DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumori (JP 2006-216299 A) in view of Yoshida (US 10,217,602 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kazumori teaches a charged particle beam device (scanning microscope 3, fig. 3) comprising:
A charged particle source (electron gun 31) configured to generate a charged particle beam;
A sample stage (38) configured to allow a sample (37) to be loaded thereon;
An aberration corrector (C, shown in detail in fig. 1) provided on a path through which the charged particle beam passes and configured to correct an aberration using a multi-stage multipole lens (multi-stage quadrupoles and octupoles, p. 1 last paragraph-p. 2 first paragraph);
A first deflector (scanning coil 35) provided between the aberration corrector and the sample stage and configured to control an irradiation position of the charged particle beam on the sample (p. 5 second paragraph);
A second deflector (deflector D) provided between the charged particle source and the aberration corrector and configured to control a trajectory in the aberration corrector along which the charged particle beam passes (p. 5 fourth paragraph); and
A controller (CPU 35) configured to control a deflection amount of the second deflector based on the irradiation position controlled by the first deflector (using deflector D to correct direction and amount of movement of center position of a scanned image, p, 5 paragraph 5; the center position of the scanned image corresponds to the irradiation position which is controlled by deflector 35).
Kazumori does not teach that the controller is configured to select, by setting, whether to enable/disable an operation of controlling the deflection amount of the second deflector.
Yoshida teaches an electron beam system having an aberration corrector that can have its operation disabled (turned off, col. 2 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the system of Kazumori so that the controller can activate or deactivate the aberration corrector (including the second deflector) in order to conserve power and perform straightforward imaging with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Kazumori teaches that the first deflector performs scanning of the charged particle beam on the sample (p. 5 paragraph 2), and the controller controls the deflection amount of the second deflector in conjunction with the scanning deflector (i.e. both deflectors are active at the same time to control the irradiation position).
Regarding claim 9, Kazumori teaches a storage device (memory 54) configured to store a first control table representing a relationship between a scanning position of the first deflector and the deflection amount of the second deflector (stored data showing relationship between scan image center position (scanning position of first deflector) and adjustment amount of control voltage of dipole, i.e. second deflector, p. 6 paragraph 9), wherein the controller controls the scanning position of the first deflector, and controls the deflection amount of the second deflector based on the first control table (performing axis alignment using stored data).
Claims 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumori in view of Yoshida and in further view of Kawamoto (US 20200294757 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kazumori and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Kazumori does not teach that the first deflector, when moving a scanning region of the charged particle beam on the sample, shifts the irradiation position serving as an origin of the scanning region and the controller controls the deflection amount of the second deflector based on a shift amount of the first deflector.
Kawamoto teaches an electron beam device having a controller that, when moving a scanning region of a charged particle beam on a sample, shifts the irradiation position serving as origin of the scanning region (image shift deflectors 5 and 5 move scanning position of beam, [0030]) and controls the deflection amount of an upper deflector (3) based on a shift amount of the lower deflector (aberration correction deflector 3 suppresses influence of deflection by deflectors 5 and 6, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the first deflector of Kazumori to shift the irradiation position (in order to scan different regions of the sample as taught by Kawamoto) and to control the deflection amount of the second deflector of the system of Kazumori based on the shift amount of the first deflector, as Kawamoto teaches that doing so corrects aberration and improves imaging in the system (correcting off-axis chromatic aberration due to image shift, [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Kazumori teaches that the first deflector further performs scanning of the charged particle beam in the scanning region (p. 5 paragraph 2).
Kazumori does not state that the controller maintains the deflection amount of the second deflector while the first deflector performs the scanning in the scanning region. However, because the process of Kazumori is an alignment process (p. 1 paragraph 2), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that once the system is properly aligned the first deflector which is used in the alignment will be maintained in the proper “aligned” deflection amount during a subsequent scan.
Regarding claim 5, Kazumori teaches that the second deflector is a one-stage deflector (fig. 3).
Kazumori does not teach that the controller controls the deflection amount of the second deflector, with a trajectory along which the charged particle beam travels straight as a central axis, such that the trajectory within the multipole lens along which the translated particle beam passes is translated from the central axis according to the irradiation position controlled by the first deflector.
Kawamoto teaches an electron beam device having a controller that controls the deflection amount of an upper deflector (3) to translate it from a central axis (fig. 1; also deflection inherently translates a beam traveling along a central axis from the axis) according to the irradiation position of a lower deflector, i.e. based on an image shift amount of the lower deflector (aberration correction deflector 3 suppresses influence of deflection by deflectors 5 and 6, [0030]; adjusting the deflector 3 changes the amount that it the beam translated from the central axis as it passes through the lens 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to control the deflection amount of the second deflector of the system of Kazumori based on the irradiation position (i.e. image shift) of the first deflector, as Kawamoto teaches that this corrects aberration in the system (correcting off-axis chromatic aberration due to image shift, [0008]) as argued above with reference to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Kazumori as modified by Kawamoto teaches that the controller controls the deflection amount of the second deflector such that the trajectory within the multipole lens is translated to a position away from the central axis (as argued above) as (i.e. at the same time as) the irradiation position controlled by the first deflector is away from the central axis (due to scanning and/or image shift).
Regarding claim 10, Kazumori teaches a storage device (memory 54) configured to store a first control table representing a relationship between a scanning position of the first deflector and the deflection amount of the second deflector (stored data showing relationship between scan image center position (scanning position of first deflector) and adjustment amount of control voltage of dipole, i.e. second deflector, p. 6 paragraph 9), wherein the controller controls the scanning position of the first deflector, and controls the deflection amount of the second deflector based on the first control table (performing axis alignment using stored data).
Kazumori does not teach storing a relationship between an image shift of the first deflector and the deflection amount of the second deflector.
Kawamoto teaches storing a deflection condition of the aberration correction deflector for a set image shift (set visual field movement condition, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kazumori to include storing the deflection condition corresponding to the image shift as taught by Kawamoto, in order to easily align the system to minimize aberration in a subsequent image scan, with no unexpected result.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumori in view of Yoshida and Kramer (US 20140103201 A1) and in further view of Kawamoto.
Regarding claim 7, Kazumori and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kazumori does not teach that the second deflector is a two-stage deflector.
Kramer teaches a charged particle beam having a two-stage deflector (22) above an aberration corrector (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kazumori by making the second deflector a two-stage deflector as taught by Kramer, as a matter of substituting a known equivalent type of beam deflector to provide effective control of the beam position in the aberration corrector as taught by Kazumori with no unexpected result.
Kazumori does not teach that the controller controls the deflection amount of the second deflector, with a trajectory along which the charged particle beam travels straight as a central axis, such that the trajectory within the multipole lens along which the translated particle beam passes is translated from the central axis according to the irradiation position controlled by the first deflector.
Kawamoto teaches an electron beam device having a controller that controls the deflection amount of an upper deflector (3) to translate it from a central axis (fig. 1) according to the irradiation position of a lower deflector, i.e. based on an image shift amount of the lower deflector (aberration correction deflector 3 suppresses influence of deflection by deflectors 5 and 6, [0030]; adjusting the deflector 3 changes the amount that it the beam translated from the central axis as it passes through the lens 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the first deflector of Kazumori to shift the irradiation position (in order to scan different regions of the sample as taught by Kawamoto) and to control the deflection amount of the second deflector of the system of Kazumori based on the shift amount of the first deflector, as Kawamoto teaches that doing so corrects aberration and improves imaging in the system (correcting off-axis chromatic aberration due to image shift, [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamoto teaches that the controller controls the deflection amount of the second deflector to either increase or decrease (i.e. adjust) the angle formed by the trajectory within the multipole lens and the central axis as (i.e while) the irradiation position controlled by the first deflector is away from the central axis (i.e. during an image shift).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumori in view of Yoshida and in further view of Henstra (US 11,239,045 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Kazumori and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kazumori does not teach a correction lens provided between the first deflector and the sample stage and configured to correct a high-order aberration.
Henstra teaches an electron beam system having an aberration corrector and an additional correction lens (112) just above the objective lens configured to correct a high-order aberration (col. 5 lines 24-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current invention to add the lens of Henstra to the system of Kazumori, in order to further reduce image aberration in the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As argued above, Yoshida teaches that an aberration corrector in an electron beam system can be selectively activated or deactivated (i.e. turned on and off). This teaching would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the aberration corrector of Kazumori can also be selectively deactivated if its function is not desired, as deactivating an element of a charged particle beam device is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and since the purpose of the second deflector is to act in coordination with the aberration corrector it would further be obvious to deactivate the second deflector (disable an operation of controlling the deflection amount of the second deflector). The claims do not state a criterion or purpose for the deactivation of the second deflector, so that a disabling of the deflector by a user for any reason fits within the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights