DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/885828 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 14 of the reference application is more limited in scope requiring each of the limitations of claims 1 and 14 in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Note: MPEP 804 (I)(B)(1)(b) (ii) recites:
applicant can overcome a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection by filing a reply that either shows that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application, or includes a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 that obviates the rejection. If the reply is sufficient, the examiner will withdraw the nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the application in which it was submitted.
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 1-14 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 is rejected for requiring “a plurality of third electrodes, each of the third electrodes being connected to the first end [[of the first electrodes]]and extending toward the third end; a plurality of fourth electrodes, each of the fourth electrodes being connected to the second end [[of the first electrodes]] and extending toward the fourth end; a plurality of fifth electrodes, each of the fifth electrodes being connected to the third end [[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; and a plurality of sixth electrodes, each of the sixth electrodes being connected to the fourth end [[of the second electrodes]], each of the sixth electrodes being provided separately from each of the fourth electrodes”. Specifically, the instant claim requires six distinct plurality of electrodes, however they are connected so as to form two electrodes as seen in figure 2a. Under the broadest interpretation of the claim the electrodes are distinct and may be connected via an insulator. However, the specification clearly shows the each of the third through sixth electrode directly coupled to either the first or second electrode. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is limiting portions of two electrodes (i.e. first electrode comprising a first, third and fourth portion and second electrode comprising a second, fifth and sixth portion) or if the claim is actually describing distinct electrodes separated and coupled (i.e. via an insulator). As the specification only supports the former interpretation, for the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted the first through sixth electrodes are portions of two electrodes.
Claims 2-14 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama (JP-2008034498)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama teaches a first substrate (fig. fig. 1a-c, 516) including a first substrate surface, a second substrate surface provided on the opposite side of the first substrate surface (as seen in figure 1b, upper and lower surfaces of 516), and a plurality of first through holes (through hole 512 shown, paragraph [0030] on page 30 of the machine translation teaches deflectors 500 may be configured in an array thus a plurality of through holes), each of the first through holes through which each of multiple charged particle beams passes ([0030]);
a plurality of first electrodes, each of the first electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes, and each of the first electrodes including a first end and a second end; a plurality of second electrodes, each of the second electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes, being arranged to face each of the first electrodes, and including a third end facing the first end and a fourth end facing the second end; 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 (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1276
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Koyama et al. teaches wherein a distance between the third electrode and the fifth electrode is 10% or more and 40% or less of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode (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 with in 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 6, Koyama al. teaches 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).
Regarding claim 8, Koyama teaches 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 electordes and substrate 516).
Regarding claim 10, Koyama teaches wherein the first substrate further includes a semiconductor substrate ([0017] silicon is used as material for substrate 516) and each of the side surfaces of the first through hole include an exposed portion in the vicinity of the second substrate surface (see annotated figure below as applied to each hole see paragraph [0030]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1276
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Koyama et al. teaches a charged particle beam irradiation apparatus comprising the electronic component according to claim 1 ([0030]).
Claims 1, 6, 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama (JP-2005149819)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama teaches a first substrate (fig. 14, 501 or alternatively fig. 16, all of 501/504/505/506) including a first substrate surface, a second substrate surface provided on the opposite side of the first substrate surface (as seen in figure 14b, upper and lower surfaces of 501 or alternatively fig. 16, opposite surfaces of the composite substrate 501/504/505/506), and a plurality of first through holes (through hole 513 shown, paragraph [0035] teaches embodiments are characterized in a deflector array thus a plurality of through holes), each of the first through holes through which each of multiple charged particle beams passes ([0035]);
a plurality of first electrodes, each of the first electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes, and each of the first electrodes including a first end and a second end; a plurality of second electrodes, each of the second electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes, being arranged to face each of the first electrodes, and including a third end facing the first end and a fourth end facing the second end; 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 (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
884
1224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Koyama al. teaches 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 14b).
Regarding claim 8, Koyama teaches 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 504, see figure 14b between all electrodes and substrate 501).
Regarding claim 9, Koyama et al. teaches wherein the insulating film includes silicon oxide ([0044] teaches insulating layer 504 is made of silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 10, Koyama teaches wherein the first substrate further includes a semiconductor substrate (501 silicon, [0044]) and each of the side surfaces of the first through hole include an exposed portion in the vicinity of the second substrate surface (hole 513 exposed at second surface seen in figure 16 of 506)
Regarding claim 14, Koyama et al. teaches a charged particle beam irradiation apparatus comprising the electronic component according to claim 1 ([0035]).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiland (WO2015090378)(copy of publication submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Weiland teaches an electronic component 106) comprising:
a first substrate (fig. 6, 400/401) including a first substrate surface, a second substrate surface provided on the opposite side of the first substrate surface (as seen in figure 6, upper and lower surfaces of 400/401), and a plurality of first through holes (figure 6 shows through hole 35, figure 4 shows an array of holes 35), each of the first through holes through which each of multiple charged particle beams passes ([0061]);
a plurality of first electrodes, each of the first electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes, and each of the first electrodes including a first end and a second end; a plurality of second electrodes, each of the second electrodes being provided on each of the first through holes, being arranged to face each of the first electrodes, and including a third end facing the first end and a fourth end facing the second end; 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 (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
775
1634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Weiland al. teaches 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 ([fig. 6 shows 32/34 made up of layers 32a-32d and 34a-34d within the hole 35).
Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jurisch et al. (Jurisch et al., “W-CMOS blanking device for projection multi-beam lithography”, 2010)(submitted with IDS of 03/05/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Jurisch teaches all of claim 1 as indicated in the annotated figure 4 below applied to each aperture in the blanking aperture array of figures 1 and 5. Note the spacing between electrodes is clearly seen and the connection is inherent as the electrodes are interpreted as portions of two electrodes. The aluminium layer is interpreted as the claimed electrodes as it provides electrical connection between the CMOS and the electrodes (see second sentence on page 3 and fig. 3). Figures 2-3 show the silicon substrate with first and second surfaces.
PNG
media_image5.png
616
1016
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a distance between the third electrode and the fifth electrode is 10% or more and 40% or less of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode, 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 (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 then 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_image6.png
747
1177
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a distance between a fifth end of the third electrode facing the fifth electrode and a sixth end of the fourth electrode facing the sixth electrode is equal to a distance between a seventh end of the fifth electrode facing the third electrode and an eighth end of the sixth electrode facing the fourth electrode (as seen in figure 4 annotated in figure 1 above)
Regarding claim 4, Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a length of the first electrode and a length of the second electrode are equal (see annotated figure 4 above showing first and second electrode with equal length).
Regarding claim 5, Jurisch et al. teaches wherein a length of the third electrode and the length of the fifth electrode are equal, and a length of the fourth electrode and a length of the sixth electrode are equal (length of third through sixth electrode are shown as equal).
Regarding claim 14, Onozuka et al. teaches A charged particle beam irradiation apparatus comprising the electronic component according to claim 1 (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-14 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 through which each of multiple charged particle beams passes (see figure 1, 197a-197f passing through holes in 100);
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 connected to the first end and extending toward the third end ([0049] and figure 2a, 30 connects to 12 and extends towards 22);
a plurality of fourth electrodes (32), each of the fourth electrodes being connected to the second end and extending toward the fourth end (fig. 2a and paragraph [0040] teach 32 connected to 14 and extending towards 24);
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 connected to the fourth end (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), and each of the sixth electrodes extending toward the second end (36 extends towards 14 as seen).
Regarding claim 2, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a distance between the third electrode and the fifth electrode is 10% or more and 40% or less of a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode, 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 (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 the third electrode facing the fifth electrode (fifith end 31 of 30 facing 34) and a sixth end of the fourth electrode facing the sixth electrode (33 of 32 facing 36) is equal to a distance between a seventh end of the fifth electrode facing the third electrode (35 of 34 facing 30) and an eighth end of the sixth electrode facing the fourth electrode (37 of 36 facing 32, distances d2 and d5 shown as equal)
Regarding claim 4, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a length of the first electrode and a length of the second electrode are equal (length of 10 and 20 are shown as equal).
Regarding claim 5, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein a length of the third electrode and the length of the fifth electrode are equal, and a length of the fourth electrode and a length of the sixth electrode are equal (length of third through sixth electrode are shown as equal).
Regarding claim 6, Onozuka et al. teaches 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).
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 8, Onozuka et al. teaches 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 electordes and substrate 2)
Regarding claim 9, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein the insulating film includes silicon oxide ([0055] teaches insulating films include silicon oxide)
Regarding claim 10, Onozuka et al. teaches wherein the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate (silicon, see paragraph [0110]), and 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).
Regarding claim 11, Onozuka et al. teaches 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 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).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Koyoma reference and further in view of Maruyama et al. (USPN 5,814,423).
Regarding claim 7, while both Koyoma references teach the substrate is made of silicon, neither reference suggests the electrodes are made of tungsten.
However, Maruyama et al. teaches paired deflection electrodes made of tungsten (col. 3, lines 16-20).
Maruyama modifies either Koyama reference by suggesting the use of tungsten interchangeably with the gold materials suggested in each Koyama reference.
Since both inventions are directed towards using heavy metals as the material for the paired deflector electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the gold for tungsten because it would have lead to predictable results. That is, Maruyama is evidence that either gold or tungsten may be used for paired electrodes with the predictable result of blanking in a multibeam system.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Koyoma reference and further in view of Ono et al. (US pgPub 2004/0169147).
Regarding claim 12, either Koyama reference 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 either reference 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, Koyama 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
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
Prosecution Insights