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 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to drawings of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The objections to specifications of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments
The 112(b) rejection to claim 5 (antecedent basis issue) of record is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The 112(b) rejection to claim 14 of record is withdrawn in light of applicant’s cancelation of the claim.
Regarding 112 (b) rejection to claims 1-13, and 15:
Applicant argues the claimed limitation at issue is not indefinite since a POSITA would understand the electric field/acceleration relationship from the specification. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites that “the first potential difference is greater that then second potential difference,” but does not specify the operating condition, e.g., charge polarity, sign convention, etc. For example, if the first potential difference is -1000 V and the second potential difference is +200 V, it is unclear which potential difference is “greater” under the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 still fails to define the sign convention or operating conditions necessary to define the scope of the recited relationship. As such, all previous 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Regarding 103 rejections to claim 1:
Applicant argues Schmaunz in view of Jiang does not teach the amended claim 1 (which incorporated previously presented claim 14) because Schmaunz itself is not a multi-beam apparatus, and its components 112/119 cannot be the claimed “most down-beam component of the charged particle-optical device” in the modified Schmaunz/Jiang combination. Specially, applicant argues that neither 112 or 119 is part of “anything in Schmaunz configured to project sub-beams of a multi-beam.” This is not persuasive because Applicant improperly attack Schmaunz individually rather than the combined reaching of Schmaunz and Jiang. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance case, the rejection relies on Schmaunz for the tube, downstream charged particle optical components and potential relationship, and relies on Jiang for modifying the charged particle optical device to project sub-beams of a multi-beam. The claim does not require each individual component of the charged particle device to independently project sub-beams; rather, the charged particle device as a whole is configured to project sub-beams. Thus, after modification by Jiang, Schmaunz’s downstream components, such as individual electrode 112 and/or detector components 119 in the downstream object-side region, are part of the charged particle device of the combined apparatus. Schmaunz teaches that the beam guiding tube electrode may be at the anode potential, while the object-side/downstream region may be at a lower potential, thus Schmaunz teaches the amended limitation of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites a specific ordering of potentials (“the first potential difference is greater than the second potential difference”) and also recites that the difference between those potentials is “so as to accelerate the multi-beam of charged particles towards the sample,” but the claim does not adequately define the operating conditions under which that recited potential ordering produces the recited acceleration effect. In particular, for electron-beam embodiments, the recited ordering may correspond to retarding/decelerating behavior as the beam approaches the sample region, rather than acceleration toward the sample, absent additional limitations specifying charge polarity, sign convention, and the relevant region of the beam path. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed potential relationship and its required functional effect are unclear.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
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 1-3, 6-9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0271063 A1 [hereinafter Schmaunz] in view of US 11869743B2 [hereinafter Jiang].
Regarding Claim 1:
The “most down-beam component” is understood to have its ordinary meaning as the charged partial optical component positioned furthest downstream (i.e., closet to the sample) among the components of the charged particle-optical device along the beam path, and does not require that the reference expressly label that component as “most down-beam.” The precise positional ranking is not required to resolve the claimed potential relationship, and the analysis for this claim does not dependent on identifying a single specifically labeled component as the “most down-beam component”.
Schmaunz teaches a charged particle apparatus (Fig. 1- SEM 100), the charged particle apparatus comprising:
a charged particle source (Fig. 1- electron source 100) configured to emit a charged particle beam toward a sample (Fig. 1- object 125);
a tube (Fig. 1 -beam guiding tube 104) surrounding the multi-beam path configured to operate at a first potential difference from a ground potential (paras. [0105-0106, 0108]: the beam guiding tube 104 may be at the potential of anode 103, ranging from 100 V to 35kV, in particular 8kV, relative to a ground potential); and
a support (Fig. 1- object holder 114) configured to support the sample at a second potential difference from the ground potential (para. [0108]: an object holder 114 supporting object 125, which “may be at a lower potential in relation to the potential of the anode 103…may be the ground potential”), the first potential difference and the second potential difference having a difference so as to accelerate the multi-beam of charged particles towards the sample (para. [0105]: “The electrons may be accelerated to the anode potential on account of a potential difference between the electron source 101 and the anode 103”);
wherein the first potential difference is greater than the second potential difference (first potential difference is 8 kV, and second potential difference is 0); and
wherein a potential difference between a most down-beam component of the charged particle-optical device and the ground potential is less than the first potential difference (Fig. 1 and para. [0108]: “Together with the beam guiding tube 104, the tube electrode 113 may be at the potential of the anode 103, while the individual electrode 112 and the object 125 may be at a lower potential in relation to the potential of the anode 103…may be the ground potential… In this manner, the electrons of the primary electron beam may be decelerated to a desired energy which is required for examining the object 125,” demonstrating the downstream/object-region components must be at a lower potential than the anode/tube potential to decelerate the electrons when they approach the sample. Accordingly, in the disclosed deceleration arrangement, the most down-beam component (e.g.., chamber detector 119 or individual electrode 112) must be at a potential difference that is less than the anode/tube potential (“first potential difference”)).
Schmaunz teaches a charged particle optical device, including components such as first/second condenser lens 105/106, a first aperture unit 108, a first objective lens 107, a second aperture unit 109, etc., operating together, the charged particle optical device project the electron beam toward the sample. However, Schmaunz does not teach the charged particle optical device projects sub-beams of a multi-beam of charged particles along the multi-beam path toward the sample, the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles derived from the charged particle beam.
Jiang teaches the charged particle optical device is configured to project sub-beams of a multi-beam of charged particles along the multi-beam path toward the sample, the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles derived from the charged particle beam (Fig. 7; 6: 43-45; 7:50-53: the charged particle optical device, at least includes beam-limiting aperture 107, focusing lens 109, micro aperture array 110, micro lens array 112, transfer lens 117, an objective lens 118, projects the multi-beam 102 towards the sample 119, where the sub-beams 111 are derived from the multi-beam 102).
Schmaunz teaches a charged particle beam apparatus for imaging/analyzing/processing an object, including a beam-guiding tube and electron-optical column components for directing a charged particle beam toward an object region. Jiang teaches a multi-electron beam system in which sub-beams/beamlets are generated and projected toward a sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Schmaunz to incorporate Jiang’s multi-beam beamlet-generation/projection arrangement. Jiang explains that multi-electron beam systems were developed to increase throughput relative to single-electron-beam systems (4: 24-33), and recognizes that merely increasing the number of beamlets (particularly in radial directions) can degrade outer-ring beamlet resolution due to increased emission angle and associated spherical aberration, thus Jiang provides an improved system design to address those beamlet-quality limitations (4: 33-42). As such, one of ordinary skilled would be motivated to make such a modification to increase throughput while maintaining acceptable beamlet optical performance (e.g., reducing aberration-related resolution degradation), thereby yielding a predictable improvement in Schmaunz’s inspection/imaging apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the tube comprises at least one section, each section extending along different positions along the multi-beam path and surrounding the multi-beam path (Fig. 7 shows the tube 106 comprises one section, extending along different positions along the multi-beam path and surrounding the multi-beam path).
Regarding Claim 3:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 2. Jiang further teaches wherein at least part of the charged particle-optical device is down-beam of a most down-beam end of the tube, the charged particle-optical device that is down-beam of the most down-beam end of the tube being a down-beam device (Fig. 7 shows at least the focusing lens 109, micro aperture array 110, micro lens array 112, transfer lens 117, an objective lens 118 (combined as a “down-beam device”) are down-beam of the most down-beam end of the tube 106 (the end above focusing lens 109)).
Regarding Claim 6:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 3. Jiang further teaches wherein the down-beam device comprises an up-beam plate in which is defined an array of apertures for the paths of the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles (Figs. 3 and 7; 7: 50-64: the micro aperture array 110, as the exemplary embodiment shown in Fig. 3, is an aperture-bearing structure include micro apertures which generates beamlets 111 from sub-beam 102).
Regarding Claim 7:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 6. Jiang further teaches wherein the down-beam device comprises a plurality of plates in each of which are defined an array of apertures for the paths of the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles, the plurality of plates comprising the up-beam plate (Fig. 7 shows that in addition to the micro aperture array 110, the down-beam device further includes micro lens array plates 112, which also defines a plurality of micro apertures).
Regarding Claim 8:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 7. Jiang further teaches wherein the up-beam plate is a sub-beam forming array, the apertures configured to form the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles from the charged particle beam from the charged particle source (Figs 3 and 7; 7: 50-64: the micro aperture array 110, like the exemplary embodiment shown in Fig. 3, includes micro apertures (e.g., one micro aperture per beamlet; more than 100 micro apertures) which generate beamlets 111 from sub-beam 102).
Regarding Claim 9:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 8. Jiang further teaches wherein the plurality of plates comprises a beam shaping aperture array in which is defined an array of beam shaping apertures for shaping the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles, the beam shaping aperture array being down-beam of the up-beam plate (Figs. 4 and 7; 7:65-67; 8:1-3: the micro lens array plates 112 , which are disposed down-beam of micro aperture array 110 (the claimed up-beam plate) and receive the beamlets 111 generated by micro aperture array 110. The micro lens array plates 112 include openings/apertures arranged in an array for the respective beamlets, and the micro lens array structure is used to shape/focus the beamlets downstream of the micro aperture array 110).
Regarding Claim 12:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 2. Schmaunz further teaches wherein the charged particle-optical device comprises a scan deflector (Fig. 1- scanning device 115) configured to deflect respective portions of the charged particle beam to cause the sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles to be scanned over the sample (para. [0109]: “a scanning device 115, by means of which the primary electron beam may be deflected and scanned over the object 125”).
Regarding Claim 15:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 1. Schmaunz further teaches wherein the charged particle source comprises
a cathode (para. [0103]: “first beam generator in the form of an electron source 101, which may be embodied as a cathode”) and
an anode (Fig. 1- anode 103) configured to operate with a potential difference between the cathode and the anode so as to emit the charged particle beam (para. [0105]: “Electrons emerging from the electron source 101 form a primary electron beam. The electrons may be accelerated to the anode potential on account of a potential difference between the electron source 101 and the anode103”),
wherein the tube is at a same electric potential as the anode and the sample is at the ground potential (paras. [0106, 0108]: the beam guiding tube 104 may be at the potential of anode 103; object 125 “may be at a lower potential in relation to the potential of the anode 103…may be the ground potential”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz in view of Jiang, further in view of US 2009/0200463A1 [hereinafter ICT].
PNG
media_image1.png
756
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 3. However, the combined references does not specially note that wherein the potential difference between the most down-beam end of the tube and a most up-beam electrostatic component of the down-beam device is less than the first potential difference. ICT teaches wherein the potential difference between the most down-beam end of the tube and a most up-beam electrostatic component of the down-beam device is less than the first potential difference (see annotated fig .5 above and para. [0108]: a high voltage beam tube 107 comprises a beam tube element 130 located at the lowest end of beam tube 107 (“most down-beam end of the tube “), the entrance grid electrode 10 located right below the beam tube element 130 (“most up-beam electrostatic component”); “The entrance grid electrode 10, the beam tube element 130... are preferably at the same tube voltage VT,” i.e., a potential difference of 0, less than the first potential difference).
Schmaunz teaches a charged particle column/tube potential arrangement for transporting the beam toward the sample region. ICT teaches electrically connecting the beam tube element and the immediately adjacent entrance grid electrode so they are at the same potential (tube voltage), thereby maintaining electrostatic continuity at the transition between the beam-tube region and the next electrostatic component and reducing unintended field discontinuities at that interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the most up-beam electrostatic component of Schmaunz’s down-beam device (e.g., tube electrode 113 in Fig. 1) so that its potential is closer to the potential at the most down-beam end of the tube (i.e., the interface potential difference is small relative to the first potential difference from the ground), as taught in ICT, in order to provide a smoother electrostatic transition and reduce undesirable perturbations of charged-particle trajectories at the interface, with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 3. However, the combined references do not specially note that, wherein a most up-beam electrostatic component of the down-beam device is at a same electric potential as the most down-beam end of the tube. ICT teaches wherein the most up-beam electrostatic component of the down-beam device is at the same electric potential as the most down-beam end of the tube (para. [0108]: “The entrance grid electrode 10, the beam tube element 130... are preferably at the same tube voltage VT”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply ICT’s same-potential interface arrangement to Schmaunz’s tube/down-beam transition (e.g., via electrical connection or common bias supply) in order to maintain electrostatic continuity and provide predictable charged-particle beam transport across the surface.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz in view of Jiang, further in view of US 2010/0320382A1 [hereinafter Almogy].
Regarding Claim 10:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 3. However, the combined references does not specially note that wherein the down-beam device comprises an objective lens array comprising a plurality of objective lenses configured to focus respective sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles on the sample. Almogy teaches wherein the down-beam device comprises an objective lens array comprising a plurality of objective lenses configured to focus respective sub-beams of the multi-beam of charged particles on the sample (para. [0086]: “A common objective lens array focuses the plurality of electron beams on the specimen 20”).
Both Schmaunz and Jiang already teach using an objective lens (e.g., objective lens 107 in Fig. 1 of Schmaunz; objective lens 118 in Fig. 7 of Jiang) for focusing the particles beam onto the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to substitute the objective lens taught in Schmaunz and Jiang, with an objective lens array having a plurality of objective lenses for focusing respective beamlet, as taught in Almogy. The high-performance objective lens array in Almogy has low spherical and chromatic aberration, thereby focusing respective sub-beams while improving beamlet optical quality and throughput for the high throughput, high-resolution multi-beam imaging system (para. [0061] of Almogy).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz in view of Jiang, further in view of US 2003/0085360A1 [hereinafter Parker].
Regarding Claim 11:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 3. However, the combined references does not specially note that wherein the down-beam device comprises a detector and at least part of the detector is comprised in a most down-beam plate of the down-beam device. Parker teaches wherein the down-beam device comprises a detector and at least part of the detector is comprised in a most down-beam plate of the down-beam device (Figs. 2 and 20, para. [0118]: Fig. 2 shows detector 236 is positioned at the furthest end along the beam path (closest to the wafer 242 comparing to other illustrated optical components). Fig. 20 further demonstrates “The BSE detectors 236 are housed in the bottom of the lens plate 232,” i.e., at least part of the detector 232 is included in the lens plate 232 (“most down-beam plate”)).
Both Schmaunz and Jiang teach placing detecting means at a down-beam position
(detector 121 in Fig. 1 of Schmaunz is placed below the sample; “a detector similar to that in FIG. 1” in Jiang is placed down-beam between the transfer lens and objective lens). Parker teaches housing BSE detectors in the bottom of lens plate (the last column component above the wafer). Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate a detector arrangement in/at a most down-beam plate of the down-beam device, as taught by Parker, in a charged-particle multi-beam system. One of ordinary skilled person would be motivated to make such a modification, as Parker explains that, the detector-housing/bias and opening geometry improves backscattered-electron collection while shielding the detector from the immersion-lens electric field, and this detector arrangement is important for wafer-surface imaging and alignment mark detection/alignment of the wafer relative to the writing head (See para. [0118] of Parker).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz in view of Jiang, further in view of US 5424541A [hereinafter Hitachi].
Regarding Claim 13:
Schmaunz in view of Jiang teaches the charged particle apparatus of claim 2. However, the combined references does not specially note that wherein the charged particle-optical device comprises at least one electrostatic component located between adjacent sections of the tube. Hitachi teaches wherein the charged particle-optical device comprises at least one electrostatic component located between adjacent sections of the tube (Fig. 1; 4: 54-64: the channel cylinder 21 is divided into two adjacent sections by an opening 22, an attracting electrode 13 (“electrostatic component”) is located inside the opening).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the Schmaunz/Jiang apparatus to divide the tube into sections and place electrostatic component(s) between the sections, as taught in Hitachi, in order to provide electrostatic control at an intermediate tube opening/transition region while the charged particles travel through the tube. One of ordinary killed would be motivated to make such a medication to enable additional voltage control through the opening, including accelerating or decelerating electrons as they pass the tube sections, while improve control of charged particle transport across adjacent tube sections.
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