate photons on interaction with signal particles above an energy threshold; An array of photon detectors (photomultipliers or avalanche photodiodes, p. 24 line 32) configured to detect photons generated by the scintillator elements; and Kaufmann does not teach an amplification circuit associated with each photon detector and proximate to the corresponding photon detector, the amplification circuit comprising a trans impedance amplifier and/or an analog to digital converter. . Wang teaches a multipart sensor (sensor elements 401-403, fig. 15) having an amplification circuit (930) associated with each sensor and proximate to each sensor (fig. 15; sensors and circuit may be on stacked dies, [0053]), the amplification circuit comprising a transimpedance amplifier ([0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kaufmann to have an amplification circuit comprising a transimpedance amplifier proximate to and associated with each sensor as described by Wang, in order to provide a flexible sensor with a short circuit path as described by Wang Regarding claim 17, Kaufmann and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Wang and Kaufmann do not teach an array of charge based elements configured to detect signal particles below a further energy threshold, wherein each charge based element is positioned so that at least some of the signal particles above the energy threshold pass through the charged based element to a respective scintillator element. Todokoro teaches an electron detector having a scintillator (39) and a charge based element (metallic layer 123; detects low-energy electrons in cooperation with second detector 151, col. 7 lines 20-29) configured to detect charged signal particles below an energy threshold (detects electrons that do not have energy to pass through metallic layer, col. 7 lines 49-66), wherein the charge based element is positioned so that at least some of the charged signal particles above a first energy threshold pass through the charged based element to the scintillator element (electrons with large energy pass through metallic layer to light emitting layer 122, col. 7 lines 13-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kaufmann to have the metal layer taught by Todokoro over the scintillator layer, in order to detect low energy electrons and potentially distinguish between electrons based on their energy as described above. Regarding claim 18, Kaufmann teaches a linear sensing element (207) and Wang teaches multiple sensing elements forming a linear sensing element having detectors in the same layer (detectors 401-403, fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the photodetectors of Kaufmann (in the embodiment having multiple photo detectors described above with reference to claim 16) as Wang shows that this is a known way to form a linear detector comprising multiple elements (i.e. having layers of corresponding elements for each sub-detector) which simplifies formation of the detector. Conclusion The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gnauck (US 20050173644 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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 22293. 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. /DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582316
APPARATUS AND PROCESS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC IMAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586771
ELECTRODE PROTRUSION ADJUSTMENT FOR MAXIMIZING PRESSURE DROP ACROSS LIQUID TRANSPORT CONDUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586770
Mass Spectrometer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580169
MASS SPECTROMETRY TO IDENTIFY PREDICTIVE FAILURE WITH CHEMICAL DETECTION IN MICROELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567559
ION IMPLANTATION DEVICE WITH ENERGY FILTER HAVING ADDITIONAL THERMAL ENERGY DISSIPATION SURFACE AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
85%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+7.3%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1049 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