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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20170299734).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a detector for detecting radiation, comprising:
a plurality of pixel elements (P) comprising respective pixel substrates, collection electrodes 120 and readout circuits 230, wherein the pixel substrates are configured such that impingement of target radiation on the pixel substrates generates charge carriers in the pixel substrates (para 26), and the readout circuits are configured to provide an output responsive to collection of the charge carriers by the respective collection electrodes (para 52);
a plurality of control electrodes 150; and
a control system configured to implement a plurality of selectable resolution modes by controlling potentials applied to the control electrodes and the collection electrodes to define a corresponding plurality of mappings between the pixel substrates in which charge carriers are generated and the collection electrodes that collect those charge carriers (para 43-45).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a method of detecting radiation, comprising: applying potentials to control electrodes and to collection electrodes in a plurality of pixel elements comprising respective pixel substrates, collection electrodes and readout circuits, wherein impingement of target radiation on the pixel substrates generates charge carriers in the pixel substrates, and the readout circuits provide outputs responsive to collection of charge carriers by the respective collection electrodes; and the method detects detecting adiation in a plurality of resolution modes, each resolution mode being defined by controlling the potentials applied to the control electrodes and collection electrodes to define a respective mapping between the pixel substrates in which charge carriers are generated and the collection electrodes that collect those charge carriers (para 26, 43-45 and 52).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dillen (EP 0655860).
Regarding claim 2, Lee fails to teach each of the mappings is such that different respective numbers of the collection electrodes are used to collect charge carriers from all of the pixel elements.
Dillen teaches each of the mappings is such that different respective numbers of the collection electrodes are used to collect charge carriers from all of the pixel elements (para 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the control of Lee with the control as taught by Dillen, since it would provide desired spatial resolution.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Dillen teaches the resolution modes comprise a high resolution mode defined by a one-to-one mapping between the pixel substrates and the collection electrodes, the one-to-one mapping being such that the charge carriers generated in each pixel substrate are collected by the collection electrode of the same pixel substrate (para 18-20).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Dillen teaches the control system is configured to implement the high resolution mode by applying an equipotential to the control electrodes along paths separating all of the pixel substrates from each other when viewed perpendicularly to a plane of the detector (para 18-20).
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Dillen teaches the control system is configured in the high resolution mode to apply a common potential to all of the collection electrodes (para 18-20).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ballabriga et al. (US 20120126131).
Regarding claim 14, Lee fails to teach an assessment system, comprising: a charged particle device configured to expose a sample with charged particles; an optical measurement system configured to expose the sample with electromagnetic radiation; and the detector of claim 1 configured to receive charged particles propagating to the detector from the sample due to the exposure of the sample with charged particles, and to receive electromagnetic radiation propagating to the detector from the sample due to the exposure of the sample with electromagnetic radiation, wherein the control system is configured to select different resolution modes for respectively detecting the charged particles and the electromagnetic radiation.
Ballabriga teaches a charged particle device configured to expose a sample with charged particles; an optical measurement system configured to expose the sample with electromagnetic radiation; and the detector configured to receive charged particles propagating to the detector from the sample due to the exposure of the sample with charged particles, and to receive electromagnetic radiation propagating to the detector from the sample due to the exposure of the sample with electromagnetic radiation, wherein the control system is configured to select different resolution modes for respectively detecting the charged particles and the electromagnetic radiation (para 25 and 137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the detector of Lee with the assessment system as taught by Ballabriga, since it would provide better beam positioning.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the resolution modes comprise a first resolution mode and a second resolution mode different from the first resolution mode; the first resolution mode is used to detect charged particles; and the second resolution mode is used to detect electromagnetic radiation.
Ballabriga teaches the resolution modes comprise a first resolution mode and a second resolution mode different from the first resolution mode; the first resolution mode is used to detect charged particles; and the second resolution mode is used to detect electromagnetic radiation (para 137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the detector of Lee with the assessment system as taught by Olofsson, since it would provide better beam positioning.
Regarding claim 17, Ballabriga teaches the first resolution mode is a lower resolution mode, involving use of fewer collection electrodes, than the second resolution mode.
Regarding claim 19, Ballabriga teaches each of the mappings is such that different respective numbers of the collection electrodes are used to collect charge carriers from all of the pixel elements (para 137).
Regarding claim 20, Ballabriga teaches the resolution modes comprise a high resolution mode defined by a one-to-one mapping between the pixel substrates and the collection electrodes, the one-to-one mapping being such that the charge carriers generated in each pixel substrate are collected by the collection electrode of the same pixel substrate (para 137).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6-13, the prior art fails to teach the resolution modes comprise a low resolution mode defined by a mapping in which at least a subset of the pixel elements are grouped to form respective superpixels and the charge carriers generated in all of the pixel substrates of each superpixel are collected by only a subset of the collection electrodes in the pixel elements of the superpixel, the subset consisting of a single collection electrode or a plurality of collection electrodes consisting of fewer than all of the collection electrodes of the pixel elements corresponding to the superpixel as claimed in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to teaches the resolution modes comprise a mixed resolution mode in which the mapping provides regions of different resolution, the regions of different resolution including a higher fluence region and a lower fluence regions, wherein: the fluence of the target radiation is higher in the higher fluence region than in the lower fluence region; and the resolution is higher in the higher fluence region than in the lower fluence region as claimed in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights