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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to drawings of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
103 rejection – claim 1:
Applicant argues that the rejection relies on unsupported common knowledge because the Office stated that a POSITA would have recognized Spellman’s adjustable high-voltage power supply as relevant to safely supplying and maintaining stable electrode potential in a high voltage beam column environment. The Office respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on common knowledge to supply a missing claim element. Zeidler teaches the claimed particle beam microscope structure and a potential supply system for controlling potentials of the relevant components. Spellman is relied for its express teaching of a programmable high-voltage power supply suitable for electron beam system. Thus, the combination is supported by the references themselves.
Applicant’s argument that Zeidler does not disclose U2>U3 is also not persuasive. Claim 1 is a system claim and recites a potential supply system “configured to provide” U1, U2, U3, and U4. Under BRI, the claim only requires the potential supply system to be capable of providing U1, U2, U3, and U4. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show U2 >U3 requires the power supply system to simultaneously to supply U1, U2, U3, and U4, which is a feature not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The prior art of record describes a modified invention that allows for the use of various voltage, which is the advantage noted in the rejection of record. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims rejected therewith, is maintained.
103 rejection – claim 31:
Applicant argues the motivation to combine Zeidler and Harvey is unsupported, and Harvey is not relevant because it relates to vacuum tubes/ shielding, not supply potentials to Zeidler’s detector region element. The Office respectfully disagrees.
First, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this instance case, Harvey is not relied on to teach Zeidler’s detector or voltage control arrangement. Instead, Harvey is relied on for the known insulating tube/conductive layer/conductive track construction. In the proposed combination, Harvey’s conductor-track structure is used in Zeidler’s beam tube to route electrical potential to Zeidler’s further element while maintain the conductive inner beam tube surface. The fact that Harvey uses its conductors for beam stabilizing/shielding purpose does not negate its teaching of the claimed conductor-track structure or its suitability for carrying electrical potential.
Second, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Zeidler and Harvey concern structures for charged particle beam systems in which a beam travels through a tube/chamber and electrical behavior of the tube wall is important. Harvey is reasonably pertinent because claim 31 specially recites an insulating beam-tube body, an electrically conductive inner layer, and conductor tracks supported by the insulating body. These are the same type of structural feature taught by Harvey.
Accordingly, the combined references teach or suggests the claimed structure, and the rejection of claim 31 is maintained.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation “between the first ring electrode and the scintillator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 12, 19-20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120199740 [hereinafter Zeidler] in view of “Spellman 300W-1200W High Voltage Power Supplies Data Sheet” (2006) [hereinafter Spellman].
Regarding Claim 1:
Zeidler teaches a particle beam microscope (Fig. 1- particle beam system 1), comprising:
an electron beam source (Fig. 1- particle beam source 3) configured to generate an electron beam (Fig. 1- particle beam 1);
a beam tube (Fig. 1- beam tube 15) comprising
an electrically conductive inner lateral surface (para. [0052]: the inner surface of the through hole 25 is provided with an electrically conductive layer and is electrically contacted to the beam tube 15 so the through-hole inner surface is at the same potential as the beam tube, accordingly, a beam path defining inner surface at beam tube potential),
a first end (see annotated fig. 1 below) and a second end (Fig.1- lower end 17),
the beam tube configured so that the electron beam enters the beam tube at the first end and emerges from the beam tube at the second end (paras. [0050-0051]: “The particle beam 11 is accelerated between the electrode 9 and the entry electrode 13 of a beam tube 15 and enters the beam tube 15 …lower end 17 of the beam tube 16…letting the particle beam 11 passes through…);
a magnetic objective lens (Fig. 1- magnetic focusing lens 41) configured to focus the electron beam in an object plane (para. [0056]: “a magnetic focusing lens 41…focuses the particle beam 11…), the magnetic objective lens comprising
a coil (Fig. 1- winding shown around the lens region 45) and a yoke (Fig.1 – pole pieces 42/43),
the yoke comprising first (Fig. 1- end of first pole piece 42) and second pole ends (Fig.1- end of second pole piece 43),
each of the first and second pole ends extends around an axis of symmetry of the magnetic objective lens (Fig.1 shows the ends of the first and second pole pieces are arranged spaced apart from one another and extend around the axis of symmetry 32);
an object holder configured to hold an object (Fig. 1-object 35) in the object plane (Fig.1- object plane 27) (a particle beam microscope system inherently would have a holder/supporter to hold the sample/object it is inspecting);
a scintillator (Fig. 1- scintillator arrangement 21)configured to generate light from electrons arriving from the object plane and which, along the axis of symmetry (paras. [0053, 0069]: “the light rays… are generated by the scintillation,” “The electron, which moves along this trajectory 51 is incident on the layer 31 of a scintillator material and generates one or more light rays. This light ray is reflected in the scintillator arrangement 21 several times …guides the light to a photo detector 59”), is between the second end of the beam tube and the object plane (shown in Fig.1);
a ring electrode (Fig.1-annular electrode 33) comprising an end facing the object plane (para. [0055]: “annular electrode 33…faces the object plane 27”),
the ring electrode being between the scintillator and the object plane along the axis of symmetry (para. [0055]: “An annular electrode 33 is arranged between the surface 29 of the scintillator arrangement 21…and the object plane 27”)
a potential supply system (Fig. 1- controller 7) configured to provide (This configuration limitation is interpreted to mean that the potential supply system has the capability of providing the following voltages. It is noted that there is no recitation of the voltages being applied simultaneously or under a specific set of condition.):
a potential U1 to the object holder (para. [0055]: “The controller 7 places the electrode 33 at the same potential as the object35, which is arranged in the object plane 27”, showing the object has a defined electrical potential reference point);
a potential U2 to the ring electrode (para. [0055]: “The electrical potential of the electrode 33 is controlled by the controller 7 via port 34”);
a potential U3 to the scintillator (para. [0054]:” the surface 29 is placed at the same electrical potential as the beam tube 15,” showing the scintillator’s relevant face has a defined electrical potential reference point); and
a potential U4 to the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube (para. [0050]: “an electrical potential of the beam tube 15 is controlled by controller 7 via port 16”),
wherein U4>U1, U3>U1, U2>U1(paras. [0054-0055]: “the surface 29 is placed at the same electrical potential as the beam tube 15,” “Alternatively, the controller places the electrode 33 at an electrical potential which is between the electrical potential at which the object 35 is placed and the electrical potential of the beam tube 15.” Accordingly, U3=U4 (scintillator face tied to tube); U1<U2<U4; satisfying U4>U1, U3>U1, U2>U1).
However, Zeidler does not specifically note that U2>U3.
Spellman teaches U2>U3 (the Spellman data sheet shows the supply output of the HV module is continuously programmable over a 60-70kV or a 1-50kV range and is used in e-beam system, thus, separate programmable outputs can be set to provide U1-U4 with the required ordering relationships).
Zeidler discloses a particle beam system having a beam tube (15) ending in an end electrode (layer 31), a scintillator arrangement (21) extending toward the object plane, and an annular electrode (33) disposed between the scintillator surface (29) facing the object plane and the object plane, with the potential of the annular electrode being controlled. Spellman teaches an OEM high-voltage power supply module suitable for electron-beam system with programmable output voltage so that the output is continuously adjustable across its rated range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the adjustable high-voltage power supply, as taught by Spellman, to the potential supply system, as taught in Zeidler, which a POSITA would recognize as directly relevant to safely supplying and maintaining stable electrode potentials in high-voltage beam-column environment.
Regard Claim 2:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Spellman further teaches wherein: (U2-U3)>A*(U4-U1); A is equal to a member selected from the group consisting of 0.05, 0.07, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.2 (adjust the output potential of the HV module so that the difference (U2-U3) is set as a selected fraction of (U4-U1)).
Regard Claim 3:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Spellman further teaches wherein U3≥U4 (adjust the output potential of the HV module so that U3≥U4).
Regard Claim 4:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Spellman further teaches wherein (U3-U4)>B*(U4-U1); B is equal to a member selected from the group consisting of 0.05, 0.07, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.2 (adjust the output potential of the HV module so that the difference (U3-U4) is set as a selected fraction of (U4-U1)).
Regard Claim 5:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Spellman further teaches wherein (U4−U1)>4.0 kV (adjust the output potential of the HV module so that (U4−U1)>4.0 kV).
Regard Claim 12:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1.
Zeidler further teaches the potential supply system is configured to provide a potential U5 to an electron emitter of the electron beam source (para. [0049]: “the particle beam source 3 is an electron beam source having a cathode 5, which is controlled by a controller 7 via ports 6…places the cathode 5 at a desired electrical potential”); and
Spellman further teaches (adjust the output potential of the HV module so that U4>U5).
Regard Claim 19:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Zeidler further teaches a first electron detector comprising the scintillator and a light detector (Fig. 1-photo detector 59) (para. [0061]: “The scintillator arrangement 21 together with the photo detector 59, which transforms the generated light rays into electrical signals, form a scintillation detector of the particle beam”),
wherein the light detector is configured to: detect light generated by the scintillator; and generate electrical signals corresponding to the detected light (para. [0060]: “the light ray enters a light guide 57 which guides the light to a photo detector 59. which detects the incident light and generates an electrical detection signal, which corresponds to the incidence light”).
Regard Claim 20:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 19. Zeidler further teaches the first electron detector further comprises a light guide (Fig.1 -light guide 57) between the scintillator and the light detector in a beam path of the light generated by the scintillator (para. [0060]: “the light ray enters a light guide 57 which guides the light to a photo detector 59”, Fig. 1 shows the light guide 57 is between the scintillator arrangement 21 and the phot detector 59); and
the light guide comprises a light entry surface (Fig. 1- light exit face 55) which, along the axis of symmetry, is between the electron beam source and the scintillator (Fig.1 shows the light exit face 55 is between the electron source 3 and the layer 31 of the scintillator material).
Regard Claim 24:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1.
Spellman further teaches the electron beam is exposed to the potential U3 (HV module applies U3 to the electron beam).
Zeidler further teaches no electrostatic shield, shielding the electron beam from the electric potential of the scintillator, is between the electron beam and the scintillator (teaches the detector region without any intervening field, as shown in fig.1 configuration, the beam traverse the through hole 25 region defined by the scintillator arrangement/end-electrode structure, with no separate electrostatic shield between the beam and the scintillator arrangement).
As such, in the modified system, the particle beam microscope is configured so that, during use of the particle beam microscope, as the particle beam passes through the scintillator: the electron beam is exposed to the potential U3; and no electrostatic shield, shielding the electron beam from the electric potential of the scintillator, is between the electron beam and the scintillator.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Spellman, further in view of US 20090200463A1[hereinafter ICT].
Regard Claim 7:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. However, the combined references do not teach the potential supply system comprises a voltage divider comprising a first resistor and a second resistor; the first resistor is connected between the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube and the scintillator; and the second resistor is connected between the scintillator and the ring electrode
ICT teaches the potential supply system comprises a voltage divider (Fig. 10a-160b) comprising a first resistor (Fig. 10a- R1-R4) and a second resistor (Fig. 10a- R1-R4) (Figs. 10a& 10b, paras. [0153-0154]: an outer voltage divider 106b connects V1 (filter grid electrode 4) to V2 (entrance grid electrode 10) “through a set of resistors R1, R2, R3, R4,” V1 and V2 are also connected at beam tube element 130 through the same second set of R1-R4);
the first resistor is connected between the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube and the [intermediate node] (Figs. 10a& 10b, paras. [0153-0154]: since voltages of ring electrodes 122 ba, 122 bb are provided by voltage divider 160 b, the resistor segment (s) in 160b connects V2 node at beam tube element 130 and the divider-derived intermediate node 122ba/122bb); and
the second resistor is connected between the [intermediate node] and the first ring electrode (Figs. 10a& 10b, paras. [0153-0154]: the resistor segment(s) in divider 160b connects the intermediate node 122ba/122bb and the V1 node at electrode 4).
Since Zeidler teaches the structure components of the beam tube, the scintillator and the ring electrode, using the voltage divider (with resistors chain) taught in ICT to supply electrode voltages to the structure components in Zeidler would yield the claimed limitations of claim 7.
Zeidler teaches a detector-region electrode stack having multiple biased conductive elements in or around the beam path such that the electrostatic field in that region affects electron trajectories and collection. ICT teaches that when multiple electrodes surround the beam path, using an outer voltage divider (with resistor chain) to supply different electrodes voltages (e.g., to outer ring electrodes 122ba/122bb) “to further improve the homogeneity of the electric field” in the relevant field region and “reduce the size of the stray field regions,” and further explains that these electrode voltages are generated by the voltage drops across the divider resistors. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Zidler’s detector region electrode biases using ICT’s resistor-divider approach, i.e., generate at least one intermediate electrode potential by resistor division from two already established electrode potentials in the detector region, to provide a graded potential distribution that improves field homogeneity and reduce stray-field regions in the detector region.
Claim 10, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Spellman, further in view of US 4712074 [hereinafter Harvey].
Regarding Claim 10:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. However, the combined references do not teach the beam tube comprises an electrically insulating body comprising an inner wall and an outer wall; the inner wall comprises an electrically conductive layer defining the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube; the potential supply system comprises at least one conductor track supported by the electrically insulating body; and the scintillator and/or the ring electrode is electrically connected to the at least one conductor track.
Harvey teaches:
the beam tube comprises an electrically insulating body comprising an inner wall and an outer wall (Fig.2 and 5:3-7: a ceramic pipe 14 used as a vacuum chamber/beam pipe, the ceramic pipe is an electrically insulating body, with an inner wall and an outer wall);
the inner wall comprises an electrically conductive layer defining the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube (Fig.2 and 5:3-7: the conducting stripes 16 (e.g., nickel) coated to the inside wall of the ceramic pipe);
the potential supply system comprises at least one conductor track supported by the electrically insulating body (2:49-56: ceramic pipe; conducting strips oriented substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of said pipe; and circumferential conducting bands insulatively separated from said con ducting strips, oriented in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of said pipe, and joined together by a single longitudinal electrical connection, i.e., conductive “tracks” supported by the ceramic pipe).
As such, Zeidler in view of Harvey teaches the scintillator and/or the ring electrode is electrically connected to the at least one conductor track (Zeidler teaches the scintillator arrangement and the annular electrode in the beam-tube end region. Harvey teaches separate conductor tracks on the tube are used as electrical conductors to control potentials along/near the beam tube).
Zeidler teaches a particle beam microscope/column having a beam tube and an in-column scintillator detector arrangement with an annular electrode near the beam-tube end, where electrode potentials are controlled/applied to the detector-region electrodes. Harvey teaches a charged-particle beam pipe/vacuum chamber formed as an electrically insulating ceramic pipe having an inner conductive coating on the inside wall and separate conductor strips/bands (“conductor tracks”) supported on the outside of the insulating pipe for applying/distributing electrical potentials. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the beam-tube structure of Zeidler using the insulating-pipe and conductor-track construction of Harvey. Applying Harvey’s tube construction to Zeidler would predictably enable routing/feeding different electrical potentials to detector-region components (e.g., scintillator and/or annular electrode and/or another proximate element) via conductor tracks supported by the beam tube, while keeping the inner wall at a desired tube potential, thereby improving manufacturability and electrical integration of the detector-region biasing without changing the basic detector geometry of Zeidler.
Regarding Claim 25:
The term “further element” in claim 2 (also recited in claim 31) is interpreted broadly as a component located in proximity to the second end of the beam tube that is supplied an electrical potential via the potential supply system, including via a conductor track supported by the electrically insulating body of the beam tube. This “further element” is not required to be structurally distinct from the scintillator or ring electrode recited in claim 1. This interpretation is supported by the specification’s discussion of Fig. 2 (second embodiment), which describes the insulating body/insulator as providing a mechanical holder for “a further element, specifically the scintillator 59a,” and providing an electrical connection for that element. The specification further explains that, in other embodiments, the “further element” may be different from a scintillator, for example, the ring electrode carried on the beam tube and electrically contacted such that its electrical potential differs from the electrical potential of the inner wall of the beam tube.
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Zeidler further teaches a further element in proximity to the second end of the beam tube, wherein the potential supply system is configured to feed an electrical potential to the further element (Zeidler already places detector components (scintillator arrangement, annular electrode, objective-lens region structures) at/near the beam-tube end region. This supports the presence of “a further element” near the beam tube end that can be biased).
However, the combined references do not teach the beam tube comprises an electrically insulating body comprising an inner wall and an outer wall; the inner wall of the electrically insulating body comprises an electrically conductive layer defining the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube; the potential supply system comprises at least one conductor track which differs from the electrically conductive layer; the electrically insulating body supports the at least one conductor track; and the at least one further element is electrically connected to the at least one conductor track.
Harvey teaches the beam tube comprises an electrically insulating body comprising an inner wall and an outer wall (see claim 10 rejection);
the inner wall of the electrically insulating body comprises an electrically conductive layer defining the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube (see claim 10 rejection);
the potential supply system comprises at least one conductor track which differs from the electrically conductive layer (see claim 10 rejection);
the electrically insulating body supports the at least one conductor track (Fig.1, 4:55-66: as shown in fig. 1, the conducting stripes 16 and conducting bands 20 are applied to the outside wall of the ceramic pipe 14).
As such, Zeidler in view of Harvey teaches the at least one further element is electrically connected to the at least one conductor track (Zeidler provides the “further element” types in that region (detector electrode structures). Harvey teaches the conductor strips/bands are functional conductors used to manage fields/potentials on/around the beam pipe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the beam-tube structure of Zeidler using the insulating-pipe and conductor-track construction of Harvey, because both references are in the same field of charged-particle beam systems and Harvey provides a known way to integrate high-voltage distribution paths on an insulating tube body while maintaining a defined conductive inner surface.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Harvey.
Regarding Claim 31:
Zeidler teaches a particle beam microscope, comprising: an electron beam source configured to generate an electron beam; a beam tube comprising an electrically conductive inner lateral surface, a first end and a second end, the beam tube configured so that the electron beam enters the beam tube at the first end and emerges from the beam tube at the second end; a magnetic objective lens configured to focus the electron beam in an object plane, the magnetic objective lens comprising a coil and a yoke, the yoke comprising first and second pole ends,
each of the first and second pole ends extends around an axis of symmetry of the magnetic objective lens; an object holder configured to hold an object in the object plane; a further element in proximity to the second end of the beam tube; a potential supply system configured to provide electrical potentials to the object holder, the further element and the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube (see claims 1 and 25 rejection).
However, Zeidler does not specifically note that the beam tube comprises an electrically insulating body comprising an inner wall and an outer wall; the inner wall of the electrically insulating body comprises an electrically conductive layer defining the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube; the potential supply system comprises at least one conductor track which differs from the electrically conductive layer; the electrically insulating body supports the at least one conductor track; and the at least one further element is electrically connected to the at least one conductor track.
Harvey teaches:
the beam tube comprises an electrically insulating body comprising an inner wall and an outer wall; the inner wall of the electrically insulating body comprises an electrically conductive layer defining the electrically conductive inner lateral surface of the beam tube (see claim 10 rejection);
the potential supply system comprises at least one conductor track which differs from the electrically conductive layer; the electrically insulating body supports the at least one conductor track; and the at least one further element is electrically connected to the at least one conductor track (see claim 25 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the beam-tube structure of Zeidler using the insulating-pipe and conductor-track construction of Harvey, because both references are in the same field of charged-particle beam systems and Harvey provides a known way to integrate high-voltage distribution paths on an insulating tube body while maintaining a defined conductive inner surface. Applying Harvey’s tube construction to Zeidler would predictably enable routing/feeding different electrical potentials to detector-region components (e.g., scintillator and/or annular electrode and/or another proximate element) via conductor tracks supported by the beam tube, while keeping the inner wall at a desired tube potential, thereby improving manufacturability and electrical integration of the detector-region biasing without changing the basic detector geometry of Zeidler.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Spellman, further in view of US20070085018A1 [hereinafter Zhou].
Regarding Claim 14:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Zeidler further teaches a first beam deflector which, along the axis of symmetry (Fig. 1- deflector unit 47), is between the electron beam source (Fig. 1-6) and the scintillator (Fig.1-21). However, the combined references do not teach a second beam deflector which, along the axis of symmetry, is between the first beam deflector and the scintillator.
Zhou teaches a second beam deflector (Fig. 3 - a first reflector unit 110 and a second scan deflector 135).
Zeidler teaches a SEM scan-deflection stage upstream of the objective/detector region (Fig. 1- deflector unit 47). Zhou teaches adding a separate downstream scan deflector (135) in addition to the upstream deflector unit (110) to perform specimen scan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to add Zhou’s additional downstream scan-deflection stage (135) to Zeidler’s primary column that already has an upstream deflection stage, giving the SEM independent control of upstream beam selection and alignment and downstream imaging scan.
Regarding Claim 23:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. Zeidler further teaches a beam deflector which, along the axis of symmetry (Fig. 1-deflector unit 47), is between the electron beam source (Fig. 1-6) and the scintillator (Fig.1-21). However, the combined references do not teach a second electron detector comprising an electron receiver surface which, along the axis of symmetry, is between the electron beam source and the beam deflector
Zhou teaches a second electron detector comprising an electron receiver surface which, along the axis of symmetry, is between the electron beam source and the beam deflector (Fig.3 and paras. [0037-0038]: adding a Faraday-cup-like detector 130 below the diaphragm 120 to detect the amount of electrons passing through the small aperture,” thus the detector is between the source 102 and scan deflector 135).
Zeidler teaches the scintillator-based detector used for imaging electrons. Zhou teaches placing an electron-receiving current detector (Faraday cup 130) in the column to directly measure the electron beam passing the aperture during setup and selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Zhou’s column arrangement in which an electron detector (13) is located upstream the scan deflector into Zeidler’s SEM structure, so the beam can be directly measured during adjustment before downstream scanning, while the Scintillator detector remains used for normal imaging.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Spellman, further in view of US 20040245465A1 [hereinafter Steigerwald].
Regarding Claim 16:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. However, the combined references do not teach wherein the scintillator comprises a central opening having a diameter of more than 0.7 mm. Steigerwald teaches wherein the scintillator comprises a central opening having a diameter of more than 0.7 mm (para. [0052]: teaches a scintillator having a glass optical waveguide and “the borehole through the glass optical waveguide normally exhibits a diameter of 2 to 3 mm for the passage of the primary electron beam”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to select a scintillator central opening of 2 to 3 mm diameter as taught in Steigerwald for the scintillator in Zeidler’s SEM column, representing a routine dimensional design choice made to ensure sufficient beam clearance while maintaining an annular detection area.
Regarding Claim 17:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. However, the combined references do not teach wherein the ring electrode comprises a central opening having a diameter of more than 2.0 mm. Steigerwald teaches wherein the ring electrode comprises a central opening having a diameter of more than 2.0 mm (since the “optical waveguide of a scintillator” is part of an on-axis, ring-shaped detector body that physically sits in the beam path, so its central borehole is the same beam-clearance aperture the annular electrode structure must leave open, i.e., at least defines the minimum central opening size (i.e., 2.0 mm) that any coaxial annular electrode structure in the same on-axis detector stack must provide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to select a ring electrode central opening of 2 to 3 mm diameter as taught in Steigerwald for the scintillator in Zeidler’s SEM column, representing a routine dimensional design choice made to ensure sufficient beam clearance while maintaining an annular detection area.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeidler in view of Spellman, further in view of US20050173644A1 [hereinafter Gnauck].
Regarding Claim 18:
Zeidler in view of Spellman teaches the particle beam microscope of claim 1. However, the combined references do not teach wherein a distance along the axis of symmetry between a side of the scintillator facing the object plane and the end of the ring electrode facing the object plane is greater than 0.5 mm and/or is less than 6.0 mm. Gnauck teaches wherein a distance along the axis of symmetry between a side of the scintillator facing the object plane and the end of the ring electrode facing the object plane is greater than 0.5 mm and/or is less than 6.0 mm (3: 9-14 and 35-37: a meshed electrode placed less than 2mm from the scintillator electron detector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the SEM structure taught in Zeidler, to place the upstream electrode close to the scintillator (less than 2mm), as taught in Gnauck, because placing the ring electrode close to the scintillator is a routine design choice to maintain strong, well-controlled extraction/acceleration filed at the scintillator entrance while keeping the detector compact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection (s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights