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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pgs. 7, that: As amended, claim 1 recites a different optical arrangement. The elongated aperture is expressly excluded from an image plane or focal plane of a column lens. For example, consistent with that arrangement, the present application describes positioning the elongated aperture proximate the condenser lens, including after the beam has been collimated, and focusing the resulting beam to produce the asymmetric sharp-edged intensity cross-section at the target based on the aperture offset. [See, e.g., Applicant's specification, 1[1 [0027]-[0029]]. Oba's projection of the aperture-defined beam shape onto the sample therefore does not disclose the recited aperture arrangement. Because Oba does not disclose an elongated aperture that is not situated at an image plane or focal plane of a lens of the charged particle beam column, Oba does not disclose every limitation of amended independent claim 1
In response to item(s) 2 above, the examiner disagrees. The examiner is giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant refers to OBA (US 2025/285827), which was not cited in the previous office action. OBA et al. (WO 2023032075 A1) discloses an elongated aperture (54, 63) (72, 93) that is situated by an offset (fig. 6, 54 relative to C) with respect to the beam axis (of C) (pgs. 11-12), wherein the elongated aperture (54, 63) (72, 93) is not situated at an image plane (at sample S and/or detector 21) or focal plane (figs. 4 and 6; of beams B1 and/or B2 crossovers/focal points, and/or at sample S/detector 21) of a lens (52 and/or 58) of the charged particle beam column (17).
Note aperture(s) (54, 63) (72, 93) are shown upstream of/ not situated at any lens focal planes/focal points of B1/B2; and not at image planes of the sample S, and/or detector 21.
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-11, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OBA et al. (WO 2023032075 A1).
Regarding claim 1, OBA discloses a method, comprising:
producing a charged particle beam with a charged particle beam source (41) and directing the charged particle beam along a beam axis (of C) of a charged particle beam column (17) to a target;
directing the charged particle beam through an elongated aperture (54, 63) (72, 93) that is situated by an offset (fig. 6, 54 relative to C) with respect to the beam axis (of C) (pgs. 11-12), wherein the elongated aperture (54, 63) (72, 93) is not situated at an image plane (at sample S and/or detector 21) or focal plane (figs. 4 and 6; of beams B1 and/or B2 crossovers/focal points, and/or at sample S/detector 21) of a lens (52 and/or 58) of the charged particle beam column (17);; and
focusing (fig. 6, 58) the beam to the target (s) to produce an asymmetric intensity cross-section (fig. 9, step S02; at E0, B) (pgs. 11-12) for the beam, wherein the cross-section has a sharp intensity edge (at E0) at the target based on the offset elongated aperture (63) (pgs. 11-12) .
(Note aperture (54, 63) (72, 93) are shown upstream of/ not situated at any lens focal planes/focal points of B!/B2; and not at image planes of the sample S, and/or detector 21).
Regarding claim 11, OBA discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a charged particle beam source (41) configured to produce a charged particle beam in a charged particle beam column (17) and to direct the charged particle beam along a beam axis (of C) of the charged particle beam column to a target (s);
an elongated aperture 54, 63) (72, 93) situated to receive the charged particle beam, wherein the elongated aperture is offset (fig. 6, 54 relative to C) with respect to the beam axis (of C) (pgs. 11-12) and is not situated at an image plane (at sample S and/or detector 21) or focal plane (figs. 4 and 6; of beams B1 and/or B2 crossovers/focal points, and/or at sample S/detector 21) of a lens (52 and/or 58) of the charged particle beam column (17); and
an objective lens (fig. 6, 58) configured to focus the beam to the target (s) to produce an asymmetric intensity cross-section (fig. 9, step S02; at E0, B) (pgs. 11-12) for the beam, wherein the cross-section has a sharp edge (at E0) at the target based on the offset elongated aperture (63) (pgs. 11-12) .
(Note aperture (54, 63) (72, 93) are shown upstream of/ not situated at any lens focal planes/focal points of B!/B2; and not at image planes of the sample S, and/or detector 21).
Regarding claim 6, OBA discloses that the offset (of 62, 63) is greater than 0.25 times a diameter of the beam (fig. 6, B2) at the aperture (of 62, 63 of 54) and less than or equal to 2 times the diameter of the beam at the aperture (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, OBA discloses scanning (via 57, 59) (pg. 12) the beam across the target (s) “along a direction” of the sharp edge (E0) (pg. 12).
Regarding claim 9, OBA discloses that the scanning (via 57, 59) (pg. 12) the beam comprises milling (fig. 9, steps s01, s02) the target (s) to remove material (about CS) (pg. 12) from the target and form a sharp material edge (at E0 of CS) on the target at a position of the sharp edge of the beam cross-section (as defined by aperture 62 or 63) (pg. 12).
Regarding claim 10, OBA discloses controlling (25) the focusing the beam to the target (S) by preventing focusing (58) the beam to a range of focus positions at the target “associated with significant” beam energy present past the sharp edge (at E0 of CS), wherein the range of focus positions is axially near a position or range of focus positions that produce the sharp edge (at E0) (see fig. 6, beam focal point is above the surface of target S). .
Regarding claim 16, OBA discloses that the offset (of 62, 63) is greater than 0.25 times the diameter of the beam (fig. 6, B2) at the aperture (of 62, 63 of 54) and less than or equal to 2 times the diameter of the beam at the aperture (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, OBA discloses a beam scanner (57, 59) coupled to the charged particle beam column and configured to scan the beam across the target (S) “along a direction” of the sharp edge (E0).
Regarding claim 19, OBA discloses that the beam scanner (57, 59) is configured to scan the beam to mill (fig. 9, steps s01, s02) the target (s) to remove material (about CS) (pg. 12) from the target and form a sharp material edge (at E0 of CS) on the target at a position of the sharp edge of the beam cross- section (as defined by aperture 62 or 63) (pg. 12) . .
Regarding claim 20, OBA discloses a controller (25) coupled to the objective lens (58) that prevents the objective lens from focusing the beam to a range of focus positions at the target (S) “associated with significant” beam energy present past the sharp edge (at E0) , wherein the range of focus positions is axially near a position or range of focus positions that produce the sharp edge (at E0) (see fig. 6, beam focal point is above the surface of target S). .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 12-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over OBA et al. (WO 2023032075 A1) in view of GERLACH et al. (US 6977386 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, OBA discloses wherein the sharp edge (E0 of CS) is defined such that a full-width of 90% of a tail of the beam intensity extending from a position of a peak of the beam intensity (FIG. 9; at E0) is less than or equal to
But OBA fails to disclose a full-width of 90% of a tail of the beam intensity extending from a position of a peak of the beam intensity is less than or equal to 100 nm, 50 nm, 20 nm, 10 nm, 5 nm, 2 nm, or 1 nm. .
GERLACH, however, discloses aperture shapes for generating shaped beam spots (abstract) and offset apertures for generating a sharp edge (abstract) and that the sharp edge is defined such that a full-width of 90% of a tail of the beam intensity extending from a position of a peak of the beam intensity (FIG. 12c) is less than or equal to 100 nm, 50 nm (see figs. 12c and 13b) (col. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OBA , with the claimed beam sharp edge intensity distribution, as taught by GERLACH, to use for application specific beam milling requirements per target (col. 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, OBA discloses wherein the elongated aperture (62, 63) is an
But OBA fails to disclose an elliptical aperture and the offset is along a direction of a minor axis of the elliptical aperture
GERLACH, however, discloses an offset beam aperture that is elliptical (abstract) and wherein the elongated aperture (abstract) is an elliptical aperture (abstract) and the offset (fig. 5) is along a direction of a minor axis/ an axis of the elliptical aperture (abstract) (col/. 11, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OBA , with an elliptical aperture and the offset is along a direction of a minor axis of the elliptical aperture, as taught by GERLACH, to use for generating a desired beam shape/sharp edge for milling away sharp edges in a target (col. 3, lines 45-60) (abstract).
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 4 and 14, GERLACH discloses wherein the elliptical aperture (abstract) (col. 3, lines 45-60) (col. 11, lines 5-15) has an ellipticity
Regarding claims 4 and 14, GERLACH discloses all the limitations and component parts as expressly recited in the claim, but does not disclose the shape of the device (i.e., of an ellipticity ). The shape of the device does not appear to be critical but is an obvious choice in design. The only difference is the actual shape of the device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device in the shape of a an ellipticity
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 5 and 15, GERLACH discloses wherein an amount of elongation of the elliptical aperture edge (abstract) (col. 3, lines 45-60) (col. 11, lines 5-15) , the offset of the aperture (abstract) (col. 3, lines 45-60) (col. 11, lines 5-15), and a column magnification applied to the beam (abstract) (col. 3, lines 45-60) (col. 11, lines 5-15), are selected in relation to each other to produce the sharp edge (abstract) (col. 3, lines 45-60) (col. 11, lines 5-15); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 3 and 13, see previous.
Regarding claim 7, OBA discloses directing the charged particle beam through a condenser lens (52), wherein the aperture (54) is situated
Regarding claim 17, OBA discloses a condenser lens (52) arranged between the charged particle beam source (41) and the objective lens (58) and situated to receive the charged particle beam, wherein the aperture (54) is situated
But OBA fails to disclose wherein the aperture (54) is situated proximate the condenser lens
GERLACH, however, discloses a beam column with condenser lens (fig. 5, 504), offset aperture (506)
a condenser lens (504) arranged between the charged particle beam source (502) and the objective lens (508) and situated to receive the charged particle beam, wherein an aperture (506) is situated proximate the condenser lens (504) and the aperture is not situated at an intermediate focus plane (fig. 5, beams focus plane below 506) of the charged particle beam column
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OBA , with the condenser leans proximate the offset aperture, as taught by GERLACH, to use as a known beam column configuration for condensing a beam for irradiating a target and milling a target (abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights