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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11, & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ren et al. (US 2021/0116398 A1, Fil. Date Oct. 16, 2020, hereinafter Ren).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ren, teaches:
A charged-particle beam apparatus comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0054]):
a charged-particle source configured to emit charged particles ([0004], [0046], [0054]-[0055], & [0119]-[0120]);
an aperture plate configured to form a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis ([0004], [0006]-[0007], [0011], [0016], [0046], & [0056]-[0057]: discloses an aperture plate (Coulomb aperture array or first aperture array) configured to form the beam along an axis);
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 ([0004], [0053], & [0062]: discloses a condenser lens configured to focus (condense) the beam based on a selected mode (flooding vs. inspection)):
in the first mode of operation, the condenser lens configuration is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam ([Abstract], [0053] & [0062]: inspection mode corresponds to the first mode where the beam is condensed (weakly focused)), and
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 (Figs. 2A, 2B, & 3; [0053], [0063], & [0077]: flooding mode corresponds to the second mode, Figs. 2A & 2B further illustrate the beam-limiting aperture array 235 located between the condenser lens 226 and the objective lens 232, Fig. 3 demonstrates the beam-limiting aperture array 307 is between condenser lens 303 and objective lens 304).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0054]), wherein the objective lens is located downstream from the condenser lens configuration (Figs. 2A & 3; [0044], [0048], & [0056]: figures further illustrate the objective lens 232/304 positioned physically below (downstream) the condenser lens 226/303 along the primary optical axis) 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 ([0048], [0064], & [0116]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0054]), further comprising a beam-limit aperture array located between the condenser lens configuration and the objective lens along the primary optical axis (Figs. 2A & 3; [0044], [0054], & [0066]: discloses a beam-limiting aperture array 235/307 located between the condenser lens 226/303 and the objective lens 232/304, figures illustrate the beam-limiting aperture array 235/307 positioned between the condenser lens 226/303 and the objective lens 232/304 along the optical axis), wherein the crossover is formed between the beam-limit aperture array and the objective lens (Figs. 2B & 4A; [0053], [0077], [0116], & [0140]: Fig. 2B illustrates the beam condensing to a point at the aperture 235-2, which is located above the objective lens 232 and Fig. 4A depicts the optical path for the flooding mode where the beam converges (forms a crossover) at the beam-limiting aperture plane, which sists between the condenser lens 303 and the objective lens 404).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0054]), wherein the crossover is formed coplanar with the beam-limit aperture array (Fig. 4A; [0053], [0063], [0077], & [0108]: figure illustrates the beam converging to a point (crossover) at the location of aperture 307-2 within the beam-limiting aperture array 307).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0054]), further comprising a controller having circuitry ([0042]) configured to switch the operation of the apparatus from the first mode to the second mode (Figs. 2 & 3; [0053], [0107] & [0209]).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 5 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0054]), wherein the controller includes circuitry to adjust a first excitation of the condenser lens configuration ([0042], [0053], & [0210]) to cause the apparatus to switch from the first mode to the second mode (Fig. 2; [0053] & [0107]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0036], [0039], & [0054]), wherein the first mode comprises a non-crossover mode of operation ([0053] & [0064]: discloses an inspection mode (first mode) where the condenser lens is weakly focused, allowing a portion of the beam to pass without forming a crossover at the aperture) and the second mode comprises a crossover mode of operation ([0053] & [0063]:discloses a flooding mode (second mode) where the condenser lens is strongly focused to form a crossover at the aperture).
Regarding independent claim 15, Ren, teaches:
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 ([0016], [0042], [0213], [0260], & [Claim 15]):
forming a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis from charged particles emitted by a charged-particle source (Fig. 3; [0054]-[0055] & [0105]);
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 ([0053] & [0062]):
operating in the first mode comprises condensing the primary charged-particle beam using the condenser lens configuration ([0053] & [0064]), and
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 ([0053] & [0063]); and
focusing the primary charged-particle beam exiting the condenser lens configuration on a surface of a sample to form a probe spot ([0063]-[0064]).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Ren, teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 ([0016], [0042], [0213], [0260], & [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 switching between the first and the second modes of operation ([0015]-[0016] & [0107]-[0108]) by adjusting a first excitation of the condenser lens configuration ([0015]-[0016], [0053], & [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Ren, teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 ([0016], [0042], [0052]-[0053], [0104]-[0105], [0108], [0213], [0260], & [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 adjusting a location of a crossover plane along the primary optical axis (Figs. 2A, 3, & 4A; [0044], [0052]-[0055], [0063]-[0064],[0066], [0077], & [0108]: location is adjusted/set to be at the aperture plane) with respect to the objective lens ([0052]-[0055], [0064], [0078], & [0108]) by adjusting a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration (Figs. 2B & 4A; [0010], [0053], [0063]-[0064], [0070]-[0071], [0077], [0104]-[0105], [0108], [0113], [0116], & [0140]).
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 7-9 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, 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 7, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0082]), wherein in the first mode of operation, a first probe current of the primary charged-particle beam is determined ([0008]-[0009], [0013], [0035], [0053], [0058], [0060], [0071], [0110], [0142]-[0143], [0146], [0177], [0202], [0204]-[0205])
Ren, is silent in regard to:
based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes.
However, Mankos, further teaches:
based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes (Figs. 3 & 4; [Pg. 3057, Col. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II], [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]: figures illustrate the relationship between beam spot size and beam current in the crossover mode, showing that the current is variable determined by the optical configuration and aperture constraints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the variable aperture sizes disclosed by Ren to strictly determine or set the specific probe current in the flooding mode (first mode), as taught by the current/aperture relationships in Mankos, to optimize and improve the pre-charging dose or prevent sample damage/detector saturation rather than simply passing the unregulated maximum emission, using the beam-limiting aperture size as the obvious parameter to adjust and to determine the current, arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0035], [0039], [0053], [0079], & [0082]),
Ren, is silent in regard to:
wherein in the second mode of operation, 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, and wherein the second probe current is larger than the first probe current.
However, Mankos, further teaches:
wherein in the second mode of operation, 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 (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), and wherein the second probe current is larger than the first probe current (Fig. 4; [Pg. 3060, Col. 1, Sec. III] & [Pg. 360, 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 utilize the excitation-current relationship, 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, taught by Mankos, to control the flooding current in Ren’s apparatus, ensuring the second probe current is maximized without exceeding the thermal limits of the aperture or sample, to achieve a desired current level for different applications (e.g., high-current inspection vs. low-current imaging), arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0035], [0039], [0053], [0079], & [0082]),
Ren, is silent in regard to:
wherein in the second mode of operation, 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, Mankos, further teaches:
wherein in the second mode of operation, 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. 2; [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II] & [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]: teaches that varying the condenser excitation shifts the physical location of the crossover along the optical axis relative to the objective lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Ren’s controller to adjust the crossover location via excitation as taught by Mankos, to optimize, where the adjustment is necessary to find the optimum operating condition where beam current is maximized while maintaining control over spot size and magnification, and the ability to fine-tune the crossover location along the primary optical axis to ensure it passes through the aperture without clipping, achieving the flooding function, Ren provides the hardware (condenser, controller, aperture), and Mankos provides the operational method (shifting the crossover via excitation adjustment) to optimize the hardware, arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Ren, teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 ([0016], [0042], [0052]-[0053], [0104]-[0105], [0108], [0213], [0260], & [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 determining, in the first mode ([0008], [0015]-[0016], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053], [0060], [0064]-[0065], [0068], [0104], [0108], [0110], & [0148]), a first probe current of the primary charged-particle beam (Fig. 14; [0008]-[0009], [0013], [0035], [0053], [0058], [0060], [0071], [0110], [0142]-[0143], [0146], [0177], [0202], [0204]-[0205])
Ren, is silent in regard to:
based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes.
However, Mankos, further teaches:
based on a size of an aperture of the beam-limit aperture array through which the primary charged-particle beam passes (Figs. 3 & 4; [Pg. 3057, Col. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 3058, Col. 1, Sec. II], [Pg. 3059, Col. 2, Sec. III]: figures illustrate the relationship between beam spot size and beam current in the crossover mode, showing that the current is variable determined by the optical configuration and aperture constraints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the variable aperture sizes disclosed by Ren to strictly determine or set the specific probe current in the flooding mode (first mode), as taught by the current/aperture relationships in Mankos, to optimize and improve the pre-charging dose or prevent sample damage/detector saturation rather than simply passing the unregulated maximum emission, using the beam-limiting aperture size as the obvious parameter to adjust and to determine the current, arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Ren, teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18 ([0016], [0042], [0052]-[0053], [0104]-[0105], [0108], [0113], [0213], [0260], & [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 determining, in the second mode (Fig. 14; [0008], [0015]-[0016], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053], [0060], [0064]-[0065], [0068], [0071]-[0072], [0104], [0108], [0110], & [0148]: second mode interpreted as the inspection mode),
Ren, is silent in regard to:
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, Mankos, further teaches:
a second probe current of the primary charged-particle beam passing through the aperture based on a second excitation of the condenser lens configuration (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 modify the controller instructions of Ren to include the determination steps taught by Mankos to enhance control precision, where Mankos studies optimization of similar electron optics, to understand how the current varies with lens excitation, the excitation-current relationship, 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, taught by Mankos, to improve predictability by incorporating the “predicted beam current as a function of the condenser lens excitation” into Ren’s controller to allow the system to accurately determine what the current will be for a given excitation, and for optimization of the inspection mode performance, arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0043691 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 7, 2019, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], [0044], [0053], & [0062]),
Ren, is silent in regard to:
wherein the condenser lens configuration comprises an electromagnetic lens.
However, Zhang, further teaches:
wherein the condenser lens configuration comprises an electromagnetic lens ([0012], [0048], & [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the condenser lens of Ren as an electromagnetic lens, as suggested by Ren and further taught by Zhang, to achieve the benefit of rapid beam focusing control during mode switching (e.g., flooding and inspection modes), arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, in view of Frosien et al. (US 2018/0158642 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 7, 2018, hereinafter Frosien).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], & [0044]), wherein the condenser lens configuration comprises ([0044], [0053], & [0062]-[0063]):
Ren, is silent in regard to:
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, Frosien, further teaches:
a first condenser lens comprising a first set of coils; and
a second condenser lens comprising a second set of coils ([0029], [0032], [0036], [0066], [0069], [0074], [0115], & [Claim 20]: teaches advanced condenser lens configurations, including magnetic lens doublets and multi-lens arrangements used to shape the beam before the objective lens, the rotation-free magnetic doublet is a well-known configuration comprising two magnetic lenses (each with its own coil) working together), wherein an electrical current through each of the first and the second set of coils is independently adjustable ([0029], [0032], [0036], [0038]-[0039], [0066], [0069], [0074], [0115], & [Claim 20]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condenser lens configuration of Ren to include a first and second condenser lens (or a magnetic lens doublet) as taught by Frosien, where each has a set of coils that are adjustable, to achieve precise control over both the beam current (aperture filling) and the beam crossover position, Frosien further teaches using a magnetic lens doublet or adding an additional condenser lens before the multi-aperture lens plate provides better optical performance (e.g., rotation free), therefore incorporating Frosien’s dual lens or doublet configuration into Ren would arrive at the claim invention and provide predictable results of enhanced beam forming flexibility and aberration control (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], [0044], [0056], & [0062]),
Ren, is silent in regard to:
wherein the second condenser lens is located downstream from the first condenser lens.
However, Frosien, further teaches:
wherein the second condenser lens ([0032] & [0036]: discloses lens 120 which functions as a condenser/accelerator lens in the illumination column) is located downstream from the first condenser lens ([0036], [0038], & [0066]: by placing the first lens (condenser lens) before the plate and the second lens 120 after the plate, the second is downstream from the first).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condenser configuration of Ren to include the multi-lens arrangement taught by Frosien, adding a second lens downstream of the first, where Ren aims to optimize the beam current and spot size for different modes, Frosien teaches using a multi-lens configuration allows for better control of the beamlets such as accelerating the primary charged particle beamlets, or directing them to a coma free point, implementing a second lens downstream as in Frosien into Ren’s system would provide the predictable benefit of decoupling the illumination aperture angle from the beam energy or crossover position, enhancing the optical performance in both flooding and inspection modes, arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Ren, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], [0044], [0053], [0056], [0062], & [0067]),
Ren, is silent in regard to:
wherein the second condenser lens is coplanar with the first condenser lens.
However, Frosien, further teaches:
wherein the second condenser lens 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, therefore the “first condenser lens” of column 1 and “second condenser lens” of column 2 are coplanar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condenser configuration of Ren to include the multi-column or multi-aperture lens configuration of Frosien, resulting in a first and second condenser lens that are coplanar, where Frosien teaches “multiple columns each having an array of primary charged particle beamlets for inspecting a specimen increases the process speed and capacity”, therefore arranging multiple optical columns, as taught by Frosien, or multiple lenslets, as taught by Frosien’s plate 113, in a coplanar array within Ren’s system, would allow simultaneous processing of multiple regions of the sample (parallelism), increasing inspection throughput compared to a single-column/single=lens system, while maintaining the voltage contrast capabilities of Ren, and arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, in view of Breuer (US 2019/0013176 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 10, 2019, hereinafter Breuer).
Regarding independent claim 20, Ren, teaches:
A charged-particle beam apparatus comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0004], [0039], [0054], [0071] & [0074]):
a charged-particle source configured to emit charged particles ([0004], [0036], [0046]-[0047], [0054]-[0055], & [0119]-[0120]);
an aperture plate configured to form a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis from the emitted charged particles ([0004], [0006]-[0007], [0011], [0016], [0046], [0048], & [0056]-[0058]);
a first condenser lens configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam and operable in a first mode and a second mode ([Abstract], [0053], [0062], [0064], & [0066]: inspection mode corresponds to the first mode where the beam is condensed (weakly focused) and flooding mode corresponds to the second mode, that is strongly focused), wherein:
in the first mode, the first condenser lens is configured to condense the primary charged-particle beam ([Abstract], [0053], & [0062]: in the inspection mode, the beam is condensed (focused) to allow a specific portion through the apertures), 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 ([Abstract], [0053], [0063], [0077], & [0108]); and
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 ([0008], [0035]-[0037], [0063]-[0064], [0071], [0074], & [0079] ).
Ren, is silent in regard to:
a second condenser lens configured to adjust a first beam current of the primary charged-particle beam in the first mode
However, Breuer, further teaches:
a second condenser lens configured to adjust a first beam current of the primary charged-particle beam in the first mode ([0035], [0045], & [0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the multi-lens condenser assembly of Breuer into the apparatus of Ren to provide greater flexibility in beam current adjustment and magnification control during mode switching, arriving at the second condenser lens limitation with predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jian et al (US2020/0194223A1) discloses joint electron-optical columns for flood-charging and image-forming in voltage contrast wafer inspections. Ren et al. (US2020/0381211A1) discloses multiple charged-particle beam apparatus and methods. Hatakeyama et al. (US2011/0155905A1) discloses specimen observation method and device, and inspection method and device using the method and device. Breuer (US2020/0027689A1) discloses aberration-corrected multibeam source, charged particle beam device and method of imaging or illuminating a specimen with an array of primary charged particle beamlets. Fang et al. (US2023/0028799A1) discloses beam current adjustment for charged-particle inspection system.
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 01/07/2025
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 1/9/2026