FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final Office action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/611,689, which is a broadening reissue application of U.S. Application No. 14/787,775 (hereinafter the “775 Application"), entitled BEAM GRID LAYOUT, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,934,943 (hereinafter the “943 Patent") on April 3 2018.
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 34, 37-44 and 47-53 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 34, 37-44 and 47-53 are rejected.
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS AND APPLICATION
Applicant filed an amendment on March 23, 2026 (hereinafter the "Mar 2026 Amendment") in response to the non-final Office action mailed November 13, 2025 (hereinafter the “2025 NF Action”). In the Mar 2026 Amendment, the cross-noting information in the specification of the 943 Patent was amended, patent claims 1-33 were cancelled and new claims 34, 37-44 and 47-53 were added. Therefore, claims 34, 37-44 and 47-53 are pending and will be examined herein.
In response to the substantial amendments provided in the Mar 2026 Amendment, all objections and rejection provided in the 2025 NF Action are withdrawn. Nevertheless, the amendments necessitated the new objections and rejections provided in this Office action.
II. PRIORITY
Examiners acknowledge that the present reissue application is a continuation reissue application of U.S. Application No. 16/838,976, now U.S. Patent No. RE49,952 (hereinafter the “RE49952 Patent”), which is also a reissue application of the 775 Application, now the 943 Patent. Examiners further acknowledge the Applicant’s claim that the 775 Application is a National Stage of PCT/2014/059106, filed May 5, 2014. Examiners finally acknowledge the priority claim to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/818,919, filed May 3, 2013.
III. OBJECTION TO CLAIM AMENDMENTS
37 C.F.R. §1.173 Reissue specification, drawings, and amendments (in part)
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:…
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each claim being changed by such amendment paper and of each claim being added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression "amended," "twice amended," etc., should follow the claim number. Each changed patent claim and each added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
(g) Amendments made relative to the patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application.
The amendments to the claims provided in the Mar 2026 Amendment are objected to because they are not made with respect to the original patent, i.e., the 943 Patent, as required under the rules. Since claims 34, 37-44 and 47-53 are new with respect to the original patent, i.e., the 943 Patent, they should be fully underlined, claim numbers, identifiers and text. See MPEP 1453(V)(D). Appropriate correction is required in response to this Office action is required and will not be held in further abeyance.
IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are able to locate the following lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) which are defined with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims.
second direction – “[t]his second direction is referred to variously in this description as a second direction or x-direction or deflection scan direction” and further “that the second direction being different than the first direction.” See 943 Patent at col. 9, lines 17-22.
first direction – “[t]his movement in a first direction or the Y-direction or the mechanical scan direction.” See 943 Patent at col. 9, lines 9-11.
unbalanced array - an array or matrix with at least one row and/or column that has a different number of elements than another row or column of the array or matrix; a sub-set of unbalanced arrays include arrays with “shifted” columns, wherein the patterning scheme shifts one or more columns in relation to the other columns of the array. See 943 Patent at col. 5, lines 31-36.
Because the Examiners are able to locate these lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is his own lexicographer for at least these terms in the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Other than the lexicographic definitions identified above and the Examiners’ finding that the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the remaining limitations in the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
For terms not lexicographically defined above, and discussed herein, the Examiner hereby interprets “aperture array” as recited in the claims in view of the knowledge of ordinary skill in the art. As noted above, Examiners do not find that the 943 Patent lexicographically defines “aperture array.” Nevertheless, as is well known in the art, an “aperture array” in the art of lithography systems is “an aperture array, comprising in the known system a plate with through-holes, by blocking part of the collimated beam and allowing the beamlets 22 to pass through.” See U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0174985 to Jerry Peijster, ¶0072. See also U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0091318 to Marco Wieland et al., ¶0081 which states “[t]he aperture array preferably comprises a plate having through holes.” Thus, while not defined in the 943 Patent, Examiners will interpret “aperture array” in a manner consistent with the state of the art as being a plate with holes therein.
V. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
V.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Kawamoto
Claims 34, 36-44 and 46-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) or §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0068962 to Takayauki Kawamoto (hereinafter “Kawamoto”).
Regarding claim 34, Kawamoto discloses:
34. (New) A method for exposing a field of a target using one or more charged particle beams, the field having a length in a first direction and a width in a second direction, the method comprising:
See Kawamoto FIGS. 1, 2C and 2D, reprinted below, showing the Kawamoto system which generates a field in a length along first direction (Y-direction) and a width along the second direction (X-direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
302
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 2C Kawamoto FIG. 2D
forming the one or more charged particle beams into a plurality of sub-beams arranged in columns in a non-regular hexagonal pattern of neighboring sub-beams, the sub-beams in each column being uniformly spaced across the width of the field; and
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above and FIG. 5A reprinted below. Note aperture array comprising plate 103 with apertures therein. The sub-beam apertures are skewed such that the m=4 rows are offset by 1/m in the x-axis direction which creates a plurality of selectable non-regular hexagonal patterns of holes, one of which is identified by Examiners
PNG
media_image3.png
431
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 5A (annotated by Examiners to shown non-regular hexagonal pattern and columns)
scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction while simultaneously moving the target in the first direction so that the sub-beams in each column follow writing paths along stripes extending in the first direction and evenly distributed over the width of the field, wherein scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction comprises: scanning the plurality of sub-beams across a width of a corresponding stripe of the stripes.
See Kawamoto FIG. 2C above showing the scan path over the target wherein the plurality of sub-beams is scanned in the second direction (X-direction) while the moving the target in the first direction (Y-direction) following the zig-zag writing path over a stripe region SA. Further note FIG. 2D showing the plurality of stripes SA over the target. The movement pattern shown provides an even distribution of the sub-beams over the width of the field, shown as the plurality of side-by-side stripe areas SA.
wherein the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the sub-beams of a neighboring column,
See Kawamoto FIG. 5A above as annotated by Examiners identifying a column pattern of apertures wherein the apertures in each column are staggered in the first direction and thus are further staggered with respect to the column in neighboring columns, which produce the claimed pattern of sub-beams.
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams of every other column are aligned in the second direction.
See Kawamoto FIG. 5A above as annotated by Examiners identifying a column and wherein the apertures in every other column are aligned in the second direction (vertical in figure) which would form the claimed pattern of sub-beams.
Regarding claim 37, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 34 as evidenced above and further wherein:
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams in each column are offset by a same amount, in the second direction, from each adjacent sub-beam in the same column.
See Kawamoto annotated FIG. 5A above, note identified beam area forming the non-regular hexagonal area has columns of apertures spaced in the x-axis direction and the apertures in each column are offset by 1/m, which would form the sub-beams in the recited manner.
Regarding claim 38, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 37 evidenced above and further wherein:
the offset of adjacent sub-beams in a column is equal to a fraction of a diameter of the sub-beams.
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 and 5A above, note the apertures would have a number and the offset would have a number, one being some fraction of the other, which would form respective sub-beams in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 39, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 34 as evidence above and further wherein:
the sub-beams in two neighboring columns being uniformly spaced across the width of the field.
See Kawamoto FIGS. 1 and 5A above, note apertures form sub-beams in neighboring columns that are uniformly spaced across the width of the field.
Regarding claim 40, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 34 as evidence above and further wherein:
the second direction is substantially perpendicular to the first direction.
See Kawamoto FIGS. 1, 2C and 2D, reprinted below, showing the Kawamoto system which generates a field in a length along first direction (Y-direction) and a width along the second direction (X-direction).
Regarding claim 41, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 34 as evidenced above and further comprising:
forming a plurality of beamlet groups from the plurality of sub-beams, each group corresponding to one sub-beam of the plurality of sub-beams,
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above, beamlet aperture array comprising plate 105 with holes therein that form a plurality of beamlet groups from each sub-beam from the sub-beam aperture array 103.
wherein scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction while simultaneously moving the target in the first direction comprises scanning the plurality of beamlets in the second direction so that writing paths of beamlets of each beamlet group each column are evenly spaced in the first direction.
See Kawamoto FIG. 2C above showing the scan path over the target wherein the plurality of sub-beams is scanned in the second direction (X-direction) while the moving the target in the first direction (Y-direction) following the zig-zag writing path over a stripe region SA. Further note FIG. 2D showing the plurality of stripes SA over the target. The movement pattern shown provides an even distribution of the sub-beams over the width of the field, shown as the plurality of side by side stripe areas SA. Examiners find the path would be the same for each of the sub-beams and the beamlet apertures.
Regarding claim 42, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 41 as evidenced above and further wherein:
the beamlets of each beamlet group are arranged in an unbalanced array.
See Kawamoto FIG. 1, a portion of which is annotated below, note depending on how the columns are identified in the beamlet aperture array, i.e., along the arrow shown, a different number of elements can be in each column, meeting the definition provided int the 943 Patent.
PNG
media_image4.png
116
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 1 (annotated by Examiners)
Regarding claim 43, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 41 as evidenced above and further wherein:
the beamlets of each beamlet group are arranged in a skewed square array.
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above, note beamlet apertures in beamlet aperture array 105 are in a generally square array and are skewed, i.e., slanted, with respect to the first and second directions (X and Y directions).
Regarding claim 44, Kawamoto discloses:
44. (New) A charged particle system for exposing a field of a target using one or more charged particle beams, the field having a length in a first direction and a width in a second direction, the system comprising:
See Kawamoto FIG. 1, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image1.png
456
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 1
a beam generator for generating the one or more charged particle beams:
See FIG. 1 above, beam generator 101.
a sub-beam aperture array comprising a plurality of sub-beam apertures for forming the one or more charged particle beams into a plurality of sub-beams arranged in columns in a non-regular hexagonal pattern of neighboring sub-beams, the sub-beams in each column being uniformly spaced across the width of the field; and
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above and FIG. 5A reprinted below. Note aperture array comprising plate 103 with apertures therein. The sub-beam apertures are skewed such that the m=4 rows are offset by 1/m in the x-axis direction which creates a plurality of selectable non-regular hexagonal patterns of holes, one of which is identified by Examiners
PNG
media_image3.png
431
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 5A (annotated by Examiners to shown non-regular hexagonal pattern and example column)
a deflector arranged for scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction while the target is being moved in the first direction so that the sub-beams in each column follow writing paths along stripes extending in the first direction and evenly distributed over the width of the field, wherein the deflector is further arranged for scanning the plurality of sub-beams across a width of a corresponding stripe of the stripes,
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above and ¶0026, deflector 108, which “deflects each sub-beam in the “X and Y directions.” See further Kawamoto FIG. 2C, reprinted above, showing the scan path over the target wherein the plurality of sub-beams is scanned in the second direction (X-direction) while the moving the target in the first direction (Y-direction) following the zig-zag writing path over a stripe region SA. Further note FIG. 2D showing the plurality of stripes SA over the target. The movement pattern shown provides an even distribution of the sub-beams over the width of the field, shown as the plurality of side by side stripe areas SA.
wherein the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the sub-beams of a neighboring column,
See Kawamoto FIG. 5A above as annotated by Examiners identifying a column pattern of apertures wherein the apertures in each column are staggered in the first direction and thus are further staggered with respect to the column in neighboring columns, which produce the claimed pattern of sub-beams.
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams of every other column are aligned in the second direction.
See Kawamoto FIG. 5A above as annotated by Examiners identifying a column and wherein the apertures in every other column are aligned in the second direction (vertical in figure) which would form the claimed pattern of sub-beams.
Regarding claim 47, Kawamoto discloses the system of claim 44 as evidenced above and further wherein:
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams in each column are offset by a same amount, in the second direction, from each adjacent sub-beam in the same column.
See Kawamoto annotated FIG. 5A above, note identified beam area forming the non-regular hexagonal area has columns of apertures spaced in the x-axis direction and the apertures in each column are offset by 1/m, which would form the sub-beams in the recited manner.
Regarding claim 48, Kawamoto discloses the system of claim 47 evidenced above and further wherein:
the offset of adjacent sub-beams in a column is equal to a fraction of a diameter of the sub-beams.
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 and 5A above, note the apertures would have a number and the offset would have a number, one being some fraction of the other, which would form respective sub-beams in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 49, Kawamoto discloses the system of claim 44 as evidence above and further wherein:
the sub-beams in two neighboring columns being uniformly spaced across the width of the field.
See Kawamoto FIGS. 1 and 5A above, note apertures form sub-beams in neighboring columns that are uniformly spaced across the width of the field.
Regarding claim 50, Kawamoto discloses the system of claim 44 as evidence above and further wherein:
the second direction is substantially perpendicular to the first direction.
See Kawamoto FIGS. 1, 2C and 2D, reprinted below, showing the Kawamoto system which generates a field in a length along first direction (Y-direction) and a width along the second direction (X-direction).
Regarding claim 51, Kawamoto discloses the system of claim 44 as evidenced above and further comprising:
a beamlet aperture array comprising a plurality of beamlet apertures for forming a plurality of beamlet groups from the plurality of sub-beams, each group corresponding to one sub-beam of the plurality of sub-beams,
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above, beamlet aperture array comprising plate 105 with holes therein that form a plurality of beamlet groups from each sub-beam from the sub-beam aperture array 103.
wherein the deflector is further arranged for scanning the plurality of beamlets in the second direction so that writing paths of beamlets of each beamlet group each column are evenly spaced in the first direction.
See Kawamoto FIG. 2C above showing the scan path over the target wherein the plurality of beamlets through the deflector 108 are scanned in the second direction (X-direction) while the moving the target in the first direction (Y-direction) following the zig-zag writing path over a stripe region SA. Further note FIG. 2D showing the plurality of stripes SA over the target. The movement pattern shown provides an even distribution of the deflected beamlets over the width of the field, shown as the plurality of side by side stripe areas SA.
Regarding claim 52, Kawamoto discloses the system of claim 51 as evidenced above and further wherein:
the beamlets of each beamlet group are arranged in an unbalanced array.
See Kawamoto FIG. 1, a portion of which is annotated below, note depending on how the columns are identified in the beamlet aperture array, i.e., along the arrow shown, a different number of elements can be in each column, meeting the definition provided int the 943 Patent.
PNG
media_image4.png
116
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kawamoto FIG. 1 (annotated by Examiners)
Regarding claim 53, Kawamoto discloses the method of claim 51 as evidenced above and further wherein:
the beamlets of each beamlet group are arranged in a skewed square array.
See Kawamoto FIG. 1 above, note beamlet apertures in beamlet aperture array 105 are in a generally square array and are skewed, i.e., slanted, with respect to the first and second directions (X and Y directions).
VI. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS
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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. §1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. §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.
VI.A. Double Patenting Rejections Applying the RE49952 Patent
Claims 34 and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 and 34 of the RE49952 Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 34 of the RE49952 Patent reads on claim 34 in this reissue application and claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent reads on claim 44 in this reissue application.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 of the RE49952 Patent recites/reads on:
34. (New) A method for exposing a field of a target using one or more charged particle beams, the field having a length in a first direction and a width in a second direction, the method comprising:
See preamble of claim 34 (33) of RE49952 Patent which recites “A method for exposing a field of a target using a plurality of charged particle beamlets, the field having a length in a first direction and a width in a second direction, the method comprising:”
forming the one or more charged particle beams into a plurality of sub-beams arranged in columns in a non-regular hexagonal pattern of neighboring sub-beams, the sub-beams in each column being uniformly spaced across the width of the field; and
See claim 34 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “forming the charged particle beamlets into a plurality of discrete groups arranged .Iadd.in columns .Iaddend.in a non-regular hexagonal pattern of neighboring discrete groups, the groups being equally spaced across the width of the field,” “wherein the writing paths of the beamlets of each group in each column are evenly spaced in the first direction, wherein the plurality of discrete groups arranged such that discrete groups in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the discrete groups of a neighboring column, and “wherein the discrete groups of every other column are aligned in the second direction” and “wherein the discrete groups are arranged in a plurality of columns regularly spaced in the second direction, and the discrete groups in each column are offset by a same amount, in the second direction, from each adjacent discrete group in the same column.”
scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction while simultaneously moving the target in the first direction so that the sub-beams in each column follow writing paths along stripes extending in the first direction and evenly distributed over the width of the field, wherein scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction comprises: scanning the plurality of sub-beams across a width of a corresponding stripe of the stripes,
See claim 34 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “moving the target in the first direction and simultaneously scanning each group of beamlets across a width of a corresponding stripe of the field so that each beamlet follows a writing path on a surface of the target; wherein the writing paths of the beamlets of each group in each column are evenly spaced in the first direction.”
wherein the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the sub-beams of a neighboring column,
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams of every other column are aligned in the second direction.
See claim 34 of the RE49952 Patent which recites” wherein the plurality of discrete groups arranged such that discrete groups in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the discrete groups of a neighboring column, and wherein the discrete groups of every other column are aligned in the second direction.”
Regarding claim 44, claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent recites/reads on:
44. (New) A charged particle system for exposing a field of a target using one or more charged particle beams, the field having a length in a first direction and a width in a second direction, the system comprising:
See preamble of claim 22 (8) of the RE49952 Patent which recites “A charged particle system for exposing a target using a plurality of charged particle sub-beams, the system comprising…”
a beam generator for generating the one or more charged particle beams:
See claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “a charged particle generator for generating a charged particle beam…”
a sub-beam aperture array comprising a plurality of sub-beam apertures for forming the one or more charged particle beams into a plurality of sub-beams arranged in columns in a non-regular hexagonal pattern of neighboring sub-beams, the sub-beams in each column being uniformly spaced across the width of the field; and
See claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “a sub-beam aperture array for forming a plurality of sub-beams from the charged particle beam, the sub-beam aperture array comprising a plurality of sub-beam apertures arranged in columns in a non-regular hexagonal pattern of neighboring sub-beam apertures, the sub-beam apertures arranged so that, when projected in a first direction onto a line parallel to a second direction, the sub-beam apertures in each column are uniformly spaced along the line, and wherein the first direction is different from the second direction; and a projection lens system configured to project the sub-beams onto a surface of the target” and “wherein the sub-beam apertures in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the sub-beam apertures of a neighboring column,” and “wherein the sub-beam apertures of every other column are aligned in the second direction.”
a deflector arranged for scanning the plurality of sub-beams in the second direction while the target is being moved in the first direction so that the sub-beams in each column follow writing paths along stripes extending in the first direction and evenly distributed over the width of the field, wherein the deflector is further arranged for scanning the plurality of sub-beams across a width of a corresponding stripe of the stripes,
See claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “a deflector arranged to deflect the sub-beams in the first direction and a moveable stage for moving the target in the second direction.” Examiners further note that the operational recitations do not further limit the otherwise positively recited features of claim 34, rather Examiners find they are merely intended operations of the structures. Thus, since claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent requires the same structures, they would have the same intended operations.
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the sub-beams of a neighboring column,
See claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “wherein the sub-beam apertures in each column are staggered, in the first direction, with respect to the sub-beam apertures of a neighboring column”
the plurality of sub-beams are arranged such that the sub-beams of every other column are aligned in the second direction.
See claim 22 of the RE49952 Patent which recites “wherein the discrete groups of every other column are aligned in the second direction.”
VII. EXAMINERS’ RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Examiners have fully considered the amendments and arguments provided in the Mar 2026 Amendment. In view thereof, the objections to the claims and specification and the rejection based on new matter are withdrawn.
Regarding the art rejections, Examiners find that Applicant combined the features of prior claims 35 and 36 into independent claim 34 and further combined the features of 45 and 46 into independent claim 44. Thus, Examiners find Applicant has filed claims 34, 36-44 and 46-53 with new scope not before considered in this reissue application. Accordingly, such amendments necessitated reconsideration of the art and the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
Applicant nevertheless argues that Kawamoto does not disclose or teach the new features of claims 34 and 44. Examiners disagree as provided in the rejections of these claims above.
Regarding the double patenting rejection applying RE49952, Applicant has not pointed out any errors in the rejection as required under 37 C.F.R. §1.111 and thus Examiners find no response is necessary. Rejections will not be held in abeyance.
VIII. PRIOR OR CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
Applicant is reminded of the obligation apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the 943 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
IX. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
X. CONCLUSION
Claims 34, 36-44 and 46-53 are rejected.
Applicant's substantial amendments provided in the Mar 2026 Amendment necessitated the new/amended grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights