DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double patenting:
By amendment, the provisional double patenting rejection has been overcome and is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
By amendment, the indefinite rejection has been overcome.
Prior art rejections:
Koyama and Weiland and Jurisch et al. references:
The remarks have been found persuasive by amendment each Koyama reference fails to teach “wherein the first substrate further includes a plurality of concavities on the side surfaces, each of the concavities being provided between the insulating film and the second substrate surface and surrounding each of the first through holes”.
It is noted, as admitted in the remarks, that claim 11 was not rejected in view of Koyama. This was a typographical error, which was recognized by the applicant. However, claim 11 was rejected in view of Onozuka. As discussed below Onozuka still anticipates claim 1. Therefore, the amendment has necessitated a new grounds of rejection. That is, because claim 11 was previously rejected, amending claim 1 does not change the rejection in view of Onozuka. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected in a new grounds 103 rejection discussed herein below, necessitated by amendment (i.e. since Koyama was not used to reject claim 11 and claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations in part from claim 11, claim 1 now in addition to being rejected in view of Onozuka, is also rejected in a new grounds 103 rejection discussed herein below).
With respect to Onozuka, the remarks take the position that Onozuka is not available as prior art since the present application was effectively filed as of the Japanese priority date. This has not been found persuasive. As recited on page 18 of the Non-Final Rejection of 23 June 2026:
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
As recited in MPEP 216
“The subject matter of the application is not examined to determine whether the applicant is actually entitled to the priority of the foreign filing date unless such determination is required for patentability reasons. For example, when examining an application under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , the examiner considers the merits of an applicant’s claim of priority when a reference by the inventive entity is found with an effective date between the date of the foreign filing and the date of filing in the United States. This would be necessary in order to determine whether the reference's prior art date is within the grace period for the application under examination and when an interference situation is under consideration. If at the time of making an action the examiner has found such an intervening reference, the examiner simply rejects whatever claims may be considered unpatentable thereover, without paying any attention to the priority date (assuming the certified copy of the priority papers has not yet been filed). The applicant in reply may argue the rejection if it is of such a nature that it can be argued, or present the foreign papers for the purpose of overcoming the date of the reference. If the applicant argues the reference, the examiner, in the next action in the application, may specifically require the foreign papers to be filed in addition to repeating the rejection if it is still considered applicable, or the examiner may merely continue the rejection…. In those cases where the applicant files the certified copy of the foreign application for the purpose of overcoming the effective date of a reference, a translation is required if the certified copy is not in the English language. When the examiner requires the filing of the certified copy, the translation should also be required at the same time. If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) and it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. When the necessary certified copy and translation are filed to overcome the date of the reference, the examiner’s action, if the examiner determines that the applicant is not entitled to the priority date, is to repeat the rejection on the reference, stating the reasons why the applicant is not considered entitled to the date. If it is determined that the applicant is entitled to the date, the rejection is withdrawn in view of the priority date.”
Here, the instant application claims foreign priority to Japanese application JP2023151758. While a certified copy of the foreign translation was received 02 May 2024, the copy is not in English. Onozuku, as pointed out by the remarks, has an intervening date between the foreign priority of the instant application and the actual US filing date. In order to overcome this rejection, the foreign priority claim must be perfected by filing a of certified translation of the non-English language foreign application along with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate, unless the claim is otherwise amended to distinguish the claimed invention over Onozuku.
Since foreign priority has not been perfected, Onozuka is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2) because Onozuka was effectively filed 19 September 2023 which is prior to the actual filing date of the instant invention of 05 March 2024.
Again, if a certified translation of the non-English language foreign application (i.e. JP2023151758) is filed along with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate, Onozuka would no longer be available as prior art under 102(a)(2).
Therefore, the anticipation rejection in view of Onozuka is repeated herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Onozuka et al. (US pgPub 2025/0095948).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Onozuka et al. teaches an electronic component (figs. 2a-3) comprising:
a first substrate (2) including a first substrate surface (best seen in figure 3, first substrate plane 6), a second substrate surface (fig. 3, 8) provided on the opposite side of the first substrate surface (as seen in figure 3), and a plurality of first through holes (figures 2a-3 show a single hole of substrate 100, figure 1 shows 100 with a plurality of holes), each of the first through holes having side surfaces through which each of multiple charged particle beams passes (see figure 1, 197a-197f passing through holes in 100 having side surfaces, side surfaces of 2 best seen in figure 3);
a plurality of first electrodes (fig. 2a, 10), each of the first electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes ([0042]-[0044]), and each of the first electrodes including a first end (12, see paragraph [0047]) and a second end (14, see paragraph [0047]);
a plurality of second electrodes (20, defined as the fourth portions, however are interpreted as second electrodes as they meet the structural requirements of the claim), each of the second electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes ([0048]), being arranged to face each of the first electrodes ([0048]), and including a third end (22) facing the first end (22 in figure 2a faces 12, see paragraph [0048]) and a fourth end (24) facing the second end (24 faces 14, see paragraph [0048]);
a plurality of third electrodes (30), each of the third electrodes being electrically connected to the first end of each of the first electrodes and extending toward the third end ([0049] and figure 2a, 30 connects to 12 and extends towards 22 shown being electrically connected);
a plurality of fourth electrodes (32), each of the fourth electrodes being electrically connected to the second end of each of the first electrodes and extending toward the fourth end (fig. 2a and paragraph [0040] teach 32 connected to 14 and extending towards 24, shown being electrically connected);
a plurality of fifth electrodes (34), each of the fifth electrodes being connected to the third end (34 connected to 22, [0051]), each of the fifth electrodes being provided separately from each of the third electrodes ([0051] 34 is separated from 30), and each of the fifth electrodes extending toward the first end (34 extends towards 12); and
a plurality of sixth electrodes (36), each of the sixth electrodes being electrically connected to the fourth end of each of the second electrodes (36 connected to 24, [0052]), each of the sixth electrodes being provided separately from each of the fourth electrodes (36 is proved separately from 32, shown being electrically connected), and each of the sixth electrodes extending toward the second end (36 extends towards 14 as seen) and
an insulating film provided between the first substrate and the first electrodes, the second electrodes, the third electrodes, the fourth electrodes, the fifth electrodes and the sixth electrodes (insulating film 40, see figure 2a between all electrodes and substrate 2)
wherein each of the first electrodes, each of the second electrodes, each of the third electrodes, each of the fourth electrodes, each of the fifth electrodes and each of the sixth electrodes are provided in each of the first through holes ([0042]-[0043] figure 2a as applied to each opening in figure 1 of 100).
wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon, see paragraph [0110]), and
wherein the side surfaces of each of the side surfaces of the first through holes include an exposed portion in the vicinity of the second substrate surface (exposed surface 8 of 2 best seen in figure 3).
wherein the first substrate further includes a plurality of concavities on each of the side surfaces between the insulating film and the second substrate surface (fig. 3 concavities 4 between 8 and 40), and each of the concavities surrounding each of the first through holes ([0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a distance between each of the third electrodes and each of the fifth electrode is 10% or more and 40% or less of a distance between each of the first electrodes and each of the second electrodes, and a distance between each of the fourth electrodes and each of the sixth electrodes is 10% or more and 40% or less of the distance between the first electrode and the second electrode (fig. 2a is nearly identical to figure 2a of the instant drawings, wherein the spaced apart relationship between 30 and 34 and 32 and 36 is clearly within the range of 10 to 40 percent of the distance between 10 and 20)
Regarding claim 3, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a distance between a fifth end of each of the third electrodes facing each of the fifth electrodes (fifth end 31 of 30 facing 34) and a sixth end of each of the fourth electrodes facing each of the sixth electrodes (33 of 32 facing 36) is equal to a distance between a seventh end of each of the fifth electrodes facing each of the third electrodes (35 of 34 facing 30) and an eighth end of each of the sixth electrodes facing each of the fourth electrodes (37 of 36 facing 32, distances d2 and d5 shown as equal)
Regarding claim 4, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a length of each of the first electrodes and a length of each of the second electrodes are equal (length of 10 and 20 are shown as equal).
Regarding claim 5, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a length of each of the third electrodes and the length of each of the fifth electrodes are equal, and a length of each of the fourth electrodes and a length of each of the sixth electrodes are equal (length of third through sixth electrode are shown as equal).
Regarding claim 7, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein the first substrate includes Si (silicon) ([0110] substrate 2 made of silicon), and the first electrodes, the second electrodes, the third electrodes, the fourth electrodes, the fifth electrodes, and the sixth electrodes include metal nitride or W (tungsten) ([0082])
Regarding claim 9, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein the insulating film includes silicon oxide ([0055] teaches insulating films include silicon oxide)
Regarding claim 12, Onozuka et al. teaches a plurality of first junction electrodes (50) provided on the first substrate surface (indirectly on the first substrate surface 6 via film 40 and plate 44), and each of the first junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the first electrodes ([0070]-[0071]); a plurality of second junction electrodes (52) provided on the first substrate surface (as seen in figure 3), and each of the second junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the second electrodes (52 connected to 20, see paragraphs [0072]-[0073]); a second substrate (fig. 3, 58) including a plurality of second through holes (90, see paragraph [0066]) and a third substrate surface facing the first substrate surface ([0066]); a plurality of third junction electrodes (54) provided on the third substrate surface ([0074]), each of the third junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the first junction electrodes (as seen in figure 3, 54 connected to 50); and a plurality of fourth junction electrodes (54) provided on the third substrate surface ([0075]), each of the fourth junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the second junction electrodes (as seen in figure 3, 56 connected to 52).
Regarding claim 13, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein the first junction electrodes, the second junction electrodes, the third junction electrodes, and the fourth junction electrodes include Au (gold) or Cu (copper) ([0083], gold).
Regarding claim 14, Onozuka et al. teaches A charged particle beam irradiation apparatus comprising the electronic component according to claim 1 (see figure 1, 100).
Regarding claim 15, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of third electrodes is directly connected to the first end of each of the first electrodes; each of the plurality of fourth electrodes is directly connected to the second end of each of the first electrodes; each of the plurality of fifth electrodes is directly connected to the third end of each of the second electrodes; each of the plurality of sixth electrodes is directly connected to the fourth end of each of the second electrodes (as seen in figure 3, all electrodes are described as portions thus directly connected).
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, 2, 7, 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platzgummer (US pgPub 2010/0187434) in view of Koyama (JP-2008034498)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 06/23/2026)1.
Alternatively, claims 1-5, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platzgummer (US pgPub 2010/0187434) in view of Jurisch et al. (NPL submitted with the IDS of 03/05/2024).
Alternatively, claim 1, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platzgummer (US pgPub 2010/0187434) in view of Koyama (JP-2005149819)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 06/23/2026) (herein Koyama819).
Regarding claim 1, Platzgummer teaches a first substrate (fig. 3.15, silicon wafer 100, not indicated in figure 3.15, but clear from figure 3.11) including a first substrate surface (surface of 100 under 114 (see figure 3.11)), a second substrate surface provided on the opposite side of the first substrate surface (bottom surface of 100), and a plurality of first through holes (through hole 110 in figure 3.15, figure 2 shows a plurality of through holes) having side walls (sidewalls of 110 through 100), each of the first through holes through which each of multiple charged particle beams passes (as seen in figure 2);
a plurality of first electrodes (left 112 in figure 3.15a), each of the first electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes (112 in 110 in fig. 3.15), and each of the first electrodes including a first end and a second end (ends of left 112); a plurality of second electrodes (right 112 in figure 3.15a), each of the second electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes (in 110 as seen in figure 3.15), being arranged to face each of the first electrodes (112s face each other as seen in figure 3.15), and including a third end facing the first end and a fourth end facing the second end (ends of right 112 seen in fig. 3.15a);
an insulating film (106 is silicon oxide (insulator) ([0065]), seen in figure 3.15 and annotated in figure 3.14) provided between the first substrate and the first electrodes, the second electrodes (insulating film 106, see figure 3.14 between all electrodes and substrate 100)
wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon, see paragraph [0056]), and
wherein the side surfaces of each of the side surfaces of the first through holes include an exposed portion in the vicinity of the second substrate surface (see annotated figures below).
wherein the first substrate further includes a plurality of concavities on each of the side surfaces between the insulating film and the second substrate surface, and each of the concavities surrounding each of the first through holes (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
1108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
662
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3.15a of Platzgummer only teaches a single pair of electrodes, therefore fails to disclose a plurality of third electrodes, each of the third electrodes being connected to the first end and extending toward the third end; a plurality of fourth electrodes, each of the fourth electrodes being connected to the second end and extending toward the fourth end; a plurality of fifth electrodes, each of the fifth electrodes being connected to the third end, each of the fifth electrodes being provided separately from each of the third electrodes, and each of the fifth electrodes extending toward the first end; and a plurality of sixth electrodes, each of the sixth electrodes being connected to the fourth end, each of the sixth electrodes being provided separately from each of the fourth electrodes, and each of the sixth electrodes extending toward the second end.
However, Koyama teaches a plurality of third electrodes, each of the third electrodes being electrically connected to the first end of each of the first electrodes and extending toward the third end;
a plurality of fourth electrodes, each of the fourth electrodes being electrically connected to the second end of each of the first electrodes and extending toward the fourth end;
a plurality of fifth electrodes, each of the fifth electrodes being electrically connected to the third end of each of the second electrodes of each of the second electrodes, each of the fifth electrodes being provided separately from each of the third electrodes, and each of the fifth electrodes extending toward the first end;
a plurality of sixth electrodes, each of the sixth electrodes being electrically connected to the fourth end of each of the second electrodes, each of the sixth electrodes being provided separately from each of the fourth electrodes, and each of the sixth electrodes extending toward the second end. (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1276
913
media_image4.png
Greyscale
an insulating film provided between the first substrate and the first electrodes, the second electrodes, the third electrodes, the fourth electrodes, the fifth electrodes and the sixth electrodes (insulating film 514, see figure 1b between all electrodes and substrate 516)
wherein each of the first electrodes, each of the second electrodes, each of the third electrodes, each of the fourth electrodes, each of the fifth electrodes and each of the sixth electrodes are provided in each of the first through holes (as seen in figure 1b).
Koyama modifies Platzgummer by suggesting an additional four electrodes within the aperture electrically coupled to each other with the insulating film between the electrodes and the substrate.
Since both inventions are directed towards blanking aperture array, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional electrode arrangement as suggested by Koyama in the blanker array of Platzgummer because the structure allows for materials other than the first and second deflection electrodes to be geometrically invisible from the electron beam, making it difficult for charge to occur and shielding against leakage electric fields caused by charge, thereby minimizing their effects and enabling stable drawing processing ([0010]).
Alternatively, Jurish teaches the deficiencies of Platzgummer as indicated in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
616
1016
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jurish modifies Platzgummer by suggesting additional electrodes.
Since both inventions are directed towards CMOS aperture blanking arrays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode structure of Platzgummer to be that of Jurish because the metal layer minimizes the open oxide area on the top of the blanking chip for charging prevention (see section 3 results and discussion, first paragraph).
Alternatively, Koyama819 teaches the deficiencies in the annotated figure below
PNG
media_image6.png
884
1224
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Koyama819 modifies Platzgummer by suggesting the claimed structure of electrodes, since both inventions are directed towards blanking aperture arrays it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the electrode structure of Koyama819 in the device of Platzgummer because covering 80% of the sidewall prevents charge buildup on the surfaces outside the deflector ([0015])
Regarding claim 2, Platzgummer in view of Koyama et al. teaches wherein a distance between each of the third electrodes and each of the fifth electrodes is 10% or more and 40% or less of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode (Koyama, distance between third electrode and fifth electrode is 5 microns, see figure 1b and annotated figure above, distance between first and second electrodes are 30 microns see figure 1b thus within 10-40%), and a distance between the fourth electrode and the sixth electrode is 10% or more and 40% or less of the distance between the first electrode and the second electrode (symmetrically the same for the fourth and sixth electrode).
Regarding claim 2, Platzgummer in view of Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a distance between each of the third electrodes and each of the fifth electrodes is 10% or more and 40% or less of a distance between each of the first electrodes and each of the second electrodes, and a distance between each of the fourth electrodes and each of the sixth electrodes is 10% or more and 40% or less of the distance between each of the first electrodes and each of the second electrodes (Jurisch, figure 2 shows an 8 micron aperture, figure 3 shows the separation between Al by space with a scale of 1 micron, clearly the separation between Al is less than 3.2 microns (i.e. 40% the 8 micron difference between interpreted first and second electrodes). Figure 4 shows gap is present between both third and fifth and between fourth and sixth electrodes)
PNG
media_image7.png
747
1177
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Platzgummer in view of Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a distance between a fifth end of each of the third electrodes facing each of the fifth electrodes and a sixth end of each of the fourth electrodes facing each of the sixth electrodes is equal to a distance between a seventh end of each of the fifth electrodes facing each of the third electrodes and an eighth end of each of the sixth electrodes facing each of the fourth electrodes (Jurisch, as seen in figure 4 annotated in figure 1 above)
Regarding claim 4, Platzgummer in view of Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a length of each of the first electrodes and a length of each of the second electrodes are equal (Jurisch see annotated figure 4 above showing first and second electrode with equal length).
Regarding claim 5, Platzgummer in view of Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a length of each of the third electrodes and the length of each of the fifth electrodes are equal, and a length of each of the fourth electrodes and a length of each of the sixth electrodes are equal (Jurisch length of third through sixth electrode are shown as equal).
Regarding claim 7, Platzgummer in view of Koyama teaches wherein the first substrate includes silicon (Platzgummer see discussion above) and all electrodes are form of tungsten (Platzgummer [0066] teaches tungsten filling the trench forming a prospective electrode 112 as modified by Koyama which teaches six electrodes).
Regarding claim 9, Platzgummer teaches wherein the insulating film includes silicon oxide ([0065], 106 is SiO2)
Regarding claim 14, Platzgummer et al. teaches a charged particle beam irradiation apparatus comprising the electronic component according to claim 1 (figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Platzgummer in view of Koyama teaches wherein each of the plurality of third electrodes is directly connected to the first end of each of the first electrodes; each of the plurality of fourth electrodes is directly connected to the second end of each of the first electrodes; each of the plurality of fifth electrodes is directly connected to the third end of each of the second electrodes; each of the plurality of sixth electrodes is directly connected to the fourth end of each of the second electrodes (as seen in annotated figure of Koyama above, all electrodes are described as portions thus directly connected).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Koyama reference and further in view of Ono et al. (US pgPub 2004/0169147).
Regarding claim 12, Platzgummer in view of Koyama fails to disclose a plurality of first junction electrodes provided on the first substrate surface, and each of the first junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the first electrodes; a plurality of second junction electrodes provided on the first substrate surface, and each of the second junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the second electrodes; a second substrate including a plurality of second through holes and a third substrate surface facing the first substrate surface; a plurality of third junction electrodes provided on the third substrate surface, each of the third junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the first junction electrodes; and a plurality of fourth junction electrodes provided on the third substrate surface, each of the fourth junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the second junction electrodes.
However, Ono teaches a plurality of first junction electrodes provided on the first substrate surface (53’ is a wiring pad (figures 5-6), which is shown to be provided to first surface of substrate 400 in figure 8), and each of the first junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the first electrodes (53’ connected to electrode 53 on 400 (see figure 4a and 5-6 respectively), [0055]); a plurality of second junction electrodes provided on the first substrate surface (52’ in figures 5-6), and each of the second junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the second electrodes (52 see figures 4-6 and paragraph [0055]); a second substrate (500) including a plurality of second through holes (51’) and a third substrate surface facing the first substrate surface (top surface of 500 facing first substrate layer of 400); a plurality of third junction electrodes provided on the third substrate surface (pads 53P), each of the third junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the first junction electrodes (fig. 5 shows 55P connected to 53’); and a plurality of fourth junction electrodes (52P) provided on the third substrate surface (as seen in figure 5), each of the fourth junction electrodes being electrically connected to each of the second junction electrodes (52P electrically connected to 52’).
Ono modifies the combined device by suggesting a wiring substrate to provide power to the electrodes to the first surface of the substrate of either primary device.
Since both inventions are directed towards blanker arrays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wire the device of Koyama as suggested by Ono because it “can form interconnections to a large number of blanking electrodes, which is not influenced by the contamination on a fabrication line, which effectively prevents removal and deformation of electrodes of an electrode substrate when this electrode substrate and a wiring substrate together forming a deflector are bonded, and which can prevent charge-up and stabilize electron beams even if the electrode substrate of the deflector is directly irradiated with the electron beams.” ([0008]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device in view of Ono teach wherein the first junction electrodes, the second junction electrodes, the third junction electrodes, and the fourth junction electrodes include Au (gold) or Cu (copper) ([0072] 52’/53’ include gold “Au” and 52P and 53P are made by similar steps ([0070]), suggesting made of gold)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Note Wieland (WO 2015/090378) may additionally be used to modify Platzgummer to make obvious at least claim 1, however for the purposes of brevity, Wieland is not currently applied, see Non-Final Rejection of 23 June 2026 for the discussion of Weiland.
