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 .
The previous Office Action submitted on January 13, 2026 is withdrawn/superseded.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 23, 2024, August 29, 2024, and November 04, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 13, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, please refer to pp. 8-10 of Applicant remarks, filed May 13, 2026, with respect to the 102(a)(2) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 11, & 15-17 under Ren et al. (US2021/0116398A1) and the 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-10, 12-14, & 18-20 over Ren and additional references listed on pg. 8 of Applicant remarks, have been fully considered and are persuasive in regard to Ren not being considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) . Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn due to the exception states provided on pg. 8-10 of Applicant remarks. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Nakasuji et al. (US 2009/0212213 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 27, 2009, hereinafter, Nakasuji’213), in view of Mantz et al. (US 8227752 B1, Pat. Date Jul. 24, 2012, hereinafter, Mantz), and further in view of Nakasuji et al. (US 2002/0148961 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 17, 2002, hereinafter, Nakasuji’961), for claims 1-3, 5, & 10. Further, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Nakasuji’213, in view of Mantz, in view of Nakasuji’961, and further in view of Tanimoto et al. (US 2006/0289781 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 28, 2006, hereinafter, Tanimoto) for claims 4, 6, & 12-13; further in view of Jiang (US 2022/0367140 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 17, 2022, hereinafter, Jiang) for claim 7; further in view of Mankos et al. ("Optimization of microcolumn electron optics for high-current applications." Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena 18.6 (2000): 3057-3060) for claims 8-9; further in view of Mankos for claim 11; further in view of Frosien et al. (US 2018/0158642 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 7, 2018, hereinafter, Frosien) for claim 14; further in view of Shirasaki et al. (US 2018/0025886 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 25, 2018, hereinafter, Shirasaki), in view of Mantz, in view of Matsuya (US 5225676 A Pat. Date Jul. 6, 1993, hereinafter, Matsuya), for claims 15-17; Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, in view of Matsuya, in view of Nakasuji’213, and further in view of Jiang for claim 18; and further in view of Mankos for claims 19-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a controller having circuitry configured to switch the operation of the apparatus" in ll. 1-2, without prior disclosure of “…the operation…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this claim limitation as “a controller having circuitry configured to switch the selected mode of operation of the apparatus…”. Claim 6, which does not rectify the defect, is also rejected by virtue of dependence on dependent claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji et al. (US 2009/0212213 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 27, 2009, hereinafter, Nakasuji’213), in view of Mantz et al. (US 8227752 B1, Pat. Date Jul. 24, 2012, hereinafter, Mantz), and further in view of Nakasuji et al. (US 2002/0148961 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 17, 2002, hereinafter, Nakasuji’961).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
A charged-particle beam apparatus comprising (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], & [0166]: discloses the baseline electron beam apparatus, utilizes charged particles (electrons)):
a charged-particle source configured to emit charged particles ([0003], [0037], [0048], [0053], [Claim 6], [Claim 12], & [Claim 17]: teaches an electron gun (the source) that emits an electron beam (the charged particles)),
an aperture plate configured to form a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis ([0006], [0015], [0035], [0037]-[0041], [0043], [0045], [0048], [0051], [0053], [0064], [0067]-[0068], [0072], [0081]-[0082], [0085], [0087], [0159], [0166], [0173], [0177]-[0179], [0183], [0194], [0317], [0493]-[0494], [0506], [0508], [0550], [0553], [0563], [0565], [0569], [0594], [0598]-[0601], [0603], [0607]-[0608], [0613]-[0615], [0618], [0620]-[0621], [0624], [0629], [0631]-[0634], [0636]-[0637], [Claim 25], [Claim 26], [Claim 31], [Claim 34], & [Claim 37]: discloses aperture that allows emitted electrons to pass through, to shape and form the primary beam along the optical axis);
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
a condenser lens configuration configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam based on a selected mode of operation of the apparatus, wherein the selected mode of operation comprises a first mode and a second mode, and wherein:
in the first mode of operation, the condenser lens configuration is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam, and
However, Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, further teach:
a condenser lens configuration configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam based on a selected mode of operation of the apparatus (Nakasuji’213: [0025], [0066], [0069]-[0070], [0072], [0083], [0085], [0166], [0173], [0176], [0184], [0487]-[0491], [0502]-[0504], [0513], [0547]-[0548], [0558], [0569], [0577]-[0578], [0598]-[0600], [0602], [0605], [0611], [0620], [0630]-[0632], [Claim 1], & [Claim 37]: provides the physical condenser lenses, Mantz is relied upon to teach adjusting the focus of the lenses based on the mode; Mantz: [Col. 2, ll. 6-49], [Col. 4, ll. 21-27 & 49-67], [Col. 5, ll. 56-59], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50], [Col. 16, ll. 16-24], [Claim 4], & [Claim 19]: teaches that the focal distance (the condensing of the beam) is actively changed based on the selected mode),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the charged-particle apparatus of Naksuji’213 (condenser lenses) by incorporating the multi-mode focus operations taught by Mantz. Nakasuji’213 discloses a condenser lens configuration configured to condense the primary beam, Mantz teaches adjusting the lens configuration based on a selected mode of operation comprising a first mode and a second mode, wherein in the first mode the lens condenses the primary beam for image focusing. A POSITA would recognize that combining these teachings would yield a condenser lens configuration configured to condense the primary beam based on a selected first or second mode of operation. The motivation for this combination is to allow the apparatus to extract both high-resolution 2D surface data and dynamic 3D depth profiles based on the selected mode, gaining the benefit of expanded measurements. This represents a substitution of known multi-mode focusing techniques into Nakasuji’s’213 existing lens architecture to yield predictable multi-dimensional scanning units (KSR).
However, Mantz, further teaches:
wherein the selected mode of operation comprises a first mode and a second mode, and wherein ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 6-11 & 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-49], [Col. 3, ll. 3-37], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3 & 12-27], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50 & 61-67], [Col. 7, ll. 1-6 & 57-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-20 & 25-32], [Col. 9, ll. 21-25], [Col. 11, ll. 4-23], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-32 & 51-61], [Col. 18, ll. 18-31], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], & [Claim 19]: discloses an apparatus that toggles between two distinct operational modes):
in the first mode of operation, the condenser lens configuration is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 6-11 & 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-49], [Col. 3, ll. 3-37], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3 & 12-37], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50 & 61-67], [Col. 7, ll. 1-6 & 57-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-20 & 25-32], [Col. 9, ll. 21-25], [Col. 11, ll. 4-23], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-32 & 51-61], [Col. 18, ll. 18-31], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], & [Claim 19]: teaches that in the first mode [high-resolution mode], the system operates with standard condensing/focusing to acquire a high-resolution image), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charged-particle apparatus of Naksuji’213 (condenser lenses) by incorporating the multi-mode focus operations taught by Mantz. Nakasuji’213 discloses a condenser lens configuration configured to condense the primary beam, Mantz teaches adjusting the lens configuration based on a selected mode of operation comprising a first mode and a second mode, wherein in the first mode the lens condenses the primary beam for image focusing. A POSITA would recognize that combining these teachings would yield a condenser lens configuration configured to condense the primary beam based on a selected first or second mode of operation. The motivation for this combination is to allow the apparatus to extract both high-resolution 2D surface data and dynamic 3D depth profiles based on the selected mode, gaining the benefit of expanded measurements. This represents a substitution of known multi-mode focusing techniques into Nakasuji’s’213 existing lens architecture to yield predictable multi-dimensional scanning units (KSR).
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, are silent in regard to:
in the second mode of operation, the condenser lens configuration is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam sufficiently to form a crossover between the condenser lens configuration and an objective lens of the apparatus.
However, Nakasuji’961, further teaches:
in the second mode of operation, the condenser lens configuration is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam sufficiently to form a crossover between the condenser lens configuration and an objective lens of the apparatus ([0001], [0011],[0173]-[0176], [0189], [0194]-[0196], [0322], [0344]-[0346], [0380]-[0381], [0400]-[0401], [0403], [0443], [0462]-[0463], [0491]-[0494], [0498]-[0500], [0536], [0538], [0546], [0575], [Claim 31], [Claim 32], [Claim 35], [Claim 36], [Claim 47], [Claim 50], [Claim 56], [Claim 57], [Claim 59], [Claim 61], & [Claim 63]: teaches converging (condensing) the beam that the crossover point forms specifically in the space between the upper condensing/demagnification lenses and the lower objective lens).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the combined apparatus of Nakasuji’213 and Mantz by incorporating the crossover adjustment architecture taught by Nakasuji’961. Nakasuji’961 teaches a condenser lens configuration (condenser lens, demagnification lens) configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam to form a crossover between the condenser lens and the objective lens of the apparatus. A POSITA would recognize that combining these teachings corresponds to condensing the beam to form a crossover between the condenser and objective lens when the focal distance is altered in the second mode of operation. The motivation for introducing this crossover formation between the lenses is to correct for magnification chromatic aberration and rotation chromatic aberration without altering the baseline characteristics of the objective lens. Applying this crossover formation technique to the multi-mode system of Nakasuji’213 and Mantz is a predictable variation of known electron-optical configurations to maintain high resolution and minimize distortion when operating in different focus modes, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], & [0166]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein the objective lens is located downstream from the condenser lens configuration and configured to focus the primary charged-particle beam exiting the condenser lens configuration on a surface of a sample to form a probe spot.
However, Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, further teach:
wherein the objective lens is located downstream from the condenser lens configuration (Nakasuji’213: Fig. 2; [0166] & [0173]: illustrates objective lens 34 positioned below/downstream of condenser lens 23; Mantz: Fig. 2A; [Col. 2, ll. 56-62]: establishes the downstream optical axis flow; Nakasuji’961: Fig. 7; [0194]) and configured to focus the primary charged-particle beam exiting the condenser lens configuration on a surface of a sample to form a probe spot (Nakasuji’213: Fig. 2; [0166], [0173], & [0177]: sample 35; Mantz: Fig. 4A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-62], & [Claim 1]; Nakasuji’961: Fig. 7; [0194] & [0196]: part W).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Combining the condenser and objective lens configuration of Nakasuji’213 with the high-resolution focusing techniques of Mantz. The motivation to incorporate Mantz’s focusing technique into Nakasuji’s213 apparatus is to improve the microscope’s ability to inspect the three dimensional topography of an object surface by refining the depth and focus and probe spot resolution. Further, a simple substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices for a POSITA to incorporate the multi-column condenser and objective lens arrangement of Nakasuji’961 into the charge-particle beam apparatus of Nakasuji’213 and Mantz. The resulting combined apparatus corresponds to a charged-particle beam apparatus wherein the objective lens is located downstream from the condenser lens configuration and configured to focus the primary beam on a surface of a sample to form a probe spot. The combined apparatus of Nakasuji’213 and Mantz discloses the downstream objective lens focusing the primary beam to a high-resolution probe spot. Nakasuji’961 teaches the application of the condenser-to-objective configuration across a plurality of parallel optical systems. Further discloses the electron beam apparatus wherein the objective lens is located downstream from the condenser lens and is configured to focus the primary charged-particle beam exiting the condenser lens configuration on a surface of a wafer sample (W) to form a discrete probe spot, this layout is replicated across multiple columns. The primary benefit gained and the problem solved by this modification is an increase in inspection throughput by allowing multiple regions of the sample to be scanned by discrete probe spots simultaneously, thus yielding expected and optimized predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 51; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, are silent in regard to:
further comprising a beam-limit aperture array located between the condenser lens configuration and the objective lens along the primary optical axis wherein the crossover is formed between the beam-limit aperture array and the objective lens.
However, Nakasuji’213, in combination with Nakasuji’961, further teach:
further comprising a beam-limit aperture array located between the condenser lens configuration and the objective lens along the primary optical axis (Nakasuji’213: Fig. 51; [0486]-[0488]: condenser lens 272, formation apertures 273, objective lens 279; Nakasuji’961: Fig. 42; [0462]: condenser lens 4-10, multi-aperture plate 8-10, objective lens 18-10) wherein the crossover is formed between the beam-limit aperture array and the objective lens (Nakasuji’213: Fig. 51; [0486]-[0488]: condenser lens 272, formation apertures 273, objective lens 279, crossover is upstream of the array; Nakasuji’961: Fig. 54; [0494]: crossover at point 24-11, multi-aperture plate 3-11, objective lens 7-11, crossover is downstream of array 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nakasuji’213 to position the crossover downstream of the beam-limit aperture array and before the objective lens, as taught by Nakasuji’961. Nakasuji’213 discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus comprising a beam-limit aperture array (formation apertures 273) located between a condenser lens configuration (272) and objective lens (279) along the primary optical axis, but forming the beam crossover upstream of the aperture array rather than between the array and the objective lens. Nakasuji’961 teaches a structurally similar electron beam apparatus comprising a beam-limit aperture array (multi-aperture plate 3-11) located between the condenser and objective lenses, wherein the crossover (24-11) is formed between the beam-limit aperture array and the objective lens (7-11) along the primary optical axis. A predictable variation and substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices, would motivate a POSITA to incorporate this specific crossover configuration into the primary apparatus is to reduce internal optical aberrations, minimizing magnification chromatic aberration, rotation chromatic aberration, image distortion, and coma. This combination corresponds to a charged-particle beam apparatus further comprising a beam-limit aperture array located between the condenser lens configuration and the objective lens along the primary optical axis, wherein the crossover is formed between the beam-limit aperture array and the objective lens, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173] & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
further comprising a controller having circuitry configured to switch the operation of the apparatus from the first mode to the second mode.
However, Mantz, further teaches:
further comprising a controller having circuitry configured to switch the operation of the apparatus from the first mode to the second mode ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-62], [Col. 11, ll. 4-23], [Col. 13, ll. 51-61], [Claim 1], [Claim 21], & [Claim 22]: establishes a controller configured to switch between distinct functional modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the multi-mode switching controller circuitry taught by Mantz into the charged-particle beam apparatus of Nakasuji’213. Nakasuji’213 discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus but lacks a controller having circuitry configured to switch the operation of the apparatus between distinct first and second inspection modes. Mantz teaches a similar scanning particle beam microscope further comprising a computer or controller having circuitry configured to operate the apparatus in distinct modes, switching between a first mode (high-resolution mode) and a second mode (a 3D-mode). This substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices would provide a predictable variation of the apparatus, motivating a POSITA to implement this multi-mode controller configuration is to improve operational efficiency and system versatility by allowing the end-user to transition the apparatus from standard surface scanning to high-resolution topographic profiling without requiring manual reconfiguration or separate, dedicated instrumentation. This combination results in a charged-particle beam apparatus further comprising a controller having circuitry configured to switch the operation of the apparatus from the first mode to the second mode, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173] & [0487]), wherein the condenser lens configuration comprises an electromagnetic lens ([0040]-[0041], [0051], [0487]-[0488], [0490], [0502], & [0504]).
Claims 4, 6, & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji’213, in view of Mantz, in view of Nakasuji’961, and further in view of Tanimoto et al. (US 2006/0289781 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 28, 2006, hereinafter, Tanimoto).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3 (Fig. 51; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, are silent in regard to:
wherein the crossover is formed coplanar with the beam-limit aperture array.
However, Tanimoto, further teaches:
wherein the crossover is formed coplanar with the beam-limit aperture array (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007], [0009], [0011], [0013], [0015], [0021], [0025], [0052]-[0054], [0059]-[0062], [0079], [Claim 10], [Claim 11]: shows crossovers as black dots directly over the plane array 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical column of Nakasuji’213 to align the crossover coplanar with the aperture array as taught by Tanimoto. Nakasuji’213 discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus with a beam-limit aperture array but lacks the internal optical geometry where the crossover is formed coplanar with the array, instead teaching an upstream crossover formation. Tanimoto teaches a similar multibeam charged-particle apparatus wherein the electron beams are converged such that a crossover is formed at the height of, and therefore coplanar with, the beam-limit aperture array (blanker array 112). This corresponds to a predictable variation and substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices for a POSITA to perform the modification. The motivation to incorporate Tanimoto’s crossover geometry into the primary apparatus is to ensure that individual beamlets can be deflected or blanked without shifting the beam spot position on the downstream sample, improving the overall accuracy and system throughput, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 5 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173] & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein the controller includes circuitry to adjust a first excitation of the condenser lens configuration to cause the apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode.
However, Mantz, in combination with Tanimoto, further teach:
wherein the controller includes circuitry to adjust a first excitation of the condenser lens configuration to cause the apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode (Mantz: [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-62], [Col. 4, ll. 28-37], [Col. 8, ll. 25-32], [Col. 9, ll. 3-19], [Col. 11, ll. 4-23], [Col. 12, ll. 44-57], [Col. 13, ll. 33-61], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], [Claim 17], [Claim 21], & [Claim 22]: teaches “…operating the microscope in a high-resolution mode…” and comparing it to “acquired in the 3D-mode…” executed via a computer/controller; Tanimoto: Fig. 10; [Abstract], [0011], [0016], [0020]-[0021], [0025], [0028], [0030], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0063], [0071], [0073], [0075], [0081], [0090], [0096], [0099], [0107]-[0115], [0117]-[0120], [Claim 8], [Claim 10], & [Claim 11]: demonstrates switching operational modes via condenser excitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the multi-mode switching controller of the combined Nakasuji’213-Mantz apparatus to execute its mode transitions by adjusting the condenser lens excitations as taught by Tanimoto. Tanimoto teaches a charged-particle beam apparatus wherein a controller adjusts the excitation of the condenser lens configuration, which acts as a zoom lens, to alter the crossover diameter and beam current to meet different mode requirements. This substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices would provide a predictable variation of the apparatus, motivating a POSITA to configure the multi-mode switching controller of the combined Nakasuji’213-Mantz apparatus to execute its mode transitions by adjusting the condenser lens excitation taught by Tanimoto. The motivation to implement this excitation-adjustment technique is to alter the beam current and spot size without requiring physical mechanical changes to the column, gaining the benefit of efficiently and rapidly transitioning the apparatus between a high-resolution scanning mode and a high-throughput mode, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, are silent in regard to:
wherein the condenser lens configuration comprises:
a first condenser lens comprising a first set of coils; and
a second condenser lens comprising a second set of coils, wherein an electrical current through each of the first and the second set of coils is independently adjustable.
However, Tanimoto, further teaches:
wherein the condenser lens configuration comprises:
a first condenser lens comprising a first set of coils; and
a second condenser lens comprising a second set of coils (Fig. 4; [0022], [0028], [0030], [0054], [0071], & [0113]: describes a two-stage condenser/source forming lens made of electromagnetic lenses (which contain coils)), wherein an electrical current through each of the first and the second set of coils is independently adjustable (Figs. 5, 6A, & 6B: [Abstract], [0028], [0030], [0054]-[0055], [0063], [0072], [0075], [0078]-[0080], [0088], [0090], [0110], [0112], [Claim 11]: describes currents applied to each lens are independently varied (increased/decreased separately) to achieve zoom and crossover adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the dual-coil, independently adjustable condenser lens configuration of Tanimoto into the combined apparatus of Nakasuji’213-Mantz for a predictable variation of known techniques to improve similar devices. The combination of Nakasuji’213 and Mantz teaches a charged-particle beam apparatus capable of mode switching, but lacks a condenser lens configuration comprising a first and second condenser lens, each having a set of coils, wherein the electrical current through each set is independently adjustable. Tanimoto teaches a charged-particle apparatus featuring a two-stage electromagnetic condenser lens configuration comprising a first source forming lens and a second source forming lens operating together as a zoom lens. Further, Tanimoto, teaches that the electrical current supplied to the coils of the first lens and the second lens are independently adjustable, noting that the current to the first lens can be increased while the current to the second lens is simultaneously decreased to achieve crossover focal lengths. The motivation to incorporate this two-stage, independently controlled electromagnetic condenser architecture is to enable the apparatus to act as a controllable zoom lens, allowing the system to determine the size of the light source and crossover diameter without physically moving components, therefore improving resolution and operational throughput, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein the second condenser lens is located downstream from the first condenser lens.
However, Mantz, and Tanimoto, further teach:
wherein the second condenser lens is located downstream from the first condenser lens (Mantz: [Col. 9, ll. 3-12], [Col. 13, ll. 62-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-6 & 56-59], & [Claim 17]; Tanimoto: Fig. 4; [0071]: Fig. 4 illustrates the electron beam travels through the gun 101 downwards, passing first through lens 501 and subsequently through the downstream lens 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the sequential, downstream two-stage condenser lens configuration of Tanimoto (and/or Mantz) into the combined apparatus of Nakasuji’213-Mantz for a predictable variation of known techniques to improve similar devices. The combination of Nakasuji’213 and Mantz teaches a charged-particle beam apparatus, but lacks a second condenser lens located downstream from a first condenser lens. Tanimoto and Mantz, both teach a charged-particle apparatus featuring a two-stage electromagnetic condenser lens configuration where a second source forming lens is positioned downstream from a first source forming lens along the primary beam path. The motivation to incorporate this downstream lens arrangement is to enable the apparatus to act as a controllable zoom lens, allowing the system to flexibly reduce the crossover with an arbitrary magnification without shifting the imaging plane, therefore improving overall imaging efficiency and resolution, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji’213, in view of Mantz, in view of Nakasuji’961, and further in view of Jiang (US 2022/0367140 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 17, 2022, hereinafter, Jiang).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173] & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein in the first mode of operation,
However, Mantz, further teaches:
wherein in the first mode of operation (Fig. 1; [Col. 9, ll. 21-40], [Col. 11, ll. 40-67], [Col. 13, ll. 15-32 & 51-61], & [Claim 18]: discloses switching between distinct functional modes (e.g., high-resolution and 3D-mode)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the multi-mode switching controller of the combined Nakasuji’213-Mantz apparatus such that the first probe current in the first mode of operation is determined based on the size of the aperture of the beam-limiting aperture array. This configuration utilizes the known physical principle that the probe current is a function of the aperture diameter, allowing for precise control of beam transmission. The motivation for this adjustment is to provide a standardized, hardware-calibrated method for selecting beam currents for high-resolution versus high-throughput modes, improving operational efficiency and consistency across different inspection tasks, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, are silent in regard to:
a first probe current of the primary charged-particle beam is determined based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes.
However, Jiang, further teaches:
a first probe current of the primary charged-particle beam is determined based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007], [0015]-[0016], [0019]-[0020], [0023], [0026], [0028], [0030], [0045], [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0056], [0058]-[0062], [0064]-[0067], [0069], [0072]-[0073], [0075], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], & [Claim 18]: discloses the apparatus can be optimized for specific beamlet current/resolution modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the multi-mode switching controller of the combined Nakasuji’213-Mantz apparatus. Jiang teaches that a beam-limiting aperture is utilized to select the total beam current for illuminating an aperture array, and that the physical selection defines the probe current available for the system. This substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices would provide a predictable variation of the apparatus, motivating a POSITA to configure the multi-mode switching controller of the combined Nakasuji’213-Mantz apparatus to regulate the first probe current in the first mode of operation by biasing it on the size of the beam-limit aperture through which the beam passes, as taught by Jiang. The benefit of this modification is the hardware-defined calibration of probe current levels for different operational modes, and ensures consistent inspection results across varying sample types or throughput requirements, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji’213, in view of Mantz, in view of Nakasuji’961, in view of Jiang, in view of Tanimoto, and further in view of Mankos et al. ("Optimization of microcolumn electron optics for high-current applications." Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena 18.6 (2000): 3057-3060).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein in the second mode of operation,
However, Mantz, further teaches:
wherein in the second mode of operation (Fig. 1; [Col. 9, ll. 21-40], [Col. 11, ll. 40-67], [Col. 13, ll. 15-32 & 51-61], & [Claim 18]: discloses switching between distinct functional modes (e.g., high-resolution and 3D-mode)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the multi-mode operational configuration taught by Mantz into the apparatus of Nakasuji’213 to provide a predictable variation of the apparatus. Nakasuji’213 discloses the base charge-particle beam apparatus but lacks operating the apparatus in a distinct second mode of operation. Mantz teaches a similar scanning particle beam microscope configured to operate in multiple modes, transitioning to a second mode of operation, such as a 3D-mode, for varied inspection tasks. The motivation to incorporate this second mode of operation is to increase the versatility of the apparatus, allowing it to switch from standard high-resolution surface scanning to specialized three-dimensional topographic profiling without requiring separate instrumentation, improving operational efficiency and consistency across different inspection tasks, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, are silent in regard to:
a second probe current of the primary charged-particle beam passing through the aperture is determined based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration,
However, Jiang, in combination with Tanimoto, and Mankos, further teach:
a second probe current of the primary charged-particle beam passing through the aperture is determined based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration (Jiang: [Abstract], [0007], [0015]-[0016], [0019]-[0020], [0023], [0026], [0028], [0030], [0045], [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0056], [0058]-[0062], [0064]-[0067], [0069], [0072]-[0073], [0075], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], & [Claim 18]: discloses the beam-limiting aperture (107) selects the beam current in illumination; Tanimoto: [Abstract], [0011], [0016], [0020]-[0021], [0025], [0028], [0030], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0063], [0071], [0073], [0075], [0081], [0090], [0096], [0099], [0107]-[0115], [0117]-[0120], [Claim 8], [Claim 10], & [Claim 11]: controller 201/204 adjusts excitation of condenser lens 1002; Mankos: Figs. 5 & 6; [Pg. 3059, Col. 1, Sec. III], [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]: discloses that in the crossover mode, the probe current is a function of the condenser lens, second probe current is determined by the second excitation voltage applied, e.g., ~ -900V, figures illustrate the direct determination of current based on excitation voltage),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the condenser lens excitation of Tanimoto with the aperture-dependent current selection of Jiang and Mankos, to provide a predictable variation of known techniques to improve similar devices. The combination of Nakasuji’213, Mantz, and Nakasuji’961 disclose a multi-mode charged-particle beam apparatus but lacks a second mode of operation, a second probe current of the primary charged-particle beam passing through an aperture determined based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration. Tanimoto teaches adjusting a condenser lens configuration excitation, while Jiang teaches the probe current is determined based on the size of a beam-limiting aperture though which the primary beam passes. Mankos teaches that applying a second excitation to the condenser lens alters the fraction of the beam passing through the aperture, enabling a second mode of operation (two-lens mode) with a second probe current (up to 50 nA) that is larger than the first probe current (~1 nA) of a first mode. The motivation for this combination is to optimize the electron optics for high-current applications, gaining the benefit of switching the apparatus to a high-throughput second mode with a larger probe current while maintaining spot size resolution, and thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, Nakasuji’961, Jiang, and Tanimoto, are silent in regard to:
and wherein the second probe current is larger than the first probe current.
However, Mankos, further teaches:
and wherein the second probe current is larger than the first probe current (Fig. 4; [Pg. 3060, Col. 1, Sec. III & IV] & [Pg. 3060, Col. 2, Sec. IV]: discloses the crossover/flood mode (second mode) providing a larger current than the non-crossover/inspection mode (first mode), figure graphs the available range, showing the crossover mode (top curve) achieving larger currents than the non-crossover mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the condenser lens excitation of the combined apparatus to intentionally switch the system to a second mode providing a second probe current larger than the first probe current. The combination of Nakasuji’213, Mantz, Tanimoto, and Jiang discloses a multi-mode charged-particle beam apparatus but lacks a second mode where a second larger probe current is determined based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration. Mankos teaches that adjusting the condenser lens excitation allows the microcolumn to achieve a wide range of beam currents, up to 50 nA for high-current applications. The motivation for this substitution is to increase system throughput in the second mode, balancing the high-resolution constraints of the first mode with the high-current demands of the second mode, where the current is determined by the condenser lens excitation (voltage) relative to the aperture, a stronger condenser lens excitation in a second mode yields a higher probe current, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein in the second mode of operation,
However, Mantz, in combination with Tanimoto, further teach:
wherein in the second mode of operation (Mantz: Fig. 1; [Col. 9, ll. 21-40], [Col. 11, ll. 40-67], [Col. 13, ll. 15-32 & 51-61], & [Claim 18]: discloses switching to a second/alternative functional state (e.g., 3-D mode); Tanimoto: [0107]-[0108]: supports mode and magnification variation),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the multi-mode operation of Mantz and the excitation-driven crossover plane adjustment of Tanimoto into the primary apparatus, to generate a predictable variation of known techniques to improve similar devices. Nakasuji’213, discloses a charged-particle beam apparatus but lacks the distinct second mode where an adjustment of a second excitation of a condenser lens configuration adjusts the location of a crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the objective lens. Mantz teaches a scanning particle beam microscope configured to switch into a distinct second mode of operation, such as a 3D-mode, for varied inspection tasks. Tanimoto teaches adjusting the excitation of the condenser lens configuration to form the crossover at a desired height, adjusting the location of the crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the downstream objective lens. The motivation to combine these teachings to maintain optimal Koehler illumination and precise beam focus on the test sample across different operational modes, improving the operational precision and functional versatility, without requiring separate instrumentation, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, are silent in regard to:
an adjustment of the second excitation of the condenser lens configuration adjusts a location of a crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the objective lens.
However, Tanimoto, further teaches:
an adjustment of the second excitation of the condenser lens configuration adjusts a location of a crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the objective lens (Fig. 10; [Abstract], [0011], [0016], [0020]-[0021], [0025], [0028], [0030], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0063], [0071], [0073], [0075], [0081], [0090], [0096], [0099], [0107]-[0115], [0117]-[0120], [Claim 8], [Claim 10], & [Claim 11]: excitation of the condenser lens 1002, adjusted so that the crossover 103 is formed at a desired height, and focal length is adjusted by objective lens 1011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the controller of the combined apparatus to adjust the location of the crossover plane along the primary optical axis via the second excitation of the condenser lens configuration, as taught by Tanimoto, to generate a predictable variation of known techniques to improve similar devices. The combination of Nakasuji’213, Mantz, and Mankos disclose a multi-mode charged-particle beam apparatus that adjusts condenser excitation to operate a distinct second mode, but does not detail that the excitation adjustment controls the physical location of the crossover plane along the primary optical axis relative to the objective lens. Tanimoto teaches a charged-particle beam apparatus wherein the current or excitation of the condenser lens configuration is adjusted to form the crossover at a desired height, adjusting the location of the crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the downstream objective lens. The motivation to implement this excitation-driven crossover plane adjustment is to maintain optimal Koehler illumination and precise beam focus on the test sample regardless of magnification or mode changes, improving the operational precision and image quality, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji’213, in view of Mantz, in view of Nakasuji’961, and further in view of Mankos.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, and Nakasuji’961, are silent in regard to:
wherein the first mode comprises a non-crossover mode of operation and the second mode comprises a crossover mode of operation.
However, Mankos, further teaches:
wherein the first mode comprises a non-crossover mode of operation (Figs. 1(b), 4, 5, & 7(b); [Pg. 3057, Abstract], [Pg. 3057, Col. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 3057, Col. 2, Sec. I & II], [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II] & [Pg. 3059, Col. 1, Sec. III]) and the second mode comprises a crossover mode of operation (Figs. 1(c), 3, 4, 5, & 7(c); [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II], [Pg. 3058, Col. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 3059, Col. 1, Sec. II & III], & [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the distinct non-crossover and crossover dual-mode operational setups of Mankos into the multi-mode apparatus architecture defined by Nakasuji’213 and Mantz for a predictable variation of known techniques to improve similar devices. Nakasuji’213 and Mantz establish a multi-mode charged-particle beam apparatus managed by a system controller, but lack the first mode comprising a non-crossover mode of operation and the second mode comprising a crossover mode of operation. Mankos teaches an optimized two-lens microcolumn electron-optical system designed to selectively switch between a non-crossover mode of operation (“no crossover” mode) and a crossover mode of operation (“with a crossover” mode) by varying condenser lens excitation. The motivation for this combination is to allow the system controller to alternate between a non-crossover mode to maximize probe spot size resolution and a crossover mode to focus the beam onto an internal blanker plane, minimizing beam shift during high-speed blanking operations, thus yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasuji’213, in view of Mantz, in view of Nakasuji’961, in view of Tanimoto, and further in view of Frosien et al. (US 2018/0158642 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 7, 2018, hereinafter, Frosien).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Nakasuji’213, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 2; [Title], [Abstract], [0001]-[0003], [0037], [0166], [0173], & [0487]),
Nakasuji’213, is silent in regard to:
wherein the second condenser lens
However, Mantz, further teaches:
wherein the second condenser lens (Fig. 3B; [Col. 9, ll. 3-12] & [Claim 17])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the second magnetic condenser lens arranged in conjunction with a first condenser lens as taught by Mantz into Nakasuji’213. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination to allow the system to operate effectively in multiple modes by improving the control of beam focus and aperture angles. Implementing this known technique to improve similar devices provides the benefit of increased operational flexibility and high-resolution imaging efficiency across different scanning conditions, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Nakasuji’213, in combination with Mantz, Nakasuji’961, and Tanimoto, are silent in regard to:
is coplanar with the first condenser lens.
However, Frosien, further teaches:
is coplanar with the first condenser lens (Fig.5; [0009], [0030]-[0032], [0036]-[0037], & [0070]: discloses a multi-column microscope configuration and multi-aperture lens plates where multiple lenses (first and second) are arranged in a coplanar array to handle multiple beamlets simultaneously, figure illustrates the optical elements of each column are aligned horizontally (side-by-side), therefore the “first condenser lens” of column 1 and “second condenser lens” of column 2 are coplanar to adjacent columns in parallel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the second magnetic condenser lens coplanar with the first condenser lens as taught by Frosien, into the combined references of Mantz and Nakasuji’213 that disclose a charged-particle beam apparatus with multiple condenser lenses. Frosien teaches a multi-column microscope configuration comprising multiple adjacent charged particle beam devices, each equipped with a lens to inspect a shared specimen, thereby inherently arranging the respective lenses of adjacent columns in a side-by-side, coplanar manner. This constitutes a substitution and predictable radiation to configure the first and second condenser lenses to be coplanar by employing the parallel multi-column architecture taught by Frosien. The motivation to combines these features is to increase the processing speed and capacity of the inspection system, yielding the benefit of improved operational speed while maintaining high beam resolution across a wide inspection area, thus yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki et al. (US 2018/0025886 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 25, 2018, hereinafter, Shirasaki), in view of Mantz, in view of Matsuya (US 5225676 A Pat. Date Jul. 6, 1993, hereinafter, Matsuya), and further in view of Nakasuji’213.
Regarding independent claim 15, Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, teach:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of a charged-particle beam apparatus to cause the charged particle beam apparatus to perform a method comprising (Shirasaki: [0030] & [0034]; Mantz: [Col. 1, ll. 6-11], [Col. 2, ll. 6-14], [Col. 5, ll. 24-34], [Col. 7, ll. 1-23 & 46-56], [Col. 10, ll. 53-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-16], [Col. 16, ll. 65-67], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], & [Claim 21]):
Shirasaki, teaches:
forming a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis from charged particles emitted by a charged-particle source (Fig. 1; [0030]-[0032]) teaches an electron source 101 that emits an electron beam which is a charged particle beam and discloses first condenser lens 103, beam current adjusting aperture 104, second condenser lens 106, beam separator 107, mirror 108, and objective lens 110 provided on a trajectory of an electron beam 102 derived from an electron source 101, to shape and form the primary beam along the optical axis);
focusing the primary charged-particle beam exiting the condenser lens configuration on a surface of a sample to form a probe spot ([0042]-[0044]: objective lens focuses the primary electron beam onto the surface of a sample to form a beam spot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the combined Shirasaki system to include Mantz’s computer storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by one or more processors. Mantz discloses a scanning particle beam microscope comprising a computer and a computer storage medium configured to store instructions and three-dimensional representations to operate the device and execute scanning methods. The rationale for this combination is to automate the execution of the selected first and second modes, providing the benefit of improved operational efficiency and reduced manual operator error. The application of a known computer storage medium to an existing automated scanning microscope is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, in combination with Mantz, are silent in regard to:
condensing, using a condenser lens configuration, the primary charged-particle beam based on a selected mode of operation comprising a first mode and a second mode of the apparatus, wherein:
operating in the first mode comprises condensing the primary charged-particle beam using the condenser lens configuration, and
However, Matsuya, further teaches:
condensing, using a condenser lens configuration, the primary charged-particle beam based on a selected mode of operation comprising a first mode and a second mode of the apparatus ([Abstract], [Col. 4, ll. 15-59], [Col. 6, ll. 4-43], [Col. 10, ll. 65-68], [Col. 11, ll. 1-13], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]), wherein:
operating in the first mode comprises condensing the primary charged-particle beam using the condenser lens configuration ([Abstract] , [Col. 4, ll. 15-59], [Col. 6, ll. 4-43], [Col. 10, ll. 65-68], [Col. 11, ll. 1-13], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirasaki’s apparatus to include Matsuya’s multi-mode condenser lens configuration. Matsuya teaches an electrooptical viewing apparatus that switches between a first mode and a second mode by changing the excitation of the first condenser lens and second condenser lens. The motivation to combine these teachings is to solve the problem of limited depth of focus by providing a predictable variation that allows an operator to optimize the depth of focus for different specimen topographies. The substitution of Matsuya’s dual-mode condenser lens control into Shirasaki’s system is a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the benefit of maintained resolution across varying sample heights without requiring manual mechanical adjustments, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, in combination with Mantz, and Matsuya, are silent in regard to:
operating in the second mode comprises condensing the primary charged-particle beam sufficiently to form a crossover between the condenser lens configuration and an objective lens of the apparatus; and
However, Nakasuji’213, further teaches:
operating in the second mode comprises condensing the primary charged-particle beam sufficiently to form a crossover between the condenser lens configuration and an objective lens of the apparatus ([0487]-[0489]); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Nakasuji’s’213 crossover formation technique into the second mode of the Shirasaki-Matsuya combination. Nakasuji’213 discloses an electron beam apparatus wherein electron beams are converged by a condenser lens 272 and condenser lens 274 to form a cross-over image between the condenser lens configuration and an objective lens 279. The reason for this modification is to improve the operational efficiency by ensuring uniform irradiation intensity and increasing the current density when switching operational modes. Implementing Nakasuji’s’213 focal crossover between the condenser and objective lenses in the combined systems constitutes a substitution of known optical configurations to yield the expected predictable results (KSR) of managing beam blur and charge effects.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, teach:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of the charged-particle beam apparatus causes the charged particle beam apparatus to (Shirasaki: [0030] & [0034]; Mantz: [Col. 1, ll. 6-11], [Col. 2, ll. 6-14], [Col. 5, ll. 24-34], [Col. 7, ll. 1-23 & 46-56], [Col. 10, ll. 53-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-16], [Col. 16, ll. 65-67], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], & [Claim 21])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the combined Shirasaki system to include Mantz’s computer storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by one or more processors. Mantz discloses a scanning particle beam microscope comprising a computer and a computer storage medium configured to store instructions and three-dimensional representations to operate the device and execute scanning methods. The rationale for this combination is to automate the execution of the selected first and second modes, providing the benefit of improved operational efficiency and reduced manual operator error. The application of a known computer storage medium to an existing automated scanning microscope is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, is silent in regard to:
further perform switching between the first and the second modes of operation by adjusting a first excitation of the condenser lens configuration.
However, Mantz, in combination with Matsuya, further teach:
further perform switching between the first and the second modes of operation by adjusting a first excitation of the condenser lens configuration (Mantz: Fig. 2A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 6-11 & 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-49], [Col. 3, ll. 3-37], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3 & 12-37], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50 & 61-67], [Col. 7, ll. 1-6 & 57-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-20, 25-32, & 59-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-25], [Col. 11, ll. 4-23], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-32 & 51-61], [Col. 14, ll. 39-55], [Col. 18, ll. 18-31], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], [Claim 19], [Claim 21], [Claim 22]: teaches that in the first mode [high-resolution mode], the system operates with standard condensing/focusing to acquire a high-resolution image; Matsuya: [Abstract], [Col. 4, ll. 15-59], & [Claim 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the mode-switching capability into the Shirasaki system to enhance flexibility. Matsuya teaches an electrooptical apparatus where the switching between first and second modes is achieved by changing the excitation of the condenser lens configuration. Furthermore, utilizing Mantz’s computer-implemented instruction set to automate the condenser lens excitation adjustment represents the application of a known technique to a known device to improve similar systems. This combination results in a predictable variation of the apparatus performance, solving the problem of inefficient manual lens calibration while maintaining precise beam control. By using the instruction set of Mantz to trigger the excitation changes disclosed in Matsuya, the POSITA benefits from improved automation and reliable, repeatable mode transitions, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, teach:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of the charged-particle beam apparatus causes the charged particle beam apparatus to further perform (Shirasaki: [0030] & [0034]; Mantz: [Col. 1, ll. 6-11], [Col. 2, ll. 6-14], [Col. 5, ll. 24-34], [Col. 7, ll. 1-23 & 46-56], [Col. 10, ll. 53-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-16], [Col. 16, ll. 65-67], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], & [Claim 21])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the combined Shirasaki system to include Mantz’s computer storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by one or more processors. Mantz discloses a scanning particle beam microscope comprising a computer and a computer storage medium configured to store instructions and three-dimensional representations to operate the device and execute scanning methods. The rationale for this combination is to automate the execution of the selected first and second modes, providing the benefit of improved operational efficiency and reduced manual operator error. The application of a known computer storage medium to an existing automated scanning microscope is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, is silent in regard to:
adjusting a location of a crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the objective lens by adjusting a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration.
However, Mantz, in combination with Matsuya, further teach:
adjusting a location of a crossover plane along the primary optical axis with respect to the objective lens by adjusting a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration (Mantz: Fig. 2A; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 6-11 & 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-49], [Col. 3, ll. 3-37], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3 & 12-37], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50 & 61-67], [Col. 7, ll. 1-6 & 57-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-20, 25-32, & 59-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-25], [Col. 10, ll. 23-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-23], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-32 & 51-61], [Col. 14, ll. 39-55], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], [Col. 18, ll. 18-31], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], [Claim 19], [Claim 21], [Claim 22]: teaches that the computer storage medium stores measurement locations relative to three-dimensional representations, executing scanning methods; Matsuya: [Abstract], [Col. 2, ll. 13-36 & 52-64], [Col. 3, ll. 12-28 & 42-67], [Col. 4, ll. 15-59], [Col. 5, ll. 6-19], [Col. 10, ll. 1-25, 39-52, & 65-68], [Col. 11, ll. 1-30], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the computer storage medium and processor instructions from Mantz, to automate the excitation change to ensure repeatable and precise positioning of the crossover plane. Matsuya provides the necessary teaching for adjusting the focal point (crossover) relative to the objective lens by changing the excitation of the condenser lens configuration. This combination constitutes a substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices, providing a predictable variation in the apparatus’s operational modes. The benefit gained is improved operational efficiency and maintained beam stability, as the system dynamically adjusts the crossover location without manual operator intervention. The application of a known computer storage medium to an existing automated scanning microscope is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, in view of Matsuya, in view of Nakasuji’213, and further in view of Jiang.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, teach:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of the charged-particle beam apparatus causes the charged particle beam apparatus to further perform (Shirasaki: [0030] & [0034]; Mantz: [Col. 1, ll. 6-11], [Col. 2, ll. 6-14], [Col. 5, ll. 24-34], [Col. 7, ll. 1-23 & 46-56], [Col. 10, ll. 53-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-16], [Col. 16, ll. 65-67], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], & [Claim 21])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the combined Shirasaki system to include Mantz’s computer storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by one or more processors. Mantz discloses a scanning particle beam microscope comprising a computer and a computer storage medium configured to store instructions and three-dimensional representations to operate the device and execute scanning methods. The rationale for this combination is to automate the execution of the selected first and second modes, providing the benefit of improved operational efficiency and reduced manual operator error. The application of a known computer storage medium to an existing automated scanning microscope is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, is silent in regard to:
determining, in the first mode, a first probe current of the primary charged-particle beam based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes.
However, Mantz, in combination with Jiang, further teach:
determining, in the first mode, a first probe current of the primary charged-particle beam based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes (Mantz: Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 6-11 & 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-49], [Col. 3, ll. 3-37], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3 & 12-37], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50 & 61-67], [Col. 7, ll. 1-6 & 57-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-20, 25-32, & 59-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-40], [Col. 10, ll. 23-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-23 & 40-67], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-32 & 51-61], [Col. 14, ll. 39-55], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], [Col. 18, ll. 18-31], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], [Claim 19], [Claim 21], & [Claim 22]; Jiang: Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007], [0015]-[0016], [0019]-[0020], [0023], [0026], [0028], [0030], [0045], [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0056], [0058]-[0062], [0064]-[0067], [0069], [0072]-[0073], [0075], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], & [Claim 18]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined Shirasaki, Matsuya, Nakasuji’213, and Mantz system by incorporating the beam-limiting aperture current selection teachings of Jiang. Jiang discloses that the beam-limiting aperture (BLA) following the gun lens is used to select the total beam current illuminating the aperture array. Combining this with the computer-executable instructions disclosed by Mantz allows the processor to determine and set the probe current based on the physical aperture size, representing a predictable variation of the system. This modification provides the benefit of improved precision in current control and enhanced beam stability, solving the problem of uncontrolled variations in probe current. Implementing this computerized control of the probe current via aperture selection is a substitution of known techniques to improve similar devices to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, in view of Matsuya, in view of Nakasuji’213, in view of Jiang, and further in view of Mankos.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Shirasaki, in view of Mantz, teach:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of the charged-particle beam apparatus causes the charged particle beam apparatus to further perform (Shirasaki: [0030] & [0034]; Mantz: [Col. 1, ll. 6-11], [Col. 2, ll. 6-14], [Col. 5, ll. 24-34], [Col. 7, ll. 1-23 & 46-56], [Col. 10, ll. 53-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-16], [Col. 16, ll. 65-67], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], & [Claim 21])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the combined Shirasaki system to include Mantz’s computer storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by one or more processors. Mantz discloses a scanning particle beam microscope comprising a computer and a computer storage medium configured to store instructions and three-dimensional representations to operate the device and execute scanning methods. The rationale for this combination is to automate the execution of the selected first and second modes, providing the benefit of improved operational efficiency and reduced manual operator error. The application of a known computer storage medium to an existing automated scanning microscope is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, is silent in regard to:
determining, in the second mode a second probe current of the primary charged-particle beam passing through the aperture based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration.
However, Mantz, in combination with Mankos, further teach:
determining, in the second mode a second probe current of the primary charged-particle beam passing through the aperture based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration (Mantz: Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 6-11 & 55-67], [Col. 2, ll. 1-49], [Col. 3, ll. 3-37], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3 & 12-37], [Col. 6, ll. 32-50 & 61-67], [Col. 7, ll. 1-6 & 57-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-20, 25-32, & 59-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-40], [Col. 10, ll. 23-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-23 & 40-67], [Col. 12, ll. 66-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-32 & 51-61], [Col. 14, ll. 39-55], [Col. 17, ll. 32-44], [Col. 18, ll. 18-31], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], [Claim 19], [Claim 21], & [Claim 22]: discloses switching between distinct functional modes (e.g., high-resolution and 3D-mode); Mankos: Figs. 5 & 6; [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II], [Pg. 3059, Col. 1, Sec. III], [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]: discloses that in the crossover mode, the probe current is a function of the condenser lens, second probe current is determined by the second excitation voltage applied, e.g., ~ -900V, figures illustrate the direct determination of current based on excitation voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the excitation-dependent current control of Mankos into the automated multi-mode system of the prior combination using the executable instructions of Mantz. Mankos, teaches a two-lens microcolumn operated in a second mode with a crossover formed between the condenser and objective lenses, where the available beam current is determined as a function of the condenser lens excitation. The motivation to make this modification is to provide flexibility in beam current selection without physically changing apertures, solving the problem of restricted current limits in varying operational modes. This combination represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable benefit of high-resolution performance across a wider range of selectable beam currents, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki, in view of Jiang, in view of Matsuya, and further in view of Mankos.
Regarding independent claim 20, Shirasaki, teaches:
A charged-particle beam apparatus comprising ([Abstract]):
a charged-particle source configured to emit charged particles ([0030]);
Shirasaki, is silent in regard to:
an aperture plate configured to form a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis from the emitted charged particles;
However, Jiang, further teaches:
an aperture plate configured to form a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis from the emitted charged particles ([0006]-[0007] & [0050]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirasaki’s apparatus by incorporating the beam-limiting aperture plate taught by Jiang. Jiang teaches an electron beam apparatus featuring a beam-limiting aperture plate disposed within an acceleration tube to form the beam and select the total beam current from the emitted electrons. The motivation for this modification is to provide the benefit of precise total beam current selection and beam collimation before downstream lens interaction. This substitution of Jiang’s beam-limiting aperture into Shirasaki’s optical column is a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding predictable variations in beam shaping and current management, thus yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Shirasaki, in combination with Jiang, are silent in regard to:
a first condenser lens configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam and operable in a first mode and a second mode, wherein:
in the first mode, the first condenser lens is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam, and
in the second mode, the first condenser lens is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam sufficiently to form a crossover along the primary optical axis; and
a second condenser lens configured to adjust a first beam current of the primary charged-particle beam in the first mode and adjust a second beam current of the primary charged-particle beam in the second mode, wherein the second beam current is larger than the first beam current.
However, Matsuya, in view of Mankos, further teach:
a first condenser lens configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam and operable in a first mode and a second mode (Matsuya: [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 59-64], [Col. 2, ll. 27-64], [Col. 3, ll. 4-11], [Col. 4, ll. 15-68], [Col. 6, ll. 4-43], [Col. 7, ll. 1-17], [Col. 10, ll. 39-52], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]; Mankos: [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II] & [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]), wherein:
in the first mode, the first condenser lens is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam (Matsuya: [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 59-64], [Col. 2, ll. 27-64], [Col. 3, ll. 4-11], [Col. 4, ll. 15-68], [Col. 6, ll. 4-43], [Col. 7, ll. 1-17], [Col. 10, ll. 39-52], [Claim1], & [Claim 3]; Mankos: [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II] & [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]), and
in the second mode, the first condenser lens is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam sufficiently to form a crossover along the primary optical axis (Matsuya: [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 59-64], [Col. 2, ll. 27-64], [Col. 3, ll. 4-11], [Col. 4, ll. 15-68], [Col. 6, ll. 4-43], [Col. 7, ll. 1-17], [Col. 10, ll. 39-52], [Claim1], & [Claim 3]; Mankos: Figs. 1(c), 3, & 4; [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II], [Pg. 3058, Col. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 3059. Col. 1, Sec. III], & [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]); and
a second condenser lens configured to adjust a first beam current of the primary charged-particle beam in the first mode and adjust a second beam current of the primary charged-particle beam in the second mode, wherein the second beam current is larger than the first beam current (Matsuya: [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 59-64], [Col. 2, ll. 27-64], [Col. 3, ll. 4-11], [Col. 4, ll. 15-68], [Col. 6, ll. 4-43], [Col. 7, ll. 1-17], [Col. 10, ll. 39-52], [Claim1], & [Claim 3]; Mankos: Figs. 1(c), 3, & 4; [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II], [Pg. 3058, Col. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 3059. Col. 1, Sec. III], [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III], [Pg. 3060, Col. 1, Sec. III], & [Pg. 3060, Col. 2, Sec. IV]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Matsuya’s multi-mode, dual-condenser lens configuration into the Shirasaki-Jiang apparatus. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Mankos’s crossover and non-cross-over operational modes and respective current adjustments into the dual-condenser system of the Shirasaki-Jiang combination. Matsuya discloses an electro-optical viewing apparatus comprising a first condenser lens and a second condenser lens, which switches between a first mode and a second mode by changing the excitation of the first and second condenser lenses. The reason for this combination is to solve the limited depth of focus by providing an operator the ability to dynamically optimize focal properties for different sample topographies. Utilizing Matsuya’s multi-mode switching mechanics in the combined apparatus represents the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results in operation flexibility. Mankos’s teaches a multi-lens electron optics systems operating in a first mode without a crossover and a second mode where the condenser lens forms a crossover, enabling a second beam current (30 nA) that is larger than the first mode beam current (14 nA). The motivation for this modification is the benefit of simultaneously providing high current and spatial resolution by selecting the appropriate crossover state for the sub~100 nm applications. Applying Mankos’s crossover mode current scaling to the established multi-lens apparatus is a substitution of known operational methodologies to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable variation of higher throughput at optimized spot sizes, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 25, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights