DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant did not address the objection to specification and therefore the objections are maintained.
Regarding claim 1 in view of Schubert:
Applicant argues that Shubert does not teach “wherein the monitoring beam path diverts from the operational beam path at a location part way along the operational beam path” of amended claim 1 because Schubert merely reverses the particle beams near the sample and causes the beams to retrace the same optical path. This argument is not persuasive because it focuses only on the reversal location near the sample and does not account for Schubert’s expressly disclosed first and second particle-optical beam paths and beam switch 400. Schubert discloses a first particle-optical beam path 13 extending from the multi-beam particle source toward objective lens 102 and sample 7 (“normal mode” Fig. 2), and a second particle-optical beam path 11extending from objective lens 102 toward detection system 200/250 (“mirror mode” Fig. 3). Schubert expressly states that beam switch 400 is arranged in the first particle beam path between the multi-beam particle source and objective lens 102, and is also arranged in the second particle-optical beam path between objective lens 102 and the detection system. In the normal mode, the source-generated multi-beam passes through beam switch 400 and continues along first particle-optical beam path 13 toward objective lens 102 and sample 7. In the mirror mode, the source-generated beam reverse in front of sample 7 and thereafter pass through objective lens 102 to beam switch 400, where the monitoring trajectory proceeds along second particle-optical beam path 11 toward detection unit 250. Thus, at beam switch 400, the monitoring beam path departs from the operational beam path at a location between the source and the sample. Claim 1 does not require that the diversion occur before the beams approach or reverse near the sample, does not prohibit reversal of the beams, and does not require that the diversion be produced by a particular active diversion element. The phrase “at a location part away along the operational beam path” identifies the location at which the paths separate; it does not require the particles to be travelling only in the source-to-sample direction when they enter the monitoring portion of the path.
Accordingly, Schubert’s beam switch 400 and first and second particle-optical beam paths 13 and 11 disclose the claimed monitoring beam path diverting from the operational beam at a location part away along the operational beam path.
Regarding 103 rejections to claims 2-8, 13 in view of Schubert and Hu:
Applicant argues that the Office has not explained why a person of ordinary skill would have replaced Schubert’s voltage-controlled arrangement with Hu’s arrangement. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection, as clarified herein, does not require replacing or abandoning Schubert’s sample region voltage arrangement, which in the modified apparatus, would continue to perform its disclosed function of causing the source generated primary beams to reach the sample in the normal mode or reverse near the sample in the mirror mode. Hu’s movable monitoring component or controllable deflector is used to supplement Schubert’s arrangement by selectively intercepting or directing the monitoring beams at the beam-path separation region and by converting and detecting the beams for monitoring or alignment. Thus, in the modified apparatus, Schubert generates the monitoring beams through its voltage-controlled mirror mode, while Hu supplied known structure for selectively receiving, directing, converting, and detecting beams during a monitoring or alignment mode.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0097]: “aperture array 401” (line 6) not shown in fig. 8
Para. [0105]: “converter 401” (line 19 and line 20) should be “converter 410”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20230170181A1 [hereinafter Schubert].
Regarding Claim 1:
Schubert teaches a charged-particle optical apparatus configured to project a multi-beam of charged particles (Abstract: a multiple particle beam system), the apparatus comprising: a charged particle device switchable between (paras. [013, 015, 024]: the multiple particle beam system is configured to operate between a normal mode and a mirror mode):
(i)an operational configuration in which a column is configured to project the multi-beam to a sample along an operational beam path extending from a source of the multi-beam to the sample (Fig. 2 and para. [0152, 0156-0157]: particle source 301 generates particle beam 309; multi-beam generator 310 generates a multiplicity of individual particle beam 3; the beams pass through beam switch 400, aperture 110, and objective lens 102 and are focused onto sample 7 along first particle-optical beam path 13);
(ii)a monitoring configuration in which the device is configured to project the multi-beam to a detector along a monitoring beam path extending from the source to the detector (Fig. 3 and paras. [0158-0159]: source 301 and multi-bean generator 310 generate individual particle beam 3; the sample-region voltage is set so that the beams reverse or are reflected in front of sample 7; the reflected beams thereafter pass through objective lens 102 and second particle-optical beam path 11 and are imaged onto second detection unit 250); and wherein the monitoring beam path diverts from the operational beam path part way along the operational beam path (Figs. 2-3; paras. [0013-0019, and 0152]: beam switch 400 is located in first particle-optical beam path 13 between the multi-beam particle source and objective lens 102 and is also located in second particle-optical beam path 11 between objective lens 102 and detection system 200/250. In normal mode, first path 13 continues from beam switch 400 toward objective lens 102 and sample 7. In mirror mode, the monitoring trajectory proceeds from beam switch 400 along second path 11 toward detector 250. Accordingly, monitoring path 11 departs from operational path 13 at beam switch 400, which is located between the source and the sample and therefore part way along the operational beam path).
Regarding Claim 17:
Schubert teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Shubert further teaches wherein, down beam of the location where the monitoring beam path diverts from the operational beam path, the monitoring beam path is non-coincident with the operational beam path (Figs.2-3 and para. [0152]: first path 13 extends between the multi-beam source and objective lens 102, whereas second path 11 extends between objective lens 102 and detection system 200/250 and separates from first path 13 at beam switch 400).
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 2- 8, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert in view of US20200124546 A1 [hereinafter Hu].
Regarding Claim 2:
Schubert teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 1. However, Schubert does not specifically note at least one moveable component configured to move between two operational positions. Hu teaches at least one moveable component configured to move between an operational position corresponding to the operational configuration and a monitoring position corresponding to the monitoring configuration (Figs. 3A-3C and paras. [0051]: when the removable device 301 moved out of the paths of electron beams 161-163, the beam path is not affected (Fig.3A, inspection mode), and when the removable device moved into the paths of the electron beams161-163, the directions of the beams are changed and beams are directed to an optical camera 320 (Figs. 3B-3C, alignment mode)).
Schubert teaches a multi-beam charged-particle system switchable between a normal mode and a mirror mode by changing the sample-region voltage, such that the primary beams reach the sample in normal mode but are reversed before reaching the sample and detected in mirror mode. Hu teaches a movable conversion-directing device including an electron-to-light converter and a mirror, where the device is moved out of the beam paths during inspection mode and moved into the beam paths during alignment mode to intercept multiple charged-particle beams, convert them to light, and direct the light to an optical camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the movable conversion-directing device of Hu in the mode-switchable charged-particle system of Schubert, such that when the movable device is moved out of the paths of the primary beams, the primary beams are projected to the sample, and when the movable device is moved into the paths of the primary beams, the primary beams are diverted away from the sample and projected to a detection system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both references teach selectively changing paths of multiple charged-particle beams for detection, and supplement Hu’s movable monitoring component or controllable deflector to Schubert’s arrangement would have allowed the apparatus to selectively intercepting or directing the monitoring beams at the beam-path separation region and by converting and detecting the beams for monitoring or alignment.
Regarding Claim 3:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 2. Hu further teaches wherein the at least one moveable component comprises the detector (Fig. 3 and para. [0056]: the removable device 301 includes an optical camera 320, may comprise an image sensor 322).
Regarding Claim 4:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 2. Hu further teaches wherein the monitoring position is between the source and the sample (since in the combined system the removable device 301 can be placed upstream of the sample, the monitoring position is between the source and the sample).
Regarding Claim 5:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 2. Hu further teaches wherein the at least one moveable component comprises a converter configured to receive the multi-beam output by the source and to generate light in response to the received multi-beam (Figs. 3B-3C and para. [0053]: the removable device 301 includes an electron-to-light converter 310 that converts incoming electron beams 161-163 to light beams 361-363).
Regarding Claim 6:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 5. Hu further teaches wherein the at least one moveable component comprises a light guiding arrangement configured to guide the light generated by the converter towards the detector (Fig. 3C; paras. [0053-0054]: the removable device 301 includes a mirror 330, as shown in Fig. 3C, the mirror directs the light beams 361, 362, and 363 towards optical camera 320).
Regarding Claim 7:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 5. Hu further teaches wherein the at least one moveable component comprises a mirror configured in the monitoring position to direct the light generated by the converter to the detector (Fig. 3C; paras. [0053-0054]: the removable device 301 includes a mirror 330, as shown in Fig. 3C, the mirror directs the light beams 361, 362, and 363 towards optical camera 320).
Regarding Claim 8:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 7. Hu further teaches wherein the converter remains a fixed position in the operational configuration and in the monitoring position (in the Fig. 3C embodiment, since it is the mirror 330 directing beam lights 361-363, only moving mirror 330 into and out of the beam path while converter remains in the same position could still allow the system operate in two different modes).
Regarding Claim 13:
Schubert teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 1. However, Shubert does not specially note that wherein the device comprises at least one deflector operable between an inspection setting corresponding to the operational configuration and a measurement setting corresponding to the monitoring configuration. Hu teaches wherein the device comprises at least one deflector operable between an inspection setting corresponding to the operational configuration and a measurement setting corresponding to the monitoring configuration (Fig. 6A and para. [0068]: in alignment mode, the deflector 691 is on and the paths of beams 161-163 are changed to the paths of beams 161a-163a; in inspection mode, the deflector 691 is off and the paths of beams 161-163 are unaffected and propagate as paths of beams 161i-163i).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the deflector-based switching arrangement of Hu in the mode-switchable charged-particle system of Schubert, such that in an inspection setting the deflector allows the primary beams to follow their normal paths to the sample, and in a measurement setting the deflector changes the paths of the primary beams away from the sample and toward a detection system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both references teach selectively changing paths of multiple charged-particle beams for detection, and substituting Hu’s known deflector-based beam-path switching technique for Schubert’s electrical switching technique would have predictably allowed the apparatus to switch between sample inspection and beam monitoring/detection in a multi-beam charged-particle system.
Regarding Claim 16:
Schubert teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 1. Shubert further teaches wherein the charged particle device comprises a diversion element (Figs. 2and 3- beam switch 400) positioned at the location part way along the operational beam path. However, Shubert does not specially note that the diversion element is configured, in the monitoring configuration, to divert the multi-beam from the operational beam path to the monitoring beam path.
Hu teaches the diversion element is configured, in the monitoring configuration, to divert the multi-beam from the operational beam path to the monitoring beam path (Fig. 6A and para. [0068]: deflector 691 is disabled during the inspection mode so that beams 161-163 travel along paths 161i-163i to first detection device 140, and is enabled during the alignment mode to change the beam path and direct beams 161a-163a toward second detection device 601).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide Schubert’s beam-switch region with the controllable deflector taught by Hu, such that Schubert’s voltage-controlled mirror mode continues to generate the reflected monitoring beams and the deflector selectively directs those beams from one path to the other, such that improving control over the routing and detection of Shubert’s monitoring beams.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert in view of Hu, further in view of US20190259570A1 [Kruit].
Regarding Claim 9:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 8. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein the converter defines a plurality of apertures configured for passage of paths a plurality of beams of the multi-beam in an operational configuration. Kruit teaches wherein in the converter are defined a plurality of apertures for passage of the paths of the multi-beam, desirably in an operational configuration (Fig. 2 and paras. [0062-0064]: the electron-photon converter unit 81 has holes/openings 83, allowing primary charged particle beams 7 travels through and focused onto sample 11 (“operational configuration”)).
Schubert teaches a multi-beam charged-particle apparatus switchable between a normal mode and a monitoring/mirror mode, and Hu teaches a converter/mirror assembly for intercepting multiple charged-particle beams, converting the beams to light, and directing the light to an optical camera. Kruit teaches that, in a multi-beam charged-particle column, an electron-to-photon converter may be arranged as an apertured converter array/plate with openings that allow the projected primary beams to pass through the converter plane toward the sample while converter/scintillator regions are located adjacent to the beam paths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement Hu’s converter/mirror assembly in Schubert using Kruit’s apertured converter-array configuration, and to provide corresponding beam-passage apertures in the associated mirror/light-guiding structure, so that in the operational configuration the multi-beam passes through the apertures toward the sample, while in the monitoring configuration the beams are shifted/intercepted to be incident on the converter and the generated light is reflected toward the detector, allowing the same multi-beam column to preserve the normal sample path while enabling optical detection of beam positions during monitoring.
Regarding Claim 12:
Schubert in view of Hu, and further in view of Kruit teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 9. Hu further teaches wherein in the monitoring configuration, the paths of the plurality of beams of the multi-beam are incident on the converter (because Hu discloses that, in the alignment/monitoring mode, the movable conversion-directing device is moved into the beam paths to intercept beams, and the electron-to-light converter converts the incoming electron beams into light beams. Thus, in the monitoring configuration of the combined apparatus, the paths of the plurality of beams are incident on the converter, because the beams must impinge on the converter to be converted into light and directed by mirror to optical camera).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert in view of Hu, further in view of US5468967A [hereinafter Chan].
Regarding Claim 10:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 7. Hu further teaches wherein the mirror is configured to reflect light towards the detector. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein the mirror defines a plurality of apertures configured to allow passage of paths of a plurality of beams of the multi-beam through the mirror towards the sample in the operational configuration. Chan teaches wherein the mirror defines a plurality of apertures configured to allow passage of paths of a plurality of beams of the multi-beam through the mirror towards the sample in (claim 4: parabolic reflector means includes an aperture for permitting the electron beam to impinge on said specimen).
Schubert teaches a multi-beam charged-particle apparatus switchable between a normal mode and a monitoring/mirror mode. Hu teaches a converter/mirror assembly in a multi-beam charged-particle system, where multiple electron beams are converted into light by a converter and the generated light is directed by a mirror toward an optical detector. Chan teaches an electron-beam optical detection arrangement including a reflector/mirror having an aperture that permits an electron beam to pass through the reflector toward a specimen while the reflector reflects generated light/radiation toward photosensitive detectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to provide Hu’s mirror with beam-passage apertures corresponding to the multiple beam paths as taught in Chan, so that in the operational configuration the multi-beam can pass through the mirror toward the sample while the mirror remains positioned to reflect converter-generated light toward the detector during monitoring, allowing normal beam passage and optical detection in the same assembly.
Regarding Claim 11:
Schubert in view of Hu, further in view of Chan teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 10. Chan further teaches wherein in the operational configuration the paths of the plurality of beams of the multi-beam pass through respective apertures of the plurality of apertures defined in the mirror (since the reflector includes apertures allowing the electron beams to pass, the paths of the electron beams pass through respective apertures defined in the reflector).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert in view of Hu, further in view of US6525876B1 [hereinafter Gilbert].
Regarding Claim 14:
Schubert in view of Hu teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 2. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein the at least one moveable component comprises one of the source and an objective lens array configured in the operational configuration to project the multi-beam onto the sample. Gilbert teaches wherein the at least one moveable component comprises one of the source and an objective lens array configured in the operational configuration to project the multi-beam onto the sample (3:4-7: objective lenses on a turret can be motor-driven so an objective lens is selectively moved into a working position aligned with the optical axis).
Schubert teaches a mode-switchable multi-beam charged-particle system in which the objective lens array is used in normal operation to project the primary beams onto the sample, but in monitoring mode the primary beams are not projected to the sample and are instead detected. Hu teaches using a movable beam-intercepting detection device in a multi-beam charged-particle system during an alignment/monitoring mode. Gilbert teaches a known motorized objective-lens positioning arrangement in which objective lenses are selectively moved into a working position aligned with the optical axis and displaced out of the beam path when not selected. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Schubert’s objective lens array so that it is aligned with the primary multi-beam during sample inspection and offset from the multi-beam during monitoring, when Hu’s monitoring device is used and the objective lens array is not needed to focus the beams onto the sample, to avoid unnecessary interaction with an unused objective lens array and to provide clearance for the monitoring/detection path.
Regarding Claim 15:
Schubert in view of Hu, further in view of Gilbert teaches the charged-particle optical apparatus of claim 14. Gilbert further teaches wherein in the operational configuration the multi-beam is aligned with lenses of the objective lens array and in the monitoring configuration the multi-beam is offset from the objective lens array (3:22-27: objective lenses on a turret can be motor-driven so an objective lens is selectively moved into a working position aligned with the optical axis, and objective lenses can be displaced into/out of the beam path during lens changing). Hu further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises an actuator configured to actuate the apparatus between the operational configuration and the monitoring configuration (Hu teaches a movable device can be moved into and out of the beam paths, which necessarily requires an actuator or drive mechanism to move the movable second electron detection device).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights