DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (Species A1), claims 1, 9-12, in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-8, 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions I, III, and Species A2, B there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 29, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 9-12 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.
5. Claim 1 recites “the region” and “the adjacent region”, which lack antecedent basis. The preceding clause introduces “an even number of regions”, and it is unclear whether the claim is referring to each region of the even number of regions, or a specific identified region.
6. Claim 10 recites “a central angle of the region for the metal wire”. Claim 1 introduces two distinct angles “a central angle between adjacent slits” and “an equal central angle”. The indefinite article “a central angle of the region” in claim 10 makes it unclear if the applicant is introducing another type of central angle.
7. Claims 9-12 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 20200373117) in view of Parker, B., & Escallier, J. (2005). Serpentine Coil Topology for BNL Direct Wind Superconducting Magnets. Proceedings of the 2005 Particle Accelerator Conference (PAC05) (hereinafter referred to as Parker). (submitted with the restriction requirement of 28 April 2026)
11. Regarding claim 1:
Nakano teaches a multipole lens (abstract section teaches a multipole lens) comprising:
a hollow cylindrical non-magnetic bobbin provided with a plurality of slits ([0035] fig. 5 teaches a hollow cylindrical bobbin, and that grooves 119 are provided in an axisymmetric manner on the bobbin 118. [0025] teaches that the bobbin 118 is formed of a non-magnetic body such as a resin); wherein
the non-magnetic bobbin includes a slit portion provided with the plurality of slits ([0035] fig. 5 teaches a hollow cylindrical bobbin, and that grooves 119 correspond to the plurality of slits with current lines running through grooves 119. The body of the bobbin 118 provides the slit portion) and first and second circumferential portions provided to sandwich the slit portion ([0025] fig. 1 teaches that the four sections are a main line section 113, a connection section 114, a connection section 115, and a return line section 116. The main line section 113 is parallel to the optical-axis 100. The connection sections 114 and 115 at the ends of the main line section 113 corresponds to the first and second circumferential potions sandwiching the slit portion),
the plurality of slits are disposed such that a central angle between adjacent slits is
360
12
N
o
, N being a natural number ([0025] fig. 2 teaches that the multipole lens is provided with twelve current lines including current lines 101 to 112. The current lines 101 to 112 are provided in an axisymmetric manner around an optical-axis 100. 12 axisymmetrically arranged current lines satisfies the equation where N=1),
Nakano does not teach that the metal wire is wound around the non-magnetic bobbin so as to repeat passing through a certain slit among the plurality of slits from the first circumferential portion toward the second circumferential portion, moving from the certain slit along the second circumferential portion to another slit among the plurality of slits, passing through the other slit from the second circumferential portion toward the first circumferential portion, and moving from the other slit along the first circumferential portion to still another slit among the plurality of slits,
winding numbers of the metal wire in the plurality of slits are equal, and
when a cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the slits is divided into an even number of regions having an equal central angle and including two or more of the slits, directions in which the metal wire passes through the slits provided in the region are same, and a direction in which the metal wire passes through the slits provided in the adjacent region is reversed.
Parker teaches that the metal wire (pg. 737 teaches coil wrapped around a tube) is wound around a support tube (pg. 737 teaches round wire wrapped around support tubes) so as to repeat passing through a certain slit among the plurality of slits from the first circumferential portion toward the second circumferential portion, moving from the certain slit along the second circumferential portion to another slit among the plurality of slits (under broadest reasonable interpretation, a slit is interpreted as a long, narrow cut or opening. Pg. 738 fig. 5 teaches that the boundaries of the G10 cutout pieces on the support tube act as guides for the wire. Therefore, the empty channel between two G10 spacers corresponds to the slits), passing through the other slit from the second circumferential portion toward the first circumferential portion, and moving from the other slit along the first circumferential portion to still another slit among the plurality of slits (see pg. 738 fig. 5, the wire run back from forth from Z=0 to Z=100 adjacent to the G10 pieces. Z=0 corresponds to the first circumferential portion, and the Z=100 corresponds to the second circumferential portion),
winding numbers of the metal wire in the plurality of slits are equal (fig. 5 shows that the winding numbers in the slits are equal with five turns each), and
when a cross section of the support tube orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the slits is divided into an even number of regions having an equal central angle and including two or more of the slits (pg. 737 fig. 2 teaches octupole coil pattern, and fig. 6 teaches quadrupole prototype. By definition, a quadrupole divides a circular cross section into four symmetrical magnetic poles. Fig. 6 teaches multiple wire channels located between the spacers within those pole regions), directions in which the metal wire passes through the slits provided in the region are same (fig. 5 teaches that the wire runs going straight down the Z-axis of the support tube), and a direction in which the metal wire passes through the slits provided in the adjacent region is reversed (pg. 737 teaches that instead of always turning the same direction, we make turns in opposite directions at the coil ends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to route a continuous wire down the inner groove, turn it radially outward at the bobbin’s end, route it back along the outer groove, and turn it radially inward to begin the next adjacent pole, as taught by Parker. Such modification would allow for arbitrary multipolarity in one continuous winding process and greatly simplifying magnet design and production (as taught in Parker pg. 737 abstract section).
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda (US 20130270435).
13. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the multipole lens according to claim 1.
Nakano further teaches a charged particle beam device (claim 11 teaches a charged particle beam apparatus); and a multipole lens controller connected to the metal wire of the multipole lens and configured to control generation of a multipole field in the multipole lens ([0026] teaches a power source 117 connected to the current lines to supply current to excite and control the generation of the multipole field).
Nakano in view of Parker does not specifically teach a sample stage on which a sample is to be mounted; a charged particle beam optical system including an image shift deflector that moves an irradiation point of a charged particle beam on the sample; an image shift deflector controller configured to control the image shift deflector.
Sohda teaches a sample stage on which a sample is to be mounted ([0037] teaches a sample 109 mounted on holder 110); a charged particle beam optical system including an image shift deflector that moves an irradiation point of a charged particle beam on the sample ([0037] teaches that the electron beam on the sample is two-dimensionally scanned by an objective deflector 106 to obtain a two-dimensional image); an image shift deflector controller configured to control the image shift deflector ([0037] teaches a scanning deflector controller 114 which controls the deflector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano’s charged particle apparatus to include the objective deflector and scanning deflector controller, as taught by Sohda. Doing so provides the predictable function of two-dimensionally scanning the electron beam across the sample to acquire an image or perform inspections (Sohda [0037]).
14. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda, further in view of Adamec (US 6614026).
15. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above teaches the charged particle beam device according to claim 9, wherein a central angle of the region for the current lines divides the cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin into six sections (Nakano [0034] teaches that a hexapole field is excited in order to perform a spherical aberration correction, which suggests that the current lines of the multipole lens are configured to create a hexapole field, which divides the operative cross section into six regions), the multipole lens controller is configured to control the multipole lens ([0026] teaches a power source 117 connected to the current lines to supply current to excite and control the generation of the multipole field).
Nakano does not specify that the metal wire divides the cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin into six sections.
Parker teaches that the metal wire (pg. 737 teaches coil wrapped around a tube) is wound around a support tube (pg. 737 teaches round wire wrapped around support tubes) so as to repeat passing through a certain slit among the plurality of slits from the first circumferential portion toward the second circumferential portion, moving from the certain slit along the second circumferential portion to another slit among the plurality of slits (Pg. 738 fig. 5 teaches that the boundaries of the G10 cutout pieces on the support tube act as guides for the wire. Therefore, the empty channel between two G10 spacers corresponds to the slits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to route a continuous wire down the inner groove, turn it radially outward at the bobbin’s end, route it back along the outer groove, and turn it radially inward to begin the next adjacent pole, as taught by Parker. Such modification would allow for arbitrary multipolarity in one continuous winding process and greatly simplifying magnet design and production (as taught in Parker pg. 737 abstract section).
Nakano in view of Parker does not specifically teach that the multipole lens controller is configured to control the multipole lens in conjunction with the image shift deflector controller such that a deflection coma aberration generated by the image shift deflector is cancelled by a deflection coma aberration generated by the multipole lens.
Sohda teaches that the controllers for the correction element and the objective deflector are linked to operate simultaneously to compensate for aberrations ([0038] teaches that each of the deflectors of the aberration correcting element 207 is operated in association with the objective deflector 210 to compensate the aberration. [0070] teaches that if the voltages are superimposed so as to generate an electric field having a hexapolar symmetric property in these electrodes, the coma aberration caused by the hexapolar field may be corrected. [0071] teaches that an optical element is used to correct not only the deflected chromatic aberration, but also the geometric aberration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Parker to introduce a linked control between the correction element and the objective deflector to counteract deflection-induced aberrations, as taught by Sohda. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to alleviate geometric aberration caused by deflection and implement deflection over a wide field of view with high resolution (Sohda abstract).
Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda does not specify that such correction element includes a multipole lens to target and cancel coma aberration.
Adamec teaches that a correction unit can be formed as an electrostatic magnetic multipole, such as a hexapole having 6 poles (col 2 lines 63-67). Using such a multipole makes it possible to reduce or compensate the coma of the objective lens (col 3 lines 54-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda to include a multipole lens, as taught by Adamec, as a component of the correction unit in the linked control architecture. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification such that higher order deflection fields can be generated which reduce or compensate the coma.
16. Regarding claim 12:
The modified invention above teaches the charged particle beam device according to claim 9, the central angle of the region for the current lines divides the cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin into six sections (Nakano [0034] teaches that a hexapole field is excited in order to perform a spherical aberration correction, which suggests that the current lines of the multipole lens are configured to create a hexapole field, which divides the operative cross section into six regions), and the multipole lens controller is configured to control the multipole lens ([0026] teaches a power source 117 connected to the current lines to supply current to excite and control the generation of the multipole field).
Nakano does not specify that the metal wire divides the cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin into six sections.
Parker teaches that the metal wire (pg. 737 teaches coil wrapped around a tube) is wound around a support tube (pg. 737 teaches round wire wrapped around support tubes) so as to repeat passing through a certain slit among the plurality of slits from the first circumferential portion toward the second circumferential portion, moving from the certain slit along the second circumferential portion to another slit among the plurality of slits (Pg. 738 fig. 5 teaches that the boundaries of the G10 cutout pieces on the support tube act as guides for the wire. Therefore, the empty channel between two G10 spacers corresponds to the slits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to route a continuous wire down the inner groove, turn it radially outward at the bobbin’s end, route it back along the outer groove, and turn it radially inward to begin the next adjacent pole, as taught by Parker. Such modification would allow for arbitrary multipolarity in one continuous winding process and greatly simplifying magnet design and production (as taught in Parker pg. 737 abstract section).
Nakano in view of Parker does not teach a deflection coil controller; and a deflection electrode controller, wherein the charged particle beam optical system includes an ExB filter including a deflection coil and a deflection electrode, the deflection coil controller is configured to control the deflection coil, and the deflection electrode controller is configured to control the deflection electrode, the deflection coil controller and the deflection electrode controller are configured to control the ExB filter such that a Wien condition is satisfied and a deflection color aberration generated by the image shift deflector is cancelled by a deflection color aberration generated by the ExB filter, and the multipole lens controller is configured to control the multipole lens in conjunction with the image shift deflector controller, the deflection coil controller, and the deflection electrode controller such that a deflection coma aberration generated by the image shift deflector and the ExB filter is cancelled by a deflection coma aberration generated by the multipole lens.
Sohda teaches a deflection coil controller; and a deflection electrode controller ([0037] teaches an electromagnetic deflector controller 120 and an offset applied electrostatic deflector controller 121. [0041] teaches that the electrostatic deflector comprises electrodes),
wherein the charged particle beam optical system includes an ExB filter including a deflection coil and a deflection electrode ([0004] teaches an electron optical element represented as ExB in which an electromagnetic deflector and an electrostatic deflector are combined. [0041] teaches that the electrostatic deflector comprises electrodes. [0043] teaches an electromagnetic deflector 1023 and an electrostatic deflector 122),
the deflection coil controller is configured to control the deflection coil, and the deflection electrode controller is configured to control the deflection electrode (see fig. 10, the electromagnetic deflector controller 120 and offset applied electrostatic deflector controller 121 are connected to electromagnetic deflector 1023 and electrostatic deflector 122),
the deflection coil controller and the deflection electrode controller are configured to control the ExB filter such that a Wien condition is satisfied and a deflection color aberration generated by the image shift deflector is cancelled by a deflection color aberration generated by the ExB filter ([0038] teaches the Wien condition and that each of the deflectors of the deflected chromatic aberration correcting element 207 is operated in association with the operation of the objective deflector 210 to compensate the deflected chromatic aberration. A deflected chromatic aberration correcting element 207 includes two electromagnetic deflectors 216 and 217 and an electrostatic deflector 206),
Sohda further teaches that the controllers for the correction element and the objective deflector are linked to operate simultaneously to compensate for aberrations ([0038] teaches that each of the deflectors of the aberration correcting element 207 is operated in association with the objective deflector 210 to compensate the aberration. [0070] teaches that if the voltages are superimposed so as to generate an electric field having a hexapolar symmetric property in these electrodes, the coma aberration caused by the hexapolar field may be corrected. [0071] teaches that an optical element is used to correct not only the deflected chromatic aberration, but also the geometric aberration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Parker to introduce a linked control between the correction element, objective deflector, electromagnetic deflectors, and electrostatic deflector to counteract deflection-induced aberrations, as taught by Sohda. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to alleviate geometric aberration caused by deflection and implement deflection over a wide field of view with high resolution (Sohda abstract).
Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda does not specify that such correction element includes a multipole lens to target and cancel coma aberration.
Adamec teaches that a correction unit can be formed as an electrostatic magnetic multipole, such as a hexapole having 6 poles (col 2 lines 63-67). Using such a multipole makes it possible to reduce or compensate the coma of the objective lens (col 3 lines 54-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda to include a multipole lens, as taught by Adamec, as a component of the correction unit in the linked control architecture. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification such that higher order deflection fields can be generated which reduce or compensate the coma (Adamec col 3 lines 54-62).
17. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda, further in view of Shimakura (US 20100181480), further in view of Adamec.
18. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above teaches the charged particle beam device according to claim 9, wherein the central angle of the region for the current lines divides the cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin into six sections (Nakano [0034] teaches that a hexapole field is excited in order to perform a spherical aberration correction, which suggests that the current lines of the multipole lens are configured to create a hexapole field, which divides the operative cross section into six regions), and the multipole lens controller is configured to control the multipole lens ([0026] teaches a power source 117 connected to the current lines to supply current to excite and control the generation of the multipole field).
Nakano does not specify that the metal wire divides the cross section of the non-magnetic bobbin into six sections.
Parker teaches that the metal wire (pg. 737 teaches coil wrapped around a tube) is wound around a support tube (pg. 737 teaches round wire wrapped around support tubes) so as to repeat passing through a certain slit among the plurality of slits from the first circumferential portion toward the second circumferential portion, moving from the certain slit along the second circumferential portion to another slit among the plurality of slits (Pg. 738 fig. 5 teaches that the boundaries of the G10 cutout pieces on the support tube act as guides for the wire. Therefore, the empty channel between two G10 spacers corresponds to the slits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to route a continuous wire down the inner groove, turn it radially outward at the bobbin’s end, route it back along the outer groove, and turn it radially inward to begin the next adjacent pole, as taught by Parker. Such modification would allow for arbitrary multipolarity in one continuous winding process and greatly simplifying magnet design and production (as taught in Parker pg. 737 abstract section).
Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda does not specifically teach a retarding voltage source configured to apply a retarding voltage to the sample; and a sample stage controller configured to control the sample stage, and the multipole lens controller is configured to control the multipole lens based on stage coordinates managed by the sample stage controller such that a deflection coma aberration generated when an end portion of the sample is observed is cancelled by a deflection coma aberration generated by the multipole lens.
Shimakura teaches a retarding voltage source configured to apply a retarding voltage to the sample ([0044] teaches a retarding voltage is applied to the sample 9 by a power supply unit 22); and a sample stage controller configured to control the sample stage ([0048] teaches the stage mechanical system has a configuration in which a linear stage and the rotary stage are combined, and a stage control unit 23 for controlling these). Shimakura further teaches controlling an aberration correction element based on stage coordinates to cancel aberrations when observing the end portion ([0049] teaches that by repeating the movement by the linear stage and the cancellation of the image shift by controlling the electric field control mechanism, the sample can be observed as far as its edge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda, to configure the aberration correction element to operate based on stage coordinates to cancel aberrations at the sample’s edge as taught by Shimakura. One or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to eliminate image shift and to enable the sample to be observed as far as its edge (Shimakura [0049]).
Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda, further in view of Shimakura does not specify that such correction element includes a multipole lens to target and cancel coma aberration.
Adamec teaches that a correction unit can be formed as an electrostatic magnetic multipole, such as a hexapole having 6 poles (col 2 lines 63-67). Using such a multipole makes it possible to reduce or compensate the coma of the objective lens (col 3 lines 54-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Parker, further in view of Sohda, further in view of Shimakura to include a multipole lens, as taught by Adamec, as a component of the correction unit in the linked control architecture. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification such that higher order deflection fields can be generated which reduce or compensate the coma (Adamec col 3 lines 54-62).
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
a. WO-2018042505, drawn towards an electromagnetic deflector that reduces aberration with a continuous wire winding around grooves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights