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
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/10/2026. These drawings are accepted. Objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112 rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-16 is withdrawn.
Applicant argues claims 6 and 9 are not indefinite because the term “pivot point” is a technical term used in the field of charged-particle beam deflectors, and would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, the definition of a “pivot point” provided in the applicant’s remarks is not supported in the specifications. Further, in view of the specifications, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a given point at the optical axis is a pivot point or an arbitrary point. See rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues He068 and He do not teach or suggest a charged-particle-optical system wherein the first second and third magnetic lenses are the sole magnetic lenses between the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of He068 in view of He, and in further view of Michio Hatano (US 20080237465 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hatano.
Applicant further argues He does not disclose a charged-particle optical system configured to provide both the claimed diffraction mode beam diameter and the claimed imaging-mode beam diameter. He teaches a parallel beam diameter of 100 nm and a convergent beam diameter of 6.3 (section 4, para. [0001]) as highlighted by the applicants’ remarks. In doing so, He teaches different beam sizes for the different diffraction and imaging modes. Further, both He and He068 identify the diameter of the charged-particle beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, 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 He068 to include the teachings of He to meet the claimed diffraction mode beam diameter and the claimed imaging-mode beam diameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 discloses “wherein a pivot point of the first deflector system is at the optical axis of the beam limiting aperture”. It is not made clear in the specifications or the claims what the “pivot point” is. In light of the specifications, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a given point at the optical axis is a pivot point or an arbitrary point. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted to mean the deflector system deflects the beam along the optical axis.
Claim 9 discloses “wherein a pivot point of the second deflector system”. It is not made clear in the specifications or the claims what the “pivot point” is. In light of the specifications, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a given point at the optical axis is a pivot point or an arbitrary point. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted to mean the second deflector system deflects the beam along the optical axis.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068, in view of He, and Hatano.
Regarding claim 1, He068 teaches a charged-particle beam device for charged-particle crystallography of crystalline samples (The invention relates to a method of determining the crystallographic structure of a crystal by electron diffraction tomography using an electron microscope (para. [0001])), comprising a charged-particle source for generating a charged-particle beam (electron source 100) to be radiated onto a sample (sample position 112)
and a charged- particle-optical system downstream the charged-particle source, which is configured to form in a diffraction mode a substantially parallel charged-particle beam at a predefined sample position (Diffraction mode: in diffraction mode the sample is illuminated with a, preferably parallel, beam of electrons (para. [0055]))
and in an imaging mode a focused charged-particle beam having a focus at the predefined sample position (TEM imaging mode: in TEM imaging mode the sample is illuminated with a beam of electrons (para. [0056])),
the charged-particle-optical system comprising:[[-]] a charged-particle zoom lens system consisting of a first magnetic lens (condenser lens 108), a second magnetic lens downstream the first magnetic lens (condenser lens 110) and a third magnetic lens downstream the second magnetic lens (objective lens 116),
a single beam limiting aperture with a fixed aperture diameter arranged at a fixed position between the second magnetic lens and the third magnetic lens (aperture 106) for limiting the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position (The diameter of the beam at the sample position is governed by aperture 106 (para. [0052])),
wherein the first, and second magnetic lenses are the sole magnetic lenses between the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position (Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He068 fails to teach wherein at least the second magnetic lens, has a variable focal length, and wherein the first, second and third magnetic lenses are the sole magnetic lenses between the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position.
However, He teaches wherein at least the second magnetic lens, has a variable focal length (That is, the condenser lens's exit image plane (acting as the source image downstream) is lowered from the entrance image plane in SPOT mode to the front focal plane of the objective prefield lens in TEM mode. So by changing only the condenser lens focus we are able to switch the system from convergent beam to parallel beam within SPOT mode. This enables us to achieve both convergent and parallel beams in STEM mode (in STEM mode, the condenser system is preset to SPOT mode (section 2, para. [0003])).
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 He068 to include the teachings of He such that the condenser lenses 110, in He068, have a variable focal length as taught by He. This allows for the obtainment of both convergent and parallel beams.
Further, Hatano teaches a third magnetic lenses between the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position (FIG. 1 below) (In this embodiment, the magnetic field lens is used as the C3 lens that functions as the convergent point formation unit to the specific position (para. [0040])).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
513
media_image2.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 He068 to include the teachings of Hatano by placing the C3 lens 23 of Hatano above the predefined sample position such that the first, second and third magnetic lenses are the sole magnetic lenses between the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position. Doing so further facilitates converging the beam onto a specific position on the sample (Hatano; para. [0040]).
He068 also fails to teach wherein the charged-particle-optical system is configured such that the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position is in a range between 100 nanometer and 1000 nanometer, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 10 nanometer and 200 nanometer in the imaging mode.
However, He teaches wherein the charged-particle-optical system is configured such that the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position is about 100 nm in diffraction mode (This provides a ∼100 nm diameter parallel beam incident on the specimen in Koehler mode (section 4, para. [0001])),
and 6.3 nm in the imaging mode (The convergent beam size is 6.3 nm. (section 4, para. [0001]).
Optimizing diameter of the charged-particle beam 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, He068 teaches that “the beam used for recording the diffraction patterns is a substantially parallel beam having a diameter larger than the size of the crystal… As the diameter of the beam is larger than the diameter of the crystal, the interaction volume, or scattering volume, also known as diffraction volume is the volume of the crystal itself, and thus for all tilt angles the same. This eases the normalization and post-processing otherwise needed when recording the diffraction patterns and/or analyzing the recorded diffraction patterns (para. [0018]).” Further He teaches “The convergent beam size used for STEM should be approximately determined before the experiment. In general, the smaller the beam size, the better the spatial resolution, resulting in better coherence in parallel beam mode, but weaker beam intensity. The choice depends on the specific problem. One then aims to get the best resolution STEM images after the beam size is decided” (section 3.2; para. [0001]). As such, He068 and He identifies the diameter of the charged-particle beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing normalization and post-processing when recording and analyzing the diffraction pattern and improving spatial resolution. He teaches different beam sizes for the diffraction mode and imaging mode. 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 charged-particle beam in He068 to meet that the charged-particle-optical system is configured such that the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position is in a range between 100 nanometer and 1000 nanometer, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 10 nanometer and 200 nanometer in the imaging mode, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, He068 fails to explicitly teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein each one of the first, second and the third magnetic lens has a variable focal length.
However, Hatano teaches wherein each one of the first (A primary electron beam 19 that has been emitted from the electron gun 8 which is controlled by the electron gun power supply 115 is converged to a first convergent point 20 by means of the C1 lens 9 which is controlled by the C1 lens power supply 101 (para. [0039])), second (The primary electron beam 19 that has passed through the objective lens aperture 21 is converged to a second convergent point 22 by means of the C2 lens 10 which is controlled by the C2 lens power supply 102 (para. [0039])) and the third magnetic lens has a variable focal length (The primary electron beam 19 that has passed through the second convergent point 22 is converged to a third convergent point 24 by means of a C3 lens 23 that is controlled by the C3 lens power supply 103 (para. [0039])).
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 He068 to include the teachings of Hatano such that the first, second, and third magnetic lenses have variable focal length in order to vary the convergent point and in turn optimize image resolution and magnification.
Regarding claim 18, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position is in a range between 220 nanometer and 250 nanometer in the diffraction mode.
However, He teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position is 100 nm in the diffraction mode (This provides a ∼100 nm diameter parallel beam incident on the specimen in Koehler mode (section 4, para. [0001])),
Optimizing diameter of the charged-particle beam 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, He068 teaches that “the beam used for recording the diffraction patterns is a substantially parallel beam having a diameter larger than the size of the crystal… As the diameter of the beam is larger than the diameter of the crystal, the interaction volume, or scattering volume, also known as diffraction volume is the volume of the crystal itself, and thus for all tilt angles the same. This eases the normalization and post-processing otherwise needed when recording the diffraction patterns and/or analyzing the recorded diffraction patterns (para. [0018]).” Further He teaches “The convergent beam size used for STEM should be approximately determined before the experiment. In general, the smaller the beam size, the better the spatial resolution, resulting in better coherence in parallel beam mode, but weaker beam intensity. The choice depends on the specific problem. One then aims to get the best resolution STEM images after the beam size is decided” (section 3.2; para. [0001]). As such, He068 and He identifies the diameter of the charged-particle beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing normalization and post-processing when recording and analyzing the diffraction pattern and improving spatial resolution. 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 charged-particle beam in He068 to meet that the charged-particle-optical system is configured such that the diameter of the charged-particle beam at the sample position is in a range between 100 nanometer and 1000 nanometer, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 10 nanometer and 200 nanometer in the imaging mode, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 2-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068in view of He and Hatano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Marco Jan Jaco Wieland (US20140014852), hereinafter referred to as Wieland, and Kiyoshi Sakaguchi (JPH11273601), hereinafter referred to as Sakaguchi.
Regarding claim 2, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1 wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 30 micrometer and 60 micrometer, and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 600 millimeter and 800 millimeter.
Wieland teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 50 to 150 microns (In one embodiment, where the size of the apertures in the range of 50 to 150 microns, the deviation in the size is preferably 100 nanometers or less (para. [0071])),
Optimizing aperture diameter 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, Wieland teaches that “the diameter of the apertures in beam stop array 8 are preferably smaller than the diameter of the beamlets (para. [0066])” and “[t]he diameter of the apertures in beam stop plate 8 in the present example limit the cross section of a beamlet… In this way, only a central part of a beamlet is allowed to pass through beam stop plate 8 for projection onto target 11. This central part of a beamlet has a relatively uniform charge density. Such cut-off of a circumferential section of a beamlet by the beam stop array 8 also largely determines the opening angle of a beamlet in the end module 7 of the system, as well as the amount of current at the target 11 (para. [0067])”. As such, Wieland identifies aperture diameter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing the uniformity of the charge density of the beam, optimizing the angle of the beam, and optimizing the current in the target. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the aperture diameter in He068 to meet the range between 30 micrometers and 60 micrometers, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Wieland also teaches and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 150 and 700 millimeter (so as to arrive to a projection column of limited height, preferably less than one meter from target to electron source, and more preferably between about 150 and 700 mm in height).
Optimizing the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position 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, Sakaguchi teaches that “Next, a column length satisfying the equation (7) is set as an optimum column length L … when the column length is longer than the optimum column length (that is, when L> L *), the deterioration of the resolution, that is, the deterioration of the beam diameter is not so large, but the column length is smaller than the optimum column length. When the length is shortened (that is, when L <L *), the resolution, that is, the beam diameter rapidly deteriorates (page 8, para. [0014]).”. As such, Sakaguchi identifies the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing image resolution. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position in He068 to meet that the distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 600 millimeter and 800, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1 wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 5 micrometer and 10 micrometer, and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 300 millimeter and 500 millimeter.
However, Wieland teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1 wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 5 micrometer and 20 micrometer (the apertures in beam stop array 8 have a diameter are in a range of 5 to 20 .mu.m (para. [0066])),
Optimizing aperture diameter 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, Wieland teaches that “the diameter of the apertures in beam stop array 8 are preferably smaller than the diameter of the beamlets (para. [0066])” and “[t]he diameter of the apertures in beam stop plate 8 in the present example limit the cross section of a beamlet… In this way, only a central part of a beamlet is allowed to pass through beam stop plate 8 for projection onto target 11. This central part of a beamlet has a relatively uniform charge density. Such cut-off of a circumferential section of a beamlet by the beam stop array 8 also largely determines the opening angle of a beamlet in the end module 7 of the system, as well as the amount of current at the target 11 (para. [0067])”. As such, Wieland identifies aperture diameter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing the uniformity of the charge density of the beam, optimizing the angle of the beam, and optimizing the current in the target. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the aperture diameter in He068 to meet the range between 5 micrometers and 10 micrometers, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Further, Wieland teaches wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 300 millimeter and 500 millimeter, in particular between 350 millimeter and 400 millimeter (so as to arrive to a projection column of limited height, preferably less than one meter from target to electron source, and more preferably between about 150 and 700 mm in height).
Optimizing the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position 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, Sakaguchi teaches that “Next, a column length satisfying the equation (7) is set as an optimum column length L … when the column length is longer than the optimum column length (that is, when L> L *), the deterioration of the resolution, that is, the deterioration of the beam diameter is not so large, but the column length is smaller than the optimum column length. When the length is shortened (that is, when L <L *), the resolution, that is, the beam diameter rapidly deteriorates (page 8, para. [0014]).”. As such, Sakaguchi identifies the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing image resolution. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position in He068 to meet that the distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 300 millimeter and 500, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1 wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 5 micrometer and 10 micrometer, and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 600 millimeter and 800 millimeter.
However, Wieland teaches wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 5 micrometer and 20 micrometer (the apertures in beam stop array 8 have a diameter are in a range of 5 to 20 .mu.m (para. [0066])),
Optimizing aperture diameter 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, Wieland teaches that “the diameter of the apertures in beam stop array 8 are preferably smaller than the diameter of the beamlets (para. [0066])” and “[t]he diameter of the apertures in beam stop plate 8 in the present example limit the cross section of a beamlet… In this way, only a central part of a beamlet is allowed to pass through beam stop plate 8 for projection onto target 11. This central part of a beamlet has a relatively uniform charge density. Such cut-off of a circumferential section of a beamlet by the beam stop array 8 also largely determines the opening angle of a beamlet in the end module 7 of the system, as well as the amount of current at the target 11 (para. [0067])”. As such, Wieland identifies aperture diameter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing the uniformity of the charge density of the beam, optimizing the angle of the beam, and optimizing the current in the target. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the aperture diameter in He068 to meet the range between 5 micrometers and 10 micrometers, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Further, Weiland teaches wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 600 millimeter and 800 millimeter, in particular between 650 millimeter and 700 millimeter (so as to arrive to a projection column of limited height, preferably less than one meter from target to electron source, and more preferably between about 150 and 700 mm in height (para. [0085])).
Optimizing the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position 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, Sakaguchi teaches that “Next, a column length satisfying the equation (7) is set as an optimum column length L … when the column length is longer than the optimum column length (that is, when L> L *), the deterioration of the resolution, that is, the deterioration of the beam diameter is not so large, but the column length is smaller than the optimum column length. When the length is shortened (that is, when L <L *), the resolution, that is, the beam diameter rapidly deteriorates (page 8, para. [0014]).”. As such, Sakaguchi identifies the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing image resolution.
Regarding claim 19, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according claim 1, wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 35 micrometer and 45 micrometer, and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 650 millimeter and 700 millimeter or
wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 5 micrometer and 10 micrometer, and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 350 millimeter and 400 millimeter; or
wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 5 micrometer and 10 micrometer, and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and predefined sample position is in a range between 650 millimeter and 700 millimeter.
Wieland teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the beam limiting aperture has a fixed aperture diameter in a range between 50 micrometer and 150 micrometer (In one embodiment, where the size of the apertures in the range of 50 to 150 microns, the deviation in the size is preferably 100 nanometers or less (para. [0071])),
Optimizing aperture diameter 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, Wieland teaches that “the diameter of the apertures in beam stop array 8 are preferably smaller than the diameter of the beamlets (para. [0066])” and “[t]he diameter of the apertures in beam stop plate 8 in the present example limit the cross section of a beamlet… In this way, only a central part of a beamlet is allowed to pass through beam stop plate 8 for projection onto target 11. This central part of a beamlet has a relatively uniform charge density. Such cut-off of a circumferential section of a beamlet by the beam stop array 8 also largely determines the opening angle of a beamlet in the end module 7 of the system, as well as the amount of current at the target 11 (para. [0067])”. As such, Wieland identifies aperture diameter as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing the uniformity of the charge density of the beam, optimizing the angle of the beam, and optimizing the current in the target. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the aperture diameter in He068 to meet the range between 30 micrometers and 60 micrometers, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Wieland also teaches and wherein a distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 650 millimeter and 700 millimeter (so as to arrive to a projection column of limited height, preferably less than one meter from target to electron source, and more preferably between about 150 and 700 mm in height (para. [0085])).
Optimizing the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position 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, Sakaguchi teaches that “Next, a column length satisfying the equation (7) is set as an optimum column length L … when the column length is longer than the optimum column length (that is, when L> L *), the deterioration of the resolution, that is, the deterioration of the beam diameter is not so large, but the column length is smaller than the optimum column length. When the length is shortened (that is, when L <L *), the resolution, that is, the beam diameter rapidly deteriorates (page 8, para. [0014]).”. As such, Sakaguchi identifies the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing image resolution. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the distance between the charged-particle beam source and the sample position in He068 to meet that the distance between a virtual position of the charged-particle source and the predefined sample position is in a range between 600 millimeter and 800, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068 in view of He and Hatano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gerd Benner (US 5013913 A), hereinafter referred to as Benner.
Regarding claim 5, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the charged-particle-optical system further comprises a first deflector system arranged between the first magnetic lens and the second magnetic lens for two-dimensionally scanning the charged-particle beam to control the angle of the charged-particle beam at the beam limiting aperture such that the charged-particle beam passes through an optical axis of the third magnetic lens.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1,wherein the charged-particle-optical system further comprises a first deflector system arranged between the first magnetic lens and the second magnetic lens (deflection system 43) for two-dimensionally scanning the charged-particle beam to control the angle of the charged-particle beam at the beam limiting aperture such that the charged-particle beam passes through an optical axis of the third magnetic lens (The deflection system ahead of the SFCO lens functions in these cases to deflect the shaped electron beam back again into the optical axis (para. [0021])).
He068 recites “It is noted that a Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope resembles a TEM, but is additionally equipped with deflection coils between lens 108 and the sample (para. [0057]).” 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 He068 to include the teachings of Benner by including the deflection system 43 of Benner between the first and second magnetic lenses, along the optical axis, disclosed in He068. Benner teaches using this deflection system to deflect the beam back onto the optical axis, such that the beam is capable of being deflected through further lenses and the field of illumination is maintained.
Regarding claim 6, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 5 wherein a pivot point of the first deflector system is at the optical axis of the beam limiting aperture.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 5, wherein a pivot point of the first deflector system is at the optical axis of the beam limiting aperture (Fig. 4 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
648
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to any one of claim 5, wherein the first deflector system comprises a first beam deflector and a second beam deflector.
However, Benner teaches wherein the first deflector system comprises a first beam deflector and a second beam deflector (Fig. 4 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
648
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the charged-particle-optical system further comprises a second deflector system arranged between the beam limiting aperture and the third magnetic lens for two-dimensionally scanning the charged-particle beam at the predefined sample position.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the charged-particle-optical system further comprises a second deflector system arranged between the beam limiting aperture and the third magnetic lens for two-dimensionally scanning the charged-particle beam at the predefined sample position (Fig. 4 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
662
816
media_image5.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 He068 to include the teachings of Benner by placing the second deflector system of Benner between the beam limiting aperture and third magnetic lens of He068. The deflection system is used to redirect the charged particle beam onto the optical axis in order to maintain the field of illumination.
Regarding claim 9, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 8 wherein a pivot point of the second deflector system is at the optical axis in a main plane of the third magnetic lens.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 8 wherein a pivot point of the second deflector system is at the optical axis in a main plane of the third magnetic lens (Fig. 4 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
688
816
media_image6.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 He068, to include the teachings of Benner, such that the pivot point of the second deflector system is at the optical axis in a main plane of the third magnetic lens. This way, the beam may converge before hitting the target.
Regarding claim 10, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to any one claim 8, wherein the second deflector system comprises a third beam deflector and a fourth beam deflector.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to any one claim 8, wherein the second deflector system comprises a third beam deflector and a fourth beam deflector (Fig. 4 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
686
816
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068 in view of He and Hatano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Stavros Nicolopoulos (US 8253099 B2), hereinafter referred to as Nicolopoulos.
Regarding claim 11, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the charged-particle-optical system further comprises a charged-particle stigmator arranged between the first deflector system and the second magnetic lens to correct for astigmatism.
However, Nicolopoulos teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein the charged-particle-optical system further comprises a charged-particle stigmator (objective stigmator and alignment coils 7) arranged between the first deflector system (DBTC 6) and the second magnetic lens (the projective lens 16) to correct for astigmatism.
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 He068 to include the teachings of Nicolopoulos by including the stigmator 5 in between the first deflector system and the second magnetic lens. Doing so allows for the correction of astigmatism to optimize the spatial resolution of the image.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068 in view of He and Hatano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Xinrong Jiang (US20180158644), hereinafter referred to as Jiang.
Regarding claim 12, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according claim 1, further comprising a scraping aperture arranged between the charged-particle source and the first magnetic lens.
However, Jiang teaches the charged-particle beam device according claim 1, further comprising a scraping aperture (aperture 112) arranged between the charged-particle source (emission source 102) and the first magnetic lens (condenser lenses (CL) 108) (an aperture 112 is implemented to select the beam currents).
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 He068 to include the teachings of Jiang by adding a scraping aperture (aperture 112) between the particle source and first magnetic lens. The benefit of this aperture is it can be used to select beam currents for various uses (para. [0026]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068 in view of He and Hatano, and in further view of and Jiang, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Mitsuhiro Okazawa (US 20220102113 A1), hereinafter referred to as Okazawa.
Regarding claim 13, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 12 further comprising a cooling equipment for cooling the scraping aperture.
However, Okazawa teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 12 further comprising a cooling equipment for cooling the scraping aperture (the writing part 2 further includes a cooling structure for the shaping aperture array substrate 25 (para. [0039])).
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 He068, in view of Jing to include cooling equipment for cooling the scraping aperture. Okazawa clearly lays out the motivation for doing so: “In order to prevent the shaping aperture array substrate 25 exposed to the electron beam B from expanding with heat of the electron beam B to cause a change in the aperture pitch (para. [0039])”
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068 in view of He and Hatano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Benner, and Mitsugu Sato (US 20060071166 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sato.
Regarding claim 14, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein a focal length of the first magnetic lens is in a range between 10 millimeter and 30 millimeter in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 40 millimeter, in the imaging mode.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein a focal length of the first magnetic lens is in a range between 3.5 millimeter and 45 millimeter (focal length of condenser lens 13a: 3.5 to 45 mm).
To be clear, He068 teaches a diffraction mode and imaging mode. Further, optimizing focal length 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, Sato teaches that “the focal-point shift amount determination unit 51 calculates optimum focal-point shift amounts from the image forming conditions such as the acceleration voltage, electron-source luminance, probe current, pixel number, magnification, and beam resolution (para. [0036])). As such, Sato identifies focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing resolution of an image and magnification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the focal length of the first magnetic lens in both diffraction mode and imaging mode, in He068, to meet a focal length of the first magnetic lens is in a range between 10 millimeter and 30 millimeter, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 40 millimeter, in the imaging mode, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1,
Wherein a focal length of the first magnetic lens is in a range between 10 millimeter and 20 millimeter in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 29 millimeter in the imaging mode; or wherein a focal length of the second magnetic lens is in a range between 90 millimeter and 103 millimeter in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 30 millimeter and 35 millimeter in the imaging mode; or wherein a focal length of the third magnetic lens is in a range between 80 millimeter and 91 mm in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 25 millimeter in the imaging mode.
However, Benner teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein a focal length of the first magnetic lens is in a range between 3.5 millimeter and 45 millimeter (focal length of condenser lens 13a: 3.5 to 45 mm).
He068 teaches both a diffraction mode and an imaging mode. Further, optimizing focal length 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, Sato teaches that “the focal-point shift amount determination unit 51 calculates optimum focal-point shift amounts from the image forming conditions such as the acceleration voltage, electron-source luminance, probe current, pixel number, magnification, and beam resolution (para. [0036])). As such, Sato identifies focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing resolution of an image and magnification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the focal length of the first magnetic lens in both diffraction mode and imaging mode, in He068, to meet a focal length of the first magnetic lens is in a range between 10 millimeter and 30 millimeter, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 40 millimeter, in the imaging mode, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He068 and He as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Benner, Sato, and Oliver Kienzle (US 20020084422), hereinafter after referred to as Kienzle.
Regarding claim 15, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according claim 1, wherein a focal length of the second magnetic lens is in a range between 90 millimeter and 110 millimeter, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 30 millimeter and 40 millimeter, in the imaging mode.
However, Kienzle teaches the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein a focal length of the second magnetic lens is 180 mm (lenses 5 and 7 provides a focal length f of 180 mm for the electrons (para. [0068])).
Further, Benner teaches and in a range between 3.5 millimeter and 45 millimeter (focal length of condenser lens 13a: 3.5 to 45 mm).
To be clear, He068 teaches a diffraction mode and imaging mode. Further, optimizing focal length 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, Sato teaches that “the focal-point shift amount determination unit 51 calculates optimum focal-point shift amounts from the image forming conditions such as the acceleration voltage, electron-source luminance, probe current, pixel number, magnification, and beam resolution (para. [0036])). As such, Sato identifies focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing resolution of an image and magnification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the focal length of the first magnetic lens in both diffraction mode and imaging mode, in He068, to meet a focal length of the second magnetic lens is in a range between 90 millimeter and 110 millimeter, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 30 millimeter and 40 millimeter, in the imaging mode, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, He068 fails to teach the charged-particle beam device according to claim 1, wherein a focal length of the third magnetic lens is in a range between 80 millimeter and 100 millimeter, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 30 millimeter, in the imaging mode.
However, Kienzle teaches the charged-particle beam device according to any one of the preceding claims claim 1, wherein a focal length of the third magnetic lens is 180 mm (lenses 5 and 7 provides a focal length f of 180 mm for the electrons (para. [0068])).
Further Benner teaches and in a range between 3.5 millimeter and 45 millimeter (focal length of condenser lens 13a: 3.5 to 45 mm).
Optimizing focal length 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, Sato teaches that “the focal-point shift amount determination unit 51 calculates optimum focal-point shift amounts from the image forming conditions such as the acceleration voltage, electron-source luminance, probe current, pixel number, magnification, and beam resolution (para. [0036])). As such, Sato identifies focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., optimizing resolution of an image and magnification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the focal length of the first magnetic lens in both diffraction mode and imaging mode, in He068, to meet wherein a focal length of the third magnetic lens is in a range between 80 millimeter and 100 millimeter, in the diffraction mode, and in a range between 20 millimeter and 30 millimeter, in the imaging mode, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
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 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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights