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
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
Rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102:
Claim 1:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that because the correcting apertures 353 do not extend through layer 313_2 of the multi-aperture arrangement 305, Knippelmeyer does not teach “a plurality of correction openings extending through all the one or more layers of the aperture lens plate body.” However, under the BRI of “aperture lens plate” the plate can be considered to be taught by layers 313_1 and 331, through which the apertures 353 extend through. See rejections below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Claim 12:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that because the correcting apertures 353 do not extend through layer 313_2 of the multi-aperture arrangement 305, Knippelmeyer does not teach “a plurality of correction openings extending through all the one or more layers of the aperture lens plate body.” However, under the BRI of “aperture lens plate” the plate can be considered to be taught by layers 313_1 and 331, through which the apertures 353 extend through. See rejections below.
Claim 17:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Knippelmeyer or Kruit teach or suggest correction openings that are different from the beamlet opening. However, as shown in Figure 9 of Knippelmeyer, Knippelmeyer differentiates between “correcting apertures 353” and “apertures 315”, where the “field correcting apertures are formed in the multi-aperture plate for correcting a distortion of the electrical field generated by the multi-aperture plate (para. [0044]).” Further, Kruit teaches a multi-aperture lens plate 122 with “aperture openings 522” and “dummy apertures 524.” Therefore, both Knippelmeyer and Kruit teach and suggest correction openings that are different from beamlet openings. See rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Oliver Knippelmeyer (US 20170287674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Knippelmeyer.
Regarding claim 1, Knippelmeyer teaches a multi-aperture lens plate of a multi-beam generator for a charged particle multi-beam apparatus (The invention relates to particle-optical systems using multiple beamlets of charged particles (para. [0002])), comprising: an aperture lens plate body having one or more layers (layers 313_1 and 331 of multi-aperture lens plate 313), the aperture lens plate body configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets, the aperture lens plate body comprising: an array of N beamlet openings extending through all of the one or more layers of the aperture lens plate body (array pattern 319), the array of N beamlet openings having beamlet openings (apertures 315), the array of N beamlet openings configured to generate N primary charged particle beamlets, wherein N is a number >= 2 (Multi-aperture plate 313.sub.1 is illuminated by illuminating beam 311, and the apertures 315 formed therein are of a diameter for selecting and generating the primary electron beamlets from the illuminating beam 311 (para. [0151])); and a plurality of correction openings extending through all of the one or more layers (apertures 353 extend through both layers 313_1 and 331) of the aperture lens plate body and configured to locally influence a lens field of the beamlet openings (Further, field correcting apertures are formed in the multi-aperture plate for correcting a distortion of the electrical field generated by the multi-aperture plate (para. [0044])), wherein the correction openings are different than the beamlet openings (At interstitial positions between apertures 315 smaller field correcting apertures 353 are formed (para. [0173])).
Regarding claim 2, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the beamlet openings are circular (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 3, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the correction openings are circular (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 4, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the beamlet openings are circular, wherein the correction openings are circular and have a different diameter than the beamlet openings (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the array of N beamlet openings is rectangular or square (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 8, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein a first neighboring beamlet opening of a first beamlet opening of the array of N beamlet openings is in a first direction having a first vector selected from the group consisting of: [1,0], [0,1], [-1,0], and [0,-1] and a first neighboring correction opening of the first beamlet opening is in a second direction selected from the group consisting of: [1/2,1/2], [1/2, -1/2], [-1/2,1/2] and [-1/2,- 1/2] (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 9, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the plurality of correction openings is located at equal distance to surrounding beamlet openings of the array of N beamlet openings (The additional apertures 354 may be arranged as a continuation of pattern 319, i.e. they are provided with a same pitch as array 319 (para. [0181])) (Fig. 9).
The correction openings are arranged in an array pattern with a set pitch. Therefore, the plurality of correction openings is located at equal distance to surrounding beamlet openings of the array of N beamlet openings.
Regarding claim 10, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein a position of beamlet openings changes with a distance of the beamlet openings to a central point according to a linear function, a third order function, and/or a fifth order function of the distance (Fig. 9; line X-X).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the aperture lens plate body (multi-aperture lens plate 313, layers 313_1 and 331) is configured such that charged particles can pass through the plurality of correction openings through the aperture lens plate body (Thereafter, the resist pattern corresponding to the pattern of the field correcting apertures 353 is provided on plate 313.sub.1 and etching is performed with the first etching agent through upper layer 313.sub.1. Thereafter, etching is continued with the second etching agent which etches only silicon and does not etch metal. Thus, apertures 353 are formed through silicon substrate 331 (para. [0176])).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Marco Jan-Jaco Wieland (US 20230238215 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wieland.
Regarding claim 5, Knippelmeyer fails to teach the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the correction openings have a diameter of 60% of the diameter of the beamlet openings or smaller.
However, Wieland teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the correction openings have a diameter of 60% of the diameter of the beamlet openings or smaller (In one particular arrangement, for example, an aperture in the sub-beam defining aperture array 152 has a diameter of about 50 microns and a corresponding aperture 124 in the down-beam aperture body 123 has a diameter of about 10 microns (para. [0100])) (10 is 20% of 50).
Further, optimizing the diameter of the correction openings is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Knippelmeyer teaches that “A diameter of the field correcting apertures 353 is determined such that a multipole characteristic of stray fields generated by both the apertures 315 and the field correcting apertures 353 is reduced as compared to the situation shown in FIG. 7 where no field correcting apertures 353 are provided (para. [0174])”. As such, Knippelmeyer identifies the diameter of the correction aperture as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing multipole characteristics of stray fields. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the diameter of the correction openings in Knippelmeyer such that the diameter of the beamlet openings is 50 micron and the diameter of the correction openings is 10 micron since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Knippelmeyer fails to teach the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the beamlet openings have a diameter of 30 to 70 pm and the correction openings have a diameter of 10 to 30 pm.
However, Wieland teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the beamlet openings have a diameter of 30 to 70 pm and the correction openings have a diameter of 10 to 30 pm (In one particular arrangement, for example, an aperture in the sub-beam defining aperture array 152 has a diameter of about 50 microns and a corresponding aperture 124 in the down-beam aperture body 123 has a diameter of about 10 microns (para. [0100])) (10 is 20% of 50).
Optimizing the diameter of the correction openings is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Knippelmeyer teaches that “A diameter of the field correcting apertures 353 is determined such that a multipole characteristic of stray fields generated by both the apertures 315 and the field correcting apertures 353 is reduced as compared to the situation shown in FIG. 7 where no field correcting apertures 353 are provided (para. [0174])”. As such, Knippelmeyer identifies the diameter of the correction aperture as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., reducing multipole characteristics of stray fields. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the diameter of the correction openings in Knippelmeyer such that the diameter of the beamlet openings is 50 micron and the diameter of the correction openings is 10 micron since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyter as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Marco Jan- Jaco Wieland (US 20050211921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wieland21.
Regarding claim 11, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-aperture lens plate of claim 1, wherein the array of N beamlet openings and the plurality of correction openings are provided through the foil (upper metal layer 313.sub.2; apertures 315 are formed in the upper metal layer 313 (para. [0157])) (Thereafter, the resist pattern corresponding to the pattern of the field correcting apertures 353 is provided on plate 313.sub.1 and etching is performed with the first etching agent through upper layer 313.sub.1 (para. [0176])).
Knippelmeyer fails to teach wherein the aperture lens plate body includes a foil having a thickness of 20 pm or below.
However, Wieland 21 teaches wherein the aperture lens plate body includes a foil having a thickness of 20 pm or below (The lens array comprises two or more plates 13a and 13b, both having a thickness of about 10-500 .mu.m (para. [0097])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Knippelmeyer, the include the teachings of Wieland21 by making the foil 313 of Knippelmeyer less than 20 microns thick. A lens with a thickness in this range can effectively guide the charged beams through the optical system.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer, in view of Dirk Zeidler (US 20210210303 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zeidler.
Regarding claim 12, Knippelmeyer teaches a multi-beam generator for a charged particle multi-beam apparatus, comprising:
a charged particle emitter configured to emit a primary charged particle beam (at least one beam of charged particles generated by the source (para. [0026]));
a multi-aperture lens plate being arranged for being illuminated with the primary charged particle beam, the multi-aperture lens plate comprising: an aperture lens plate body, the aperture lens plate body configured to generate a plurality of primary charged particle beamlets, the aperture lens plate body comprising (multi-aperture lens plate 313, layers 313_1 and 331):
an array of N beamlet openings through the aperture lens plate body (array 319), the array of N beamlet openings having beamlet openings (apertures 315), the array of N beamlet openings configured to generate N primary charged particle beamlets, wherein N is a number >= 2 (Multi-aperture plate 313.sub.1 is illuminated by illuminating beam 311, and the apertures 315 formed therein are of a diameter for selecting and generating the primary electron beamlets from the illuminating beam 311 (para. [0151]));
and a plurality of correction openings through the aperture lens plate body configured to locally influence a lens field of the beamlet openings (field correcting apertures 353), wherein the correction openings are different than the beamlet openings (the field correcting apertures have preferably a smaller size than the beam-manipulating apertures located adjacent thereto (para. [0048]));
Knippelmeyer fails to teach an aperture plate downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate with an aperture plate body having a plurality of N openings for passing of the N primary charged particle beamlets, the aperture plate body configured to block electrons passing through the correction openings.
However Zeidler teaches an aperture plate downstream of the multi- aperture lens plate with an aperture plate body having a plurality of N openings for passing of the N primary charged particle beamlets (second multi-aperture plate PA2), the aperture plate body configured to block electrons passing through the correction openings (Thus, what is the case here is that only some of the particles of the individual particle beams that have passed through the first multi-lens array can also pass through the second multi-lens array since the second multi-aperture plate is used in any case to block some of the particles of the individual particle beams (para. [0020])).
Zeidler teaches an aperture plate capable of blocking electrons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Knippelmeyer to include the teachings of Zeidler by incorporating a second aperture plate configured to block electrons passing through the correction openings. Doing so protects downstream optics or samples from “unintentional charging by charged particles incident thereon (Zeidler; para. [0020])”
Regarding claim 13, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-beam generator of claim 12, further comprising: one or more electrodes with a common opening configured for passing of at least one of the primary charged particle beam or the N primary charged particle beamlets, the one or more electrodes being configured to generate an electric field on the multi-aperture lens plate to focus the N primary charged particle beamlets in a plane downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate (multi-aperture plate 313 is mounted in a center of a cup-shaped electrode 341 para. [0164]).
Any electrode can be configured to generate an electric field on the multi-aperture lens plate to focus the N primary charged particle beamlets in a plane downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate.
Regarding claim 14, Knippelmeyer teaches the multi-beam generator of any of claim 13, wherein the plane is flat (region F.sub.1 ).
Regarding claim 15, Knippelmeyer teaches a charged particle multi-beam apparatus configured to focus N primary charged particle beamlets on a specimen (landing angle of the primary electron beamlets 3 at the primary electron beam spots 5 formed on the object 7 (para. [0163])), comprising :a multi-beam generator of claim 12 (see rejection for claim 12 above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer in view of Zeidler, and in further view of Albertus Victor Mangnus (US 20220199355 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mangnus.
Regarding claim 16, Knippelmeyer teaches the charged particle multi-beam apparatus of claim 15, wherein the array of N beamlet openings and the plurality of correction openings form a first pattern within a first area, wherein further openings are provided in the aperture lens plate body to extend the first pattern beyond the first area to form a second pattern with a second area larger than the first area (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
549
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Knippelmeyer fails to teach wherein the second pattern has an essentially circular shape.
However, Mangnus teaches wherein the second pattern has an essentially circular shape (Fig. 3A as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
237
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Knippelmeyer to include the teachings of Mangnus by making the second pattern circular. The second pattern being circular produces “four-fold symmetry in azimuthal direction (Mangnus; para. [0043]).”
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knippelmeyer, in view of Pieter Kruit (W02021078352), hereinafter referred to as Kruit.
Regarding claim 17, Knippelmeyer teaches a method of generating a plurality of N primary charged particle beamlets to be focused on a specimen, comprising: generating a primary charged particle beam with a charged particle emitter (an electron source arrangement 301 generates a highly divergent electron beam 309 originating from a virtual source 329 (para. [0159]));
illuminating a multi-aperture lens plate, the multi-aperture lens plate comprisinq an aperture lens plate body (multi-aperture lens plate 313, layers 313_1 and 331), with the primary charged particle beam (Divergent illuminating beam 311 then illuminates an illuminated region F.sub.1 of a multi-aperture plate 313 of multi-aperture arrangement 305 (para. [0160]));
generating beamlets, comprising: generating N primary charged particle beamlets generated with an array of N beamlet openings of the aperture lens plate body (Electrons of illuminating beam 311 passing through apertures 315 form the primary electron beamlets 3 (para. [0141]));
the N primary charged particle beamlets are focused in a plane downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate (Fig. 3 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image5.png
642
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Knippelmeyer fails to teach focusing the N primary charged particle beamlets with an electric field generated at the multi-aperture lens plate with one or more electrodes, and generating first dummy beamlets generated with a plurality of correction openings of the aperture lens plate body, wherein the correction openings are different than the beamlet openings; and blocking at least the first dummy beamlets, particularly in a field-free region, downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate.
However, Kruit teaches focusing the N primary charged particle beamlets with an electric field generated at the multi-aperture lens plate with one or more electrodes(For example, four electrodes 124 can be provided upstream of the multi-aperture lens plate 122 and one electrode 124 can be provided downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate 122 (para. [0042])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Knippelmeyer to include the teachings of Kruit by including electrodes 124 in a region above the multi-aperture lens plate. Doing so “provides at least one additional degree of freedom in primary beamlet control (Kruit; para. [0042])”
and generating first dummy beamlets generated with a plurality of correction openings of the aperture lens plate body, wherein the correction openings are different than the beamlet openings (the further openings 524 can be considered dummy openings. Even though, further beamlets may be generated from the further openings 524, the further beamlets are not utilized for image generation (para. [0048])); and blocking at least the first dummy beamlets, particularly in a field-free region, downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate (Accordingly, the aperture array 740 may include portions blocking the charged particle beams passing through the dummy apertures 524 (para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Knippelmeyer to include the teachings of Kruit by modifying the correction apertures of Kruit such that dummy beamlets are produced, and then later blocked downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate. The dummy beamlets “reduce aberrations of the ALA (Kruit; para. [0078])” however, are not intended for image generation. Producing the beamlets and blocking them downstream of the multi-aperture lens plate reduces aberrations while maintaining accurate imaging.
Regarding claim 18, Knippelmeyer teaches the method of claim 17, wherein generating beamlets further comprises: generating second dummy beamlets with further openings extending beyond a first area of the array of N beamlet openings and the plurality of correction openings; and blocking the second dummy beamlets (It is, however, also possible to form the additional aperture 354 as through-holes through the multi-aperture arrangement 305 such that also the additional apertures 354 generate primary electron beamlets downstream thereof. The beamlets formed by the additional apertures 354 may then be intercepted by some other means, such as a suitable stop, provided downstream of the multi-aperture arrangement (para. [0182])).
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 MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights