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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 21 May 2026, with respect to the claims, the drawings, and the specification have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 21 May 2026, that Someya teaches away from a vacuum pressure of less than
3
×
10
-
10
torr have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of other previously applied reference(s).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, regarding the combination of Someya and Smith have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Someya or Smith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 3, reference characters 120b1, 120b2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0238636 A1), hereinafter Ito, in view of Onishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0279837 A1), hereinafter Onishi.
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses an electron beam system comprising:
an element configured to measure a current of an emitted beam (paragraph 0028, lines 10-12), wherein the element is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure (paragraph 0026, lines 12-15); and
a controller including circuitry configured to cause the system to perform (paragraph 0028):
generating a feedback signal when a difference between the measured current and a setpoint current exceeds a threshold value (paragraph 0028, lines 4-6: the threshold value is exceeded when the emission current is not equal to the target value); and
adjusting a voltage of an extractor voltage supply based on the feedback signal such that a difference between an adjusted current of the emitted beam and the setpoint current is below the threshold value (paragraph 0028, lines 4-6).
Ito fails to disclose that the element is an anode aperture and the current is measured during inspection of a sample, wherein the vacuum pressure is less than 3 x 10-10 torr.
However, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Ito teaches the structural limitations of the electron beam system as discussed supra, wherein the electron beam system is capable of being used during inspection of a sample. Therefore, the limitation “measure a current of an emitted beam during inspection of a sample” is met.
However, Onishi discloses an anode aperture (FIG. 2, aperture 121) configured to measure a current of an emitted beam (FIG. 2 shows an ammeter, A, connected to anode 103 comprising anode aperture 121), wherein the anode aperture is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure (FIG. 2, vacuum pump 17).
The disclosures of Ito and Onishi show that there is a recognized problem or need in the art, i.e., a need to measure the emission current to monitor the performance and stability of the electron source (Ito, paragraphs 0005-0006; Onishi, paragraphs 0021-0022). Furthermore, there are a finite number of solutions to this need, i.e., locations at which the emission current may be measured in the electron beam systems of Ito and Onishi. These locations are the locations of each element (e.g., electrodes, apertures, or lenses) between the electron beam source (at the top of the electron beam column) and the bottom of the electron beam column. See, e.g., FIG. 1 of both Ito and Onishi, respectively. Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the finite number of solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, because the beam current measured at each element in the electron beam column is produced by the same electron beam source and is therefore affected by the performance and stability of said source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito to include that the element configured to measure the current of the emitted beam is an anode aperture, based on the teachings of Onishi. See MPEP § 2143 I(E).
Optimizing the vacuum pressure is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[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.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Onishi teaches that “by keeping the residual gas pressure in the electron gun low, a necessary flashing frequency decreases” (Onishi, paragraph 0023). As such, Onishi identifies the vacuum pressure as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing the pressure reduces the necessary flashing frequency. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the vacuum pressure and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the vacuum pressure to meet the claimed pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Ito in view of Onishi teaches the structural limitations of the anode aperture (see claim 1 supra). Therefore, the limitation “the anode aperture is configured to measure the emitted beam without perturbing the beam” is met.
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Ito discloses that the feedback signal is generated using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Onishi discloses a first anode aperture (FIG. 2, element 110) configured to accelerate the emitted beam (paragraph 0029, lines 20-22), wherein the anode aperture is a second anode aperture (FIG. 2, second anode aperture 121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include a first anode aperture configured to accelerate the emitted beam, wherein the anode aperture is a second anode aperture, based on the additional teachings of Onishi that this arrangement beneficially provides control of the kinetic energy of the emitted beam (Onishi, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 12, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Ito discloses that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that an electric field of an extractor is adjusted (paragraph 0024; adjusting a voltage inherently adjusts the electric field strength, which is measured in volts per meter; see “Electric Field” in The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide, Helicon, 2018).
Regarding claim 13, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Ito discloses that adjusting the voltage of the extractor voltage supply comprises transmitting the feedback signal to the extractor voltage supply (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 15, Ito discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to cause the computing device to perform a method (paragraph 0065) comprising:
acquiring a measured current of an emitted beam (paragraph 0028, lines 10-12), wherein the measured current is measured by an element in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure (paragraph 0026, lines 12-15);
generating a feedback signal when a difference between the measured current and a setpoint current exceeds a threshold value (paragraph 0028, lines 4-6: the threshold value is exceeded when the emission current is not equal to the target value); and
adjusting a voltage of an extractor voltage supply based on the feedback signal such that a difference between an adjusted current of the emitted beam and the setpoint current is below the threshold value (paragraph 0028, lines 4-6).
Ito fails to disclose that the element is an anode aperture and the current is measured during inspection of a sample, wherein the vacuum pressure is less than 3 x 10-10 torr.
However, Onishi discloses a measured current measured by an anode aperture (FIG. 2 shows an ammeter, A, connected to anode 103 comprising anode aperture 121), wherein the anode aperture is in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure (FIG. 2, vacuum pump 17).
The disclosures of Ito and Onishi show that there is a recognized problem or need in the art, i.e., a need to measure the emission current to monitor the performance and stability of the electron source (Ito, paragraphs 0005-0006; Onishi, paragraphs 0021-0022). Furthermore, there are a finite number of solutions to this need, i.e., locations at which the emission current may be measured in the electron beam systems of Ito and Onishi. These locations are the locations of each element (e.g., electrodes, apertures, or lenses) between the electron beam source (at the top of the electron beam column) and the bottom of the electron beam column. See, e.g., FIG. 1 of both Ito and Onishi, respectively. Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the finite number of solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, because the beam current measured at each element in the electron beam column is produced by the same electron beam source and is therefore affected by the performance and stability of said source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito to include that the element configured to measure the current of the emitted beam is an anode aperture, based on the teachings of Onishi. See MPEP § 2143 I(E).
Optimizing the vacuum pressure is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[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.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Onishi teaches that “by keeping the residual gas pressure in the electron gun low, a necessary flashing frequency decreases” (Onishi, paragraph 0023). As such, Onishi identifies the vacuum pressure as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing the pressure reduces the necessary flashing frequency. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the vacuum pressure and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the vacuum pressure to meet the claimed pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Ito in view of Onishi teaches the structural limitations of the anode aperture (see claim 15 supra). Therefore, the limitation “the anode aperture is configured to measure the emitted beam without perturbing the beam” is met.
Regarding claim 17, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
In addition, Ito discloses that the feedback signal is generated using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 21, Ito discloses an electron beam system comprising:
an element configured to measure a current of an emitted beam paragraph 0028, lines 10-12), wherein the element is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure (paragraph 0026, lines 12-15); and
a controller including circuitry configured to cause the system to perform (paragraph 0028):
generating a feedback signal when a difference between the measured current and a setpoint current exceeds a threshold value (paragraph 0028, lines 4-6: the threshold value is exceeded when the emission current is not equal to the target value); and
adjusting a voltage of an extractor voltage supply based on the feedback signal during inspection of the sample such that a difference between an adjusted current of the emitted beam and the setpoint current is below the threshold value (paragraph 0028, lines 4-6).
Ito fails to disclose a first anode aperture configured to accelerate an emitted beam during inspection of a sample; the element configured to measure the current is a second anode aperture disposed between the first anode aperture and the sample, wherein the vacuum pressure is less than 3 x 10-10 torr.
However, Onishi discloses a first anode aperture (FIG. 2, element 110) configured to accelerate an emitted beam (paragraph 0029, lines 20-22) during inspection of a sample (paragraph 0012);
a second anode aperture (FIG. 2, aperture 121), the second anode aperture configured to measure a current of the emitted beam (FIG. 2 shows an ammeter, A, connected to anode 103 comprising anode aperture 121), wherein the second anode aperture is positioned in an environment configured to support a vacuum pressure (FIG. 2, vacuum pump 17).
The disclosures of Ito and Onishi show that there is a recognized problem or need in the art, i.e., a need to measure the emission current to monitor the performance and stability of the electron source (Ito, paragraphs 0005-0006; Onishi, paragraphs 0021-0022). Furthermore, there are a finite number of solutions to this need, i.e., locations at which the emission current may be measured in the electron beam systems of Ito and Onishi. These locations are the locations of each element (e.g., electrodes, apertures, or lenses) between the electron beam source (at the top of the electron beam column) and the bottom of the electron beam column. See, e.g., FIG. 1 of both Ito and Onishi, respectively. Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the finite number of solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, because the beam current measured at each element in the electron beam column is produced by the same electron beam source and is therefore affected by the performance and stability of said source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito to include that the element configured to measure the current of the emitted beam is an anode aperture, based on the teachings of Onishi. See MPEP § 2143 I(E).
Optimizing the vacuum pressure is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[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.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Onishi teaches that “by keeping the residual gas pressure in the electron gun low, a necessary flashing frequency decreases” (Onishi, paragraph 0023). As such, Onishi identifies the vacuum pressure as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing the pressure reduces the necessary flashing frequency. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the vacuum pressure and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the vacuum pressure to meet the claimed pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include a first anode aperture configured to accelerate the emitted beam, wherein the anode aperture is a second anode aperture, based on the additional teachings of Onishi that this arrangement beneficially provides control of the kinetic energy of the emitted beam (Onishi, paragraph 0019).
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose that the second anode aperture is disposed between the first anode aperture and the sample. However, this positional relationship is an obvious matter of design choice requiring only a rearrangement of parts, which would not modify the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the case at hand, Onishi discloses that anode 103 also functions as an accelerating electrode (paragraph 0029, lines 6-9). Furthermore, as discussed supra, electrode 110 is one of a number of finite locations at which electron beam current may be measured with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the second anode aperture (i.e., the anode aperture at which the current is measured) is disposed between the first anode aperture (i.e., the anode aperture which accelerates the emitted beam) and the sample.
Claims 5-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Onishi as respectively applied to claims 4, 1, and 15 above, and further in view of Glenn (U.S. Patent No. 3,694,687 A), hereinafter Glenn.
Regarding claim 5, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 4 discloses the system of claim 4.
In addition, Onishi discloses that the first anode aperture (FIG. 2, element 110) is configured to be isolated from other components of the system (paragraph 0028, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system, based on the additional teachings of Onishi that this enables the application of a high potential to the electron beam source (Onishi, paragraph 0028).
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose that the second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system.
However, Glenn discloses that the second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 6, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose that the anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other.
However, Glenn discloses that the anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 7, Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn as applied to claim 6 discloses the system of claim 6.
In addition, Glenn discloses that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam in during inspection of the sample (column 5, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn to include that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam in during inspection of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 8, Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn as applied to claim 7 discloses the system of claim 7.
In addition, Glenn discloses that the circuitry is further configured to cause the system to determine an error based on the current of the emitted beam measured on each segment of the plurality of segments (column 5, lines 15-25, the error being that the beam is off-center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn to include that the circuitry is further configured to cause the system to determine an error based on the current of the emitted beam measured on each segment of the plurality of segments, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Glenn discloses that the error comprises one of an emitter pointing error (column 2, lines 1-5) or an angular beam emission distribution error.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn to include that the error comprises one of an emitter pointing error or an angular beam emission distribution error, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center due to inaccurate alignment of the emitter (Glenn, column 1, lines 15-25 and column 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 18, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
In addition, Onishi discloses that a first anode aperture (FIG. 2, element 110) is configured to be isolated from other components of a system (paragraph 0028, lines 9-13), wherein the anode aperture is the second anode aperture (FIG. 2, second anode aperture 121) and the first anode aperture is configured to accelerate the emitted beam (paragraph 0029, lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that a first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system, wherein the anode aperture is the second anode aperture and the first anode aperture is configured to accelerate the emitted beam, based on the additional teachings of Onishi that this arrangement beneficially provides control of the kinetic energy of the emitted beam (Onishi, paragraph 0019) and enables the application of a high potential to the electron beam source (Onishi, paragraph 0028).
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose that the second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system.
However, Glenn discloses that the second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 19, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose that the anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other.
However, Glenn discloses that the anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 20, Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn as applied to claim 19 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19.
In addition, Glenn discloses that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam during inspection of the sample (column 5, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi and Glenn to include that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam during inspection of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tesch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0148605 A1), hereinafter Tesch.
Regarding claim 11, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that a temperature of a tip of an emitter is adjusted.
However, Tesch discloses that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that a temperature of a tip of an emitter is adjusted (paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that a temperature of a tip of an emitter is adjusted, based on the teachings of Tesch that adjusting the temperature of an emitter beneficially enables control of the amount of electron emission (Tesch, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 14, Ito in view of Onishi as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Ito in view of Onishi fails to disclose adjusting a focus of the emitted beam in response to the adjusted voltage of the extractor voltage supply.
However, Tesch discloses adjusting a focus of the emitted beam in response to the adjusted voltage of the extractor voltage supply (paragraph 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Onishi to include adjusting a focus of the emitted beam in response to the adjusted voltage of the extractor voltage supply, based on the teachings of Tesch that this provides flexibility in terms of deflecting and focusing the emitted beam in different directions as desired (Tesch, paragraph 0050).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steigerwald (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0124365 A1), hereinafter Steigerwald, teaches an electron beam system comprising: an anode aperture configured to measure a current of an emitted beam during inspection of a sample, wherein the anode aperture is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure; and a first anode aperture configured to accelerate the emitted beam, wherein the anode aperture is a second anode aperture.
Meisburger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,665,968 A), hereinafter Meisburger, teaches an electron beam system comprising: an anode aperture positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure of less than 3 x 10-10 torr.
Onishi et al. (WO Patent No. 2015053300 A1), hereinafter Onishi (2015) (English machine translation provided), teaches an electron beam system comprising: an anode aperture configured to measure a current of an emitted beam during inspection of a sample, wherein the anode aperture is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure; and a first anode aperture configured to accelerate the emitted beam, wherein the anode aperture is a second anode aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights